Re: offcial notices

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Michael Dillon allegedly said:
> 
> On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, Kent Crispin wrote:
[...]
> 
> > In the case at hand, a 60 day publication period could mean, for
> > example, that it appeared on a particular web site for 60 days 
> > continuously, and then was removed. 
> 
> This is silly. 

The whole thing is silly.

> If IAHC has a website and they will publish a gazette on
> that website there is no reason why that information should not remain on
> the website forever. Running your own website is *NOT* the same thing as
> running a newspaper. And, as I said before, if IAHC or CORE was to adopt
> the silly rule that deleted info from the website after 60 days, some
> other reputable organization would maintain that same data in perpetuity
> and everyone would refer to their database as authoritative in the same
> way that the US courts refer authoritatively to case law published by a
> private company (West Publishing).

You are missing the point, I believe.  The notices in newspapers
remain available forever, as well.  The precise purpose of removing
the name from the website after 60 days is just to mark the passage of
the 60 days.  The web site states, in effect, "These are the names
younger than 60 days".  The IAHC calls for this kind of publication, 
*in addition to* keeping DNS inactive for the 60 day period.

There is nothing magic about 60 days in any case, whether it is an
inactive period or whether it is a publication period.  The *whole
issue* revolves around whether any legal entity will pay attention. 
Apparently some people have an intuition that if DNS is inactive
during the 60 days the courts are more likely to pay attention. 

This old horse looks pretty dead.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E  87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F