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

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

Vince,

  In that I was copied on this I will see if I can respond in a 
meaning ful manner. :)  Read below comments.

Vince Wolodkin wrote:
> 
> 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.

  In princpal I could agree with this plan givin two provisos.  
1.) reduction of the $20k fee, to say, $2k to $5k.

2.) The limit to be increased to greater than 50 and less than 100,
    for the first year.
> 
> On the 60 day issue, I would tend to think that if the registries
> published a combined listFrom owner-iahc-discuss  Sun Dec 29 09:19:21 1996
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id JAA22566 for iahc-discuss-bks; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 09:17:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: majordomo set sender to owner-iahc-discuss@imc.imc.org using -f
Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.4]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA22546 for <iahc-discuss@iahc.org>; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 09:17:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dal-tx4-23.ix.netcom.com (jwkckid1@dal-tx4-23.ix.netcom.com [207.94.121.87]) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA26706; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 08:27:23 -0800
Message-ID: <32C64664.6832@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 10:22:28 +0000
From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
Organization: IEG. INC.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vince Wolodkin <wolodkin@digitalink.com>
CC: Ihac Org <iahc-discuss@iahc.org>
Subject: Re: Tally of 3 to 1 (Was Re: A position paper)
References: <199612290016.AAA28683@hal.iodesign.com> <32C6708D.35AE90A3@digitalink.com> <32C63373.313@ix.netcom.com> <32C6A069.2BBD997A@digitalink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-iahc-discuss@imc.org
Precedence: bulk

Vince,

  Please read below your comments.

Vince Wolodkin wrote:
> 
> See notes below:
> 
> Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > Vince,
> >
> >   In that I was copied on this I will see if I can respond in a
> > meaning ful manner. :)  Read below comments.
> >
> > Vince Wolodkin wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.

> >
> >   In princpal I could agree with this plan givin two provisos.
> > 1.) reduction of the $20k fee, to say, $2k to $5k.
> >
> > 2.) The limit to be increased to greater than 50 and less than 100,
> >     for the first year.
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> >   I cannot agree with any of this at all.  60 days waitng is a very
> > bad and lacks the ability to be enforced by IAHC , CORE, IANA, or
> > anyother independant org., without international leagal statutes.
> 
> I didn't make myself clear.  My 60 day period is NOT a waiting period.
> The applicant gets the domain from day one.  I indicated a 60 day
> publication period, after which(hopefully), legal challenges would
> become moot.  I believe that if all the proper legal steps are followed,
> and appropriate announcements are made, that courts would back this.  Of
> course, daily lists of new domains would need to be made available.

  I think that a 60 day publication period is a prelude to the same
thing
legaly.  It has no international presidance of standing.  So, my same
answer applies.  I want to say I recognize your efforts here.  But my
possition is still unchanged in this matter.  I could understand 10 days
no longer.  That is adaquate time to file a response, for those
companies
that are on the ball.  Otherwise you are opening up a legal "Can of
Worms"
that I would just as soon see unopened.  I think this is a dangerous 
president, as do my legal folks, whom have reviewed this issue.
> 
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> >   Again see my previous comment.  In addition the buisness and legal
> > world is changing, that is part of the problem with limiting
> > announcments
> > to just print.  Those in the buisness world and legal community need to
> > be prodded in the direction of the future not encouraged or acquiesed
> > to by processes of the past.  And for the reason on the untimelyness of
> > print, you do not promote the Internet and it's innovation's at all.  In
> > fact you are in hampering it's use and future.
> >
> 
> Note again, that I said print notices would POINT to internet resources
> where the names could be found.  Print ads containing 50,000 names would
> be ludicrous.  Also, you cannot prod the legal and business world away
> from print notices.  Not everyone has internet access, but there are
> accepted standards for public notification using the standard press.  I
> don't believe these standards exist for internet publication.  I doubt
> seriously that the internet is anywhere near ready to supplant the
> printed page.  Not even close.

  Well you need to read the 813 page US Telecommunication's act closely,
as well as the the international house of justacies counterpart
document.

Regards,

> 
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
> > Information Eng. Group.
> > Phone :972-447-1878
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> 
> Vince Wolodkin

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com