Re: consensus and the 60-day issue

[thomst@netcom.com (Thom Stark)]

Dave Crocker stated:

> 	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.

I think the crux of most objections to the 60-day period is encapsulated
in your statement that "a formal waiting period might have the benefit 
of weakening LATER challenges".  As I see the arguments against a 60-day
wait, they boil down to, "It's bad policy to inconvenience the majority
of domain name registrants in order to provide an unproven theoretical
future benefit to those registrants whose selected name may be subject
to challenge on grounds of trademark infringement."

That argument seems pretty compelling to me, especially since those
lawyers on the list who have chosen to comment on this aspect of the
draft appear to be divided on the issue of whether the future benefit in
question will ever actually be established, and equally divided on 
whether a 60-day notice period would accomplish essentially the same
goal at considerably less inconvenience to the majority of registrants.

As always, your mileage may vary and objects in mirror are closer than
they appear..

Regards,

Thom Stark

Email:  thomst@netcom.com              URL:  http://www.dnai.com/~thomst
             finger thomst@netcom.com for my PGP Public Key

(510) 526-9600 voice       STARK  REALITIES           fax (510) 526-9063
POB 457                     El Cerrito, CA                ZIP 94530-0457