Re: 60-day waste period?

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

Leo,

  

Leo Smith wrote:
> 
> Robert Shaw  write:
> > There are many many more disputes than you cite. I'm know of many more
> than
> > 400 personally (I've got files and files of incidents of hijacked company
> 
> > names).
> 
> Thank you for your reply...
> >From your personal information, approximately, how many Hijackers are
> there, in actuality (as opposed to the number of hijacked names). Even if
> we multiply by a factor of 10, and assume we have 4,000 "problems" out of
> 800,000 users, that still amounts to one half of one percent of the total.

  I agree with you Leo.  But I don't know that it really makes any
diffrence
how many or what percentage of problem claims there are really.  This 
provision should not be a integral part of the draft.  It serves no REAL
perpose and creates a excuse, for whatever reason. to delay processing
in a way that does not serve ANY user, reguardless of level or status.
> 
> The needs of the trademark holders are already adequately protected by
> statutes and treaties. The trademark community does have an already
> existing legal remedy available whenever a trademark infringement occurs.

  This is true in the US and Canada.  I don't believe it is so on a 
global status, yet.  Without the force of law, internationaly, those
treaties carry little waight.  But this just works into the argument
that this provision in the draft should be eliminated in my humble 
opinion.
> 
> Keep in mind that 3 out of 10 members on the IAHC committee are lawyers
> working directly with the trademark holders. Their advocacy for a wait is
> understandable...it helps them, and it doesn't cost them anything. The 60
> day wait does impose a significant cost in terms of time and hassle on
> literally hundreds of thousands of totally innocent bystanders.

  I would agree that it does effect more in a negitive sense by far than 
it could POSSIBLY help.  Possibly, is the key term.  I have my doubts as
to there being any REAL benifit to this provision in the draft for 
anyone, including the lawyers. 
> 
> If the trademark holders prevail in convincing IAHC to keep the 60 day
> wait, I can see a strong possibility that several independent lawsuits will
> be filed in various countries by aggrieved registrants seeking to overturn
> the 60 day delay...and in some cases, they will prevail. Court orders
> against registries will then issue in those countries where the lawsuits
> succeed. This 60 day delay issue will not go away if IAHC members follow
> the suggestions of the trademark lawyers serving on the committee.

  I fear you may be correct here.  And this would be a shame to the user
community as a whole.  The IAHC will eventually fail if persuent of this
policy, long term.  This is a matter best left to the courts and
government
bodies already in place to deal with as they can.  All be it that many
are
inadaquate to handle the task on a global basis.

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