Re: consensus and the 60-day issue

[Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>]

>From Dave Crocker's message Sat, 28 Dec 1996 07:57:02 -0800:
}
}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.
}

Being "undistinguished" has nothing to do with randomness.

I has to do with the fact that their is no significant difference
between a challenger waiting 61 days instead of 59 days.  We all agree
that waiting till later causes a weakening of a challenger's case, but
my point is that this weakening is a gradual loss function over time.
The first derivative of case strength vs time is relatively constant,
whether you have a 60 day waiting period or not, so it has no apparent
value as I analyze the proposal.

But, if there were laws adopted, or common law developed, where-in,
IAHC has the power to cause a major discontinuity in the case strength
vs time derivative by setting up a 60-day waiting period, then I would
see how the waiting period has some real value.

But getting such laws in place is not anywhere mentioned in the draft,
and I will bet that there is no reasonable way to put such an idea in
the draft, since the IAHC has no more power to make laws that you or I
personally have, or anyone else in the world has.


}
}>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.
}

This is the bulk of my objection to the 60 day wait -- It just has no
value what-so-ever without real case law or global legislation being
made to exist to create the desired discontinuity at midnight of the
60th day after application.  Without a real discontinuity, 60 has no
discernable difference from 59 or 61, so why bother with it at all.

Without it, time will decay the strength of any challenge in
essentially the same way, and at the same rate, as with the waiting
period.

On the other hand, we do see very visible downside problems due to the
delays and uncertainties encountered, and the opening it affords to
people who wish to make nuisance challenges which have the potential
to stop progression of an application without due process of law.

Cheers...\Stef