Re: Thread 2: 60-day issue

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Joe Kelsey allegedly said:
> 
> 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.
> 
[critique of DBA example deleted]

I know that DBA is a local issue.  Trademark is a local issue (at 
the nation level) as well.  But that example was adduced just to 
demonstrate a legal principal.  You are making much more out of it 
than I was.

> I fail to understand how encouraging businesses to operate under sane,
> reasonable *local* rules affects the course of a normal business. 

Me either.  What do you mean by "sane, reasonable *local* rules"?

> If a
> business insists that they *require* a global presence, then they can
> just wait for 60 days.

The charter explicitly changed the common term "international TLDs" 
back to the older "generic TLDs" because there was no implication of 
"international" in their use.  From section 2.3:

"For example, a local entity with no activity outside of the local
area (much less outside of the country) can obtain a domain name in
these TLDs."

> 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. 

One can't argue with a closed mind.  I will just point out that from
my own experience helping people set up web-based businesses that
people chafed at delays from NSI, which were on the order of a week or
less.  Setting up a business is a complex affair, with lots of
interlinked activities, and it is hard to see in advance where the
critical path will be.  Tossing in an arbitrary 60 day delay in things
could have a big effect, sometimes costing lots of money.  Sometimes 
things depend on external schedules, like getting a product to market 
before Christmas.  If part of your marketing plan involves 
advertising on the web, 60 days could be a big factor.  Why not use a 
3LDN, you say?  Because you have plans for a 2LDN, and you don't want 
to change afterward.

You may not be aware of it, but these kind of scheduling things do 
happen, and sometimes they cost people lots and lots and lots of money.

> The DBA argument is just plain silly as you are taking a local
> law and trying to apply it globally. 

I wasn't trying to apply it globally, I was giving an example of a 
legal principal.

> 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. 

I can't speak for Karl, but my motivation is not greed.  I have no 
money at stake whatsoever.  I really am trying to come up with 
solutions that I think are the best for all concerned.  If I thought 
that a 60 day wait would really help more than it hurts, I would be 
for it.  But I have seen people starting businesses, and I know it is 
sometimes more than a minor inconvenience to deal with regulations 
that delay you for a long time.

> 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.

This has nothing to do with monopolies.  Go beat that horse 
elsewhere, please.

> 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.

I don't know about the "restraint of trade" issue.  I do know that it 
will impose an inconvenience on many users, and the alternatives that 
have been suggested do not alleviate that inconvenience.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E  87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F