Re: Who really benefits from 60-day period?

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Robert Shaw allegedly said:
> 
> Simon Higgs wrote:
> 
> > The 60 day wait serves only one practical purpose - to feed the legal
> > industry. It does nothing for either the end user of the domain name or
> > the trademark holder.
> > 
> 
> Perhaps, it'd help to cite a real-life example.
> 
> I'll note that Chris Ambler's 'experimental' .web registry has already 
> registered the following to:
> 
> *Toyota San Luis Obispo*
> 
> buick.web
> chrysler.web
> chevrolet.web
> cadillac.web
> ford.web
> generalmotors.web
> gm.web
> gmc.web
> honda.web
> hyundai.web 
> jeep.web
> lincolnmercury.web
> mercedesbenz.web 
> mitsubishi.web
> plymouth.web
> pontiac.web
> 
> among others....

This doesn't seem to make a case for a 60 day wait.  The grabber would
simply hold on to the names through the 60 days.  Buick, for example,
might send a threatening letter, to which the name-broker would reply
-- "not to worry, I don't intend to sell cars." The trademark holder
is still in the bind that it may very well be much cheaper to pay the
name-broker than lawyers and court costs. 

In fact, it hardly seems fair for the registrar to charge full price
for a non-functioning domain, and competitive pressures would
certainly push in the direction of registrars charging a cheaper rate
for not-yet-activated domains.  So it would be probably be much cheaper
for the name-broker to reserve the name for the 60 days than it would 
if they had to pay for a fully functioning domain.  The broker 
wouldn't have to have functioning name servers, even.

-- 
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