Re: Tally of 3 to 1 (Was Re: A position paper)

[Vince Wolodkin <wolodkin@digitalink.com>]

Perhaps a compromise could be reached on the lottery issue.  I don't
believe that there will be a HUGE number of qualified applicants to run
a registry.  That being said, maybe it would make sense to not plan for
a lottery in the first year.  A lottery might still occur in the first
year if the number of qualified applicants SIGNIFICANTLY exceeds the
planned assignment of registries.  If there are only two or three more
qualified applicants than slots, then why not just extend the number of
registries?  In other words, don't have a lottery unless it becomes
necessary.  I DO see a reason to limit the number of registries in the
first year until all the protocols can be worked out for sharing.

On the 60 day issue, I would tend to think that if the registries
published a combined list of new domains each day/week in a prominent
place.  Perhaps running classifieds in the WSJ indicating where to
freely access the lists, then it COULD be conceivable that once the 60
day period had passed with no legal challenge, that the domain name
would be "free and clear".  Now I know that this might involve some
initial legal disputes, but I would like to hear from the TM lawyers if
they think this would stand up.  This would also probably involve some
initial litigation between the CORE and some company somewhere.  

If giving 60 days to concerned parties to get a court order will not
stop future litigation against the domain holder, then I see no reason
for it at all.  In that case, a better approach would simply be to
assign the domain on day one, AND still publish the daily/weekly list
with prominent announcements(Is the Commerce Business Daily a good place
in the US?  What are good places internationally?).  You have to
remember that just posting somewhere on the internet will be ineffective
as the bulk of the business world/legal world still favors print
announcements.

Vince Wolodkin

Christopher Ambler wrote:
> 
> I think one of the problems is the designation of 'for' or 'against'
> the IAHC draft. I am 'for' the draft in almost all points. I am,
> however, adamantly against the lottery, and strongly against the
> 60-day waiting period. Everything else seems to be well thought out
> and workable. So, actually, I'm more for it than against it. It's
> just the lottery part that makes me unable to endorse it.
> 
> --
> Christopher Ambler
> President, Image Online Design, Inc.