Re: Thread 2: 60-day issue

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

Paul and all,

  I will try this again.  The 60 day wait is really a moot point.
It should be removed from the perposal altogether.  It is not
enforcable and has no president in international law, so therefore
has little if any REAL use.  The only "use" would be to buy time
for administration perposes.  To this I would say, fine, but not
60 days.  10 days should be more than suficient.

Regards,


Paul Svensson wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 25 Dec 1996, Carl Oppedahl wrote:
> 
> >At 03:29 PM 12/25/96 +0100, David Rosenthal wrote:
> >
> >>If you sign up for a new domain name before all others and it does not
> >>infringe any other's right's, why should anyone else be allowed to opt
> >>for that name too?
> >
> >There is no reason that someone else should be able to, of course you are
> >correct.  What's different is that under the present NSI regime, someone
> >else can try to get the domain name taken away from its owner not only
> >within 60 days, but any time in the years that follow.  At least the IAHC
> >proposal compresses most of the risk into the first 60 days, and allows a
> >sigh of relief after the 60 days has expired.
> 
> Carl,
> Why do you keep bringing the current NSI conflict resolution policy
> into the issue of the 60 day hold ?
> 
> There's no connection between these two issues;
> the flaw with the NSI policy isn't that they don't have hold period,
> and adding one wouldn't make their policy work any better;
> the gain from the IAHC proposal comes from avoiding the mistake of NSI,
> not from adding the 60 day wait.
> 
> The IAHC proposal with the 60 day wait should be compared with
> the same proposal without the 60 day wait, nothing else.
> Bringing the NSI policy into the discussion only serves confusion.
> 
>         /Paul

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