Re: Thread 2: 60-day issue

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 2:53 PM -0800 12/26/96, Joe Kelsey wrote:

> Kent Crispin writes:
>  > The difference is that it is no longer in the list of new domains
>  > being advertised for possible contention.
>  >
>  > If you get a DBA you can do business using the name during the
>  > publication period.  If you get a trademark you can do business using
>  > the name during the contention period.  There seems to be plenty of
>  > precedent for such a notion.
>
> The difference is that a DBA applies to a LOCAL business and is granted
> by a STATE government of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. You are trying to
> take a local law and apply it internationally. If you insist on using
> DBA as an example of an instant domain name, then your DBA will have to
> be at least a 4LD: <dba>.com.<state>.us. (or maybe <dba>.com.us, but a
> corporation still has to register *within* a state, so I don't really
> see .com.us as happening any time soon.)  Nothing else makes sense as an
> *instant* domain name.
>

DBA is an example, not a direct mapping. DBA's are issued just like
domain names are right now. You apply, and can immediately use the
name. All a domain name is is an internet DBA mapped to a particular IP
address.

> I fail to understand how encouraging businesses to operate under sane,
> reasonable *local* rules affects the course of a normal business. If a
> business insists that they *require* a global presence, then they can
> just wait for 60 days.
>
> 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. The DBA argument is just plain silly as you are taking a local
> law and trying to apply it globally. The only restraint I can see in the
> 60-day period is the restraint of greed it imposes on Karl who so
> desperately wants to start his own .BIZ monopoly to compete with what
> he perceives as the NSI .COM monopoly. Again, starting a new monopoly
> does nothing to change the old monopoly. A 60-day period applying to
> only 2LD's does not stop someone from getting a 3LD in one of Michael
> Dillon's proposed 3LD-only domains or a 4LD (or 3LD) in an existing
> geographic domain.
>

There is no 60 day waiting period elsewhere. Even with trademarks, the
name *MUST* be in use to obtain the trademark in the first place.

> There is, as far as I can see, no provable restraint of trade in
> requiring a 60-day waiting period, since perfectly valid alternatives
> exist to circumvent the period.
>

Like?

Regards,

Simon

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