Re: consensus and the 60-day issue

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

Einar,

  Please read below your comments.

Einar Stefferud wrote:
> 
> >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.

  How true.
> 
> 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.

  I think you are right here.  I also don't see the value from a legal
perspective in reality.  Not in a international sense anyway.  
> 
> 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.

  Yes, and this would have to be done through the international legal
system.  Which is not even recomended in the draft.  If it was than 
some validity could be implied, but not mandated as part of the 
drafts requirnments.  Only as a recomendation.
> 
> 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.

  As a part of the draft requirnments, no there isn't any way I can
see either.  But as a recomended path of persuit for which IACH 
wanted to persue and solicit the aid of the registries in the persuit
as assistors, that could be put in the draft.  But not as a requirnment
for acceptance.

  In addition I would also add that IAHC can, and possibly should,
pattition the International house of justice for a such a provision.
To my knowledge that is the only probable method of approach and
achievment
in this reguard.
> 
> }
> }>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.

  I must agree.
> 
> 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.

  And this should not be allowed nor supported in ANY fassion by the
IHAC, or any other org. without leagle presidance or law.

Regards,

> 
> 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