Re: consensus and the 60-day issue

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

Einar,

  I would tend to agree that "Some" of it looks reasonable, but 
as I have said befor there are Three points of contention that
are major themes in this Draft, of which it has been my observation
most of those whom have commented or posted dissagree with as they
are stated in the Dev 19 draft.  They are as follows in brief:

1.) $20k fee.

2.) 60 day Waituing period.

3.) TM considerations.

4.) Tying 1, 2, 3 to a lottery process.

  #3.- Should be handled through the International or country of
origin's
legal system as necessary.  No other way will work for the long term.

#1. - Cannot be justified due to the fact there is no fudiciary
breakdown
      supporting it and that the IACH already has some $7m on deposit, 
In
      addition it would seem to restrictive a requirnment in some
specific
      cases.  

#4. - Has multipul concerns associated with 1, 2, and 3.  This being the 
      case, without some modification of points 1 and 2 above, many on
      this list have sevear reservations as to the ethics and
creditability
      of this Dec 19 draft.

Regards,
 
Einar Stefferud wrote:
> 
> 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

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