Re: Thread 2: 60-day issue

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Joe Kelsey allegedly said:
> 
> Christopher Ambler writes:
>  > >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. 
>  >
>  > 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.
> 
> So if the 60-day period applies to such a small percentage of domains,

What he means and what I said was that the 60 day period only helps 
trademark issues in a tiny fraction of of domains.

> what possible problems can it cause? Either the requestor has enough
> sense to make the period part of their business plan, or they can get an
> instant 3LD using Michael Dillon's proposal. In any case, where is the
> hardship?

The hardship is in delaying something 60 days that could be done in a 
much shorter time.  If you have a business plan that makes heavy use 
of a domain name, and there aren't other big time sinks in the 
business plan, it is just an unnecesary delay.

Besides, the 60 day rule applies to all gTLDs, even one like .PER
which has been proposed for personal domain names, and there is no 
particular reason why a personal domain name should require 60 days 
of planning.  Right now a large fraction of the names in .com are not 
really businesses -- check out "crispin.com", and "kent.com", neither 
of which I own, BTW.  The new gTLDs are supposed to support names 
like this.

-- 
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