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

[Vince Wolodkin <wolodkin@digitalink.com>]

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.

> >
> > 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.


> 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