Re: Wasted 60 days

["Leo Smith" <barter@ntplx.net>]

| From: Albert Tramposch <0002082489@mcimail.com>

| This is why IAHC members have stated on the list that the IAHC policy
would take
| the registry out of the disputes.  There *is* no role for the registry,
either
| than to wait the 60 days to allow disputes to surface.  And it is the
early
| surfacing of disputes that is seen as the value of the 60-day period for
all, as
| has been stated.

Leo Smith asks Albert Tramposch...
With your permission, let's think about your last sentence, wherein you
state that the early surfacing of disputes...is the value of the 60 day
period for all. A value for all? How much weight do we give to the "value"
(insignificant?, marginal?, substantial? or enormous?).The "value" of early
surfacing of disputes is directly enjoyed only by those parties involved in
disputes, and the value's weight depends on the effect it contributes on
the group as a whole. I posed the below message to Sally and at the risk of
being repetitive, would like to ask for your feedback...

"If out of 800,000 .com URL users, only 400 have any involvement in a
dispute resolution involving trademark controversy (either by NSI's vehicle
or by court proceedings), then, accepting all you say to be true, the
question still comes down to this:
Are the benefits that MAY be realized by 400 trademark holders and 400 URL
holders significant enough to warrant imposing a major inconvenience and
hassle on the 799,600 other URL users whose URLs will never be involved in
a trademark dispute?
We can save 30,000 lives a year in the US by imposing a 20MPH speed limit
on our highways...but we, as a society elect not to take advantage of that
option. Even though the benefits of saving 30,000 lives are enormous, we
determine as a society that to save those 30,000 lives by lowering the
speed to 20MPH is too costly to our economy and to our personal need to get
to where we want to go quickly...

Speed is at play here as well. It is quite consistent to agree with you, on
one hand, that some of the benefits you predict may come true under a 60
day delay, and at the same time reject ANY delay at all, simply because the
theoretical benefits of the 60 day wait to the 400 URL users who actually
have encountered a need for the benefit far outweigh the costs imposed on
the other 799,600 users who, with zero wait time, will never in their life
encounter a trademark conflict over the use of their URL.
If a trademark rights holder has a problem with a URL, take all legal
action necessary against the alleged infringer. Period."