Re: consensus and the 60-day issue

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@imc.org>]

At 1:20 AM -0800 12/28/96, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>So, "60" is just another mostly undistinguished number in a long

	This, of course, does not mean that it was randomly chosen.  It was
chosen by trying to consider a balance between having it be long enough to
allow ample notice for potential protestors to the use of name, and short
enough to be tolerable to the applicants.  The former force has to work
within global legal processes -- not notably swift -- and the latter would
ideally make the number zero.

>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

	The statements that you might have missed note that defining a
formal waiting period might have the benefit of weakening LATER challenges,
thereby giving the applicant considerably greater security in their use of
the name, after they start to invest in it.

d/


(read the last line, please)
----------------------------
Dave Crocker, Director                                       +1 408 246 8253
Internet Mail Consortium                                 (f) +1 408 249 6205
127 Segré Place                                             dcrocker@imc.org
Santa Cruz, CA  95060 USA                                 http://www.imc.org

Also:  IAHC member, expressing strictly (or loosely) personal opinions