Re: consensus and the 60-day issue

[Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>]

I have just reviewed the whole IAHC draft again to be sure I am not
off base in my assessment.  Much of it looks reasonable to me.

The main item that bothers me is the 60-day waiting period.  

The rest of it looks quite reasonable, though I would suggest that
each .tm.(iso3166> domain should be subdivided by categories according
to the categories of registration in the <iso3166> country.  This
would be in place of the proposed use of random strings to subdivide.


The fact is that TM practice is to require unicity within selected
categories, so lets just use the unicity generating categories and get
on with TM based domain naming.

Now, what about the 60-day hold...

I completely fail to see what it does in a positive way, given that 60
days of waiting has no basis that I can see in law, so that having
waited 60-days with a waiting period in force does not change the
rights of any challenger, and more than having waited 60-days withotu
a waiting period in force while the registrant proceeds to actively
use the name without having to wait.

It seems to me that the longer a challenger waits after a name goes
into active use, the weaker their case must gradually become, so there
is nothing that I can see that is magic about the number "60".  Why
not 61?  Or 33-1/3?

Now, if each affected country were to adopt laws that makes 60 days
mean that challengers suffer a major discontinuity in the srtength of
their case on the stroke of midnight (GMT) of the 60th day, I might
see some value in waiting 60 days.  But I see no such law in the
offing.

So, "60" is just another mostly undistinguished number in a long
continuum of numbers.  Now, what is it about IAHC adopting this number
that gives it any force of law?  I have not seen any answer to this
question, though I have seen statements from lawyers that suggest that
it is indeed very useful in court when the time for court hearing
comes.  Can someone explain this usefulness in concrete ways?

On the other hand, I see lots of statements that though there is no
obvious gain to be obtained, there is also no significant downside
loss from having a 60 day wait.  This of course appea4rs to be a value
judgement in the minds of people who don't have a project in motion.

In short, the argument is that it is "Mostly Harmless so lets do it".
Well, that is just too weak for me.  I don't see a lot of "Mostly
Harmless" things being done just because they are suspected of being
to be mostly harmless.

AS for the variant of letting the registrant procees with use, subject
to having it yanked upon the challenge of any radnom challenger is
capriciousness at its worst.  Shades of endorsing NSI's misbegotten
policy, whcih I note the IAHC draft properly disparages.

So, how about trying to get a fair measure of (non)consensus by some
means on the 60-day issue?  Or is it already moot in the eyes of the
IAHC?  

If it is not yet moot, I think we need more dialogue.  
I hasten to say that we do not need more alternating monologue.

Cheers...\Stef