consensus and the 60-day issue

[Robert Frank <bobf@corsearch.com>]

1.  I beg to differ with some of the postings regarding consensus.  Having
worked on issues of domain name space allocation as it applies to 
trademark rights for the last couple of years I have thoughts on practically
every aspect of the IAHC draft.  But just because I have thoughts or
opinions does not compel me to post and re-post my thoughts and
opinions.  First, in some aspects I am not technically competent.
Second, in some aspects others have so thoroughly discussed the
issue that I could not see any way that whatever I contributed would
have any impact whatsoever.  Third, I write on those topics that I
am pretty sure I know what I am talking about.  Just because people are silent on a topic
does not mean that they are not interested.  If they were not interested
in what was being discussed, they would not subscribe to a list that
has over 100 postings per day and we would be seeing alot more
"unsubscribe" or "remove" messages.

2.	There have been comments that the 60-day issue is a caving in
to a trademark association's needs. (I assume the association in
reference is the International Trademark Association, INTA.)  My
company has been a member of INTA for many years and I have
served as chair or co-chair of committees and sub-committees although I am
not a lawyer.  I *** AM NOT *** speaking as a representative
of INTA in this posting; INTA has a rep on the IAHC who extremely
competent and knowledgeable in this matter and has 
authority to speak on INTA's behalf.  INTA has several
thousand members from all over the world.  Practically every
major corporation is a member of INTA.  The 60-
day issue was not, in my opinion, a cave in to INTA but was
an acknowledgment of the rights and requests of trademark owners on a
global scale.  That includes the companies that run the
backbone, supply the phone lines, develop the software,
prepare the accounting packages, etc. that we all use
on a daily basis.  Those who are small business entrepreneurs
today might one day be the Steve Jobs or Bill Gates of
tomorrow and when someone then takes your company's
name you will be yelling to INTA and the House Judiciary
Committee and the courts that you need protection.

Further, there has been alot of discussion based upon the
fact that only a few hundred law suits have been filed over
domain name disputes and, therefore, there should be no
waiting period because we are dealing with a small minority
of the total registrations.  Regretfully, you are missing all
of the out-of-court settlements that occur.  My company
had an out-of-court settlement over a year ago.  Almost daily I help
companies plan out-of-court approaches to dealing with
infringers.  Open your eyes folks to the real world.  The attorneys
are really trying to avoid litigation and a waiting period is, IMHO,
essential to achieve this end.  If a 60 day wait is tried and it seems
to work, then CORE can at a later day reduce it down to 45 days
or 30 days and see what happens.  But if you start it at 30 days
and it is not sufficient, it is much harder, in my opinion, to stretch
it to a longer period.

Finally, I, Carl Oppedahl and others have tried for two years to
get an understanding of TM principles across to readers of 
newdom and now iahc-discuss.  Regretfully, TM law is not
clear cut or simple.  What works for Kodak or Exxon might not work
for Online Imaging or CORSEARCH.  There are principles such as
"likelihood of confusion" or secondary meaning or dilution
which all have to be considered when discussing TM law
and policies that affect trademark rights. Since there has not
been an agreed upon position by the subscribers of this
list as to what to do about the waiting period, and since I am
quite sure that IAHC is aware of all the various points presented, and
since I am quite convinced that no further discussion of this
issue is going to convince anyone to change their position, can
we just drop this topic and go on to something more substantive?

Robert Frank, President
CORSEARCH, Inc.

(Speaking for myself as an interested party.)