Re: Thread 2: 60-day issue

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 11:26 AM -0800 12/26/96, Kent Crispin wrote:

> Carl Oppedahl allegedly said:
> >
> > At 08:48 AM 12/26/96 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > >I am worried that people, fueled by the injustice of NSI's policy,
> > >are rushing to adopt an onerous regulation that really adds very
> > >little protection over what the courts, and a reasonable policy on
> > >the part of registrars, would offer.
> >
> > Well, I happen to think that good old RFC 1591 is a pretty darn good
> > policy.  Have you read my position paper at
> > <http://www.patents.com/nsi/iip.sht>?
>
> I just skimmed it -- since I have been following this issue for many
> months, there is nothing new in it.  I agree with every word,
> practically -- it doesn't say anything about a 60 day waiting
> period.
>
> I agree that the approach of RFC 1591 is correct.  I think, however,
> that the 60 day wait does in fact violate the spirit of RFC 1591,
> because it seems to me to put pressure on new domain holders.
>

Yes, yes, yes!!! Absolutely correct. Just for those who don't have
RFC1591 handy:

4. Rights to Names

   1) Names and Trademarks

      In case of a dispute between domain name registrants as to the
      rights to a particular name, the registration authority shall have
      no role or responsibility other than to provide the contact
      information to both parties.

      The registration of a domain name does not have any Trademark
      status.  It is up to the requestor to be sure he is not violating
      anyone else's Trademark.


Regards,

Simon

--
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.