Re: Thread 2: 60-day issue

[chris@hal.iodesign.com (Christopher Ambler)]

>I have not heard any solid arguments from Karl or Kent or Chris or
>anyone else against the 60-day period why it will restrain the average
>business. 

Okay, I'll give it a shot.

First off, I should echo Kent's comments that the 60-day period would
apply to only a seriously small percentage of domains, and it appears
to be a 'solution' looking for a problem. Publication would serve just
as well, and arguments years down the line of 'we didn't know that
there was even a 60-day comment period at all!' will be very prevailant.

With that said, here's the problem -

  Joe's Grocery owns (for example) buyfoodonline.com, which they have
had for over a year now. They do good business selling groceries to
neighbourhood clients online and having them delivered. They have a
chain of grocery stores up and down the state which gives them a
very good area of coverage.

  Jane's Grocery sees this and realizes that because of a great idea
that Jane had last night, she could do it much much better. She
applies for betterfoodonline.biz, but is told that she cannot use
it for 60 days. Jane now has a 60-day wait before she can compete,
through no fault of her own. She will immediately question the
registrar as to why they are placing this restraint on her trade.
Jane has no existing domain from which to add a 3LD, so that
avenue is not open. Jane knows that a random domain is not only
hard to remember, but will be changed in 60-days anyway, giving her
no options.

  If Joe's Grocery finds out about this, and they very well might since
they watch the 60-day publication, they have 60-days to mount a
defence to competition. Now Jane is angry with the registrar for
unknowingly aiding her competition.

Far fetched? I don't think so.

--
Christopher Ambler
President, Image Online Design, Inc.