Perry...I guess maybe your illustration below isn't bad...what it all comes down to is freedom versus security. Today, in spite of laws against mugging, and in spite of police officers to protect us from being mugged, and in spite of courts and prisons to deal with convicted muggers, we still endure, to whatever degree that mugging exists, a certain quantity of mugging. We could look at the situation and suggest that mugging could be reduced significantly if every citizen were required to wear an electronic bracelet whenever leaving the house. Suppose, by this technique, we could keep track of every person, to the point that a mugger would be instantly identified from the electronic bracelet records of the mugger and mugee. Suppose further, that all mugging could be eliminated by creating a 7PM curfew, with police allowed to shoot to kill any person out on the streets past 7PM.
In those situations, we balance the cost of the protection in terms of taxation and loss of freedom, weighed against the perceived benefits we expect to receive. There are 35,000 fatal car accidents each year. If we reduced the maximum speed to 20MPH, we probably could save 30,000 more lives. But we choose not to do that, because we take the inconvenience of a 20MPH maximum speed as too great and too costly to justify saving 30,000 human lives every year.
In the case at hand, we have no police and no protection from the abuses of Ransom seekers...so the instances of ransom will be greater now, without protection in place, then it will be after the protection kicks in. The trademark problem exists today in an unregulated environment. IMHO, when 799,600 users have no problem, and one-twentieth of one percent of the users have a problem, a solution to the problem cannot be one that places a burden or inconvenience on the 99.95% of users with no problem. The benefits do not justify the costs, again IMHO...
----------
: From: Perry E. Metzger <perry@piermont.com>
: To: Leo Smith <barter@ntplx.net>
: Cc: IAHC Registries <iahc-discuss@iahc.org>
: Subject: Re: Who really benefits from 60-day period?
: Date: Thursday, January 09, 1997 11:12 AM
:
:
: "Leo Smith" writes:
: > There will be a tremendous amount of inconvenience and hassle endured by
: > the wait-ers. By all counts, less than four tenths of one percent of users
: > would ever be affected by any claim of trademark infringement...So why put
: > so many people through the hassle and inconveience when the solution
: > applies to a fraction of a percent of total users?
:
: You know, I've never been mugged or robbed. Why should I pay for
: police when its obvious that only a tiny fraction of the population
: ever has need for them?
:
: The obvious answer is this: many people will never be robbed or mugged
: because the threat of the police hangs over the potential muggers.
:
: The argument repeatedly made is that many potential disputes will
: never even occur knowing that the courts are unlikely to entertain
: them. Every domain holder is a potential victim of such an action, and
: an environment in which most of them sleep well at night is
: potentially worth the cost, just as the police may very well be worth
: the cost even if you never find yourself having to call them, by
: virtue of the fact that their existence may have prevented you from
: needing them in the first place.
:
: Perry
: Speaking for myself, and not for the IAHC in an official capacity