Re: 60 day waiting peroid.

["Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>]

DNRCounsel@aol.com writes:
> What is to keep an Opposer from filing a challenge with the
> Registry?  I see nothing in the draft that bars that possibility

Indeed, What is to keep an Opposer from filing a challenge with the
Church of the Subgenius? I see nothing in the draft that bars that
possibility.

> and nothing in law that would give the Registry immunity to ignore
> such an Opposition,

Being more serious here for a moment, there is no reason you couldn't
get a court order enjoining the registration of a name. However, you
are speaking "filing a challenge with the Registry", and presumably
that just means "sending a note". There is nothing in the law that
says if you simply send a letter to someone saying "don't do this"
they are required to listen to the letter. Sure, a registry or
registrar has no "immunity" from such a letter -- but since such a
letter isn't binding why would it matter?

The document makes it clear that registries and registrars are
expected to not take discretionary actions with respect to
registrations -- they listen to the courts, and they listen to the
holder of the registration, but they politely ignore all else. They
need no "immunity" here to ignore anyone but the courts or the holders
of registrations -- no one is required to listen to anyone but the
courts in the first place.

> Wouldn't the Registries, under the IAHC draft, now be forced to
> enter into the merits of the disputes from the earliest days of
> registration - a part far earlier than even NSI dares to enter now?

I don't see how you could draw such a conclusion. If anything, the
registries are less involved, as in the first 60 days they haven't
even taken any action you *could* enjoin, since all they've done is
publish "there is an intent at the end of 60 days to register this
name", and that in and of itself isn't even remotely actionable.

Perry