Re: NSI-style "on hold" within 60 days?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Werner and Chris,

  After reading and watching this discussion fontinue on the
60 day waiting period, I have come to the conclusion that
possibly there is either and attempt to creat some ground
for the litigation segment of the legal profession to gain
some new ground to make some money from litigation, or
an ineptitude on the part of those whom have little or
no idea as to its potential damaging effects vs little
benifit.  I am not sure which it is.  But that is the
only two conclusions I can honestly come up with.  Both
of which have been discussed at length in one form or manner
or another by several on this list.

  I believe that it is clear that a 60 day waiting period
has no sound basis for inactment, either on a trial basis or
otherwise.  So, now we need to move on.  What is reasonable
and prudent time span.  I think 10 days is adaquate, so that
is my possition.

Regards,


Werner Staub wrote:
> 
> Christopher,
> 
> > Michael's proposal may not be implemented. But even if it is, the
> > 60 days is an undue hardship on business.
> 
> That is true. A 60 days _waiting_ period is useless red tape.
> 
> But the 60 days could be perfectly acceptable as a _trial_ period:
> The domain would become active immediately, but some registries
> would reserve the right to put a domain on hold if it were to be
> challenged by a trademark within 60 days.
> 
> As 99% of the will not be challenged, we keep the equivalent of
> same-day service. No need for random numbers.
> 
> Werner
> --
> Email: werner@axone.ch
> Tel +41 22 8200074 Fax +41 22 8200073
> http://www.axone.ch http://Finance.Wat.ch

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com