Re: Is shared generally agreed, then?

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

Leo,

  Here are my thoughts.  Please read below your comments.

Leo Smith wrote:
> 
> : From: Christopher Ambler
> 
> :
> : With all the talk about CORE, and how central registries and depositories
> : should work, is it a safe assumption that the shared model has received
> : consensus? If not, why is nobody speaking up?
> 
> As presented in previous postings, from a business model perspective, the
> shared model is deficient to the point of being a deal-breaker. The
> exclusive license with automatic sublicenses to all CORE members is the
> model that will work best for interests of the registry and the Internet
> user

  I must agree here.  A totaly shared model cannot servive in the
current
internet environment.  It would be wonderful if it could.  It has yet
to be showen, not to mention proven, that it is thecnically feasable.
Though I believe that it is.  Under the current increase in commercial
intrest in using the internet for commercial perposes (currently running
about 15% of world 1000 companies, esitmated), such a model (shared) is
not probable for the mid term.  The legal implications of such a model
being able to be inforced will also not allow for a shared model to be
maintained.  
> :
> : What about the 60-day issue? Consensus for or against?
> 
> Totally against the 60 day wait. It's nothing more than a barrier favored
> by those with trademark interests. Let those with trademark concerns avail
> themselves of the full trademark protection as offered in courts of proper
> jurisdiction. They have no more right to delay a registration than they
> have the right to delay the local Bell company from listing a new business
> telephone in their computer under a particular name.

  I must agree here as well.  Nor is a 60 day "Publishing" period
exceptable
due to lack of legal precidance as it would relate to the internet and 
trademark law, form the legal advice I have.  It also is unecessary and
a restraing of trade.  That brings in the US district attournys office
into this matter, which we should avoide if possible.
> :
> : What about the lottery? Number of participants or no limit? What about
> the
> : gTLDs to be created? Is the fact that the draft calls for only 7 and that
> : the IAHC will decide them going to be approved, then, without much more
> : comment?
> 
> I favor approving ALL QUALIFIED applicants. If bugs need to be worked out,
> issue a 90 day delayed start at random to those qualified applicants in
> excess of the limit that should begin the pilot registries.

  I agree in part here.  The area I am skeptical about is that there is
no need for the 90 day delay start at random for qualified applicants.
> :
> : The holidays are quite over, so I must assume that everyone is back and
> that
> : nobody cares anymore. Is everyone awake?
> :
> Sort of...
> 
> : Will the IAHC publish an interim draft based on comment to date? There is
> : precious little time left in the public comment phase, an interim draft
> would
> : go a very long way towards demonstratig that public comment is, indeed,
> being
> : taken into account.
> 
> It would be nice to see a revision...

  This has been requested befor.  I have my doubts that we will see one
however.  As to why, I have no idea.  This would at least show where the
membership of IAHC stands on what they percieve has transpired with 
respect to the list discussion, in their minds.  I truely hope that
I am wrong here however.  Well members?
> 
> Leo Smith

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