Re: 60 day period

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

David,

David Collier-Brown wrote:
> 
> Vince wrote:
> >
> > 1)  INTA knows absolutely nothing about business on the internet.
> 
>    That's too strong: even when I'm planning to ``first, kill
> all the lawyers'', I agree they know a lot about business, and
> as much about the internet as many new adopters do.

  I would tend to agree with you here David.  But I believe the point
Leo was making was that their is cause for concern in puting this
decision in the hands of lawyers only, which I would tend to agree
with.  The language was a bit strong however, yes.  
> 
> > 2)  The waiting period is useless since by her own words courts already
> > recognize that someone being infringed upon must act relatively quickly.
> 
>   Hmmn: it actually supports both pro and con conclusions... I'd
> say that the person being infringed upon needs to act quickly, lest
> they have difficulty demonstrating they take it seriously, and
> based on that, the registry publication period merely restates an
> existing situation.
>   This means that one can argue it's unnecessary, and Sally et all can
> argue it's necessary that it be made explicit, and we so can argue
> desirability as opposed to necessity, etc, etc...

  Agreed.  My toughts earlier in this discussion were that if as a
matter
of policy it is decided that a waiting period is adopted, than how, as 
you state here is this argument to be relevent to all possibilities?

  Why not consider a seperate document mearly stating IAHC possition,
but not legal commitment to (Disclaimer if you will), to outline
IAHC possition, unofficially, thereby taking this situation out of
the Draft itself but still allowing for a statment of possition?
> 
>   On the other hand, if there is a duty that the infringee act
> quickly, then one can argue that the IAHC needs to make it possible
> for him to do so.  Or, more weakly, that the IAHC is acting in
> his defense by preventing the putative infringer to do actual harm.

  Why does the IAHC need to provide for the infringee in any situation.
That should be left up to the infringee, not any non-regulatory
org.?  This I believe is the curx of the disagreement with this 
as a part of the Draft.  It also could be construed as a excuse for
reletivly uneeded delay in processing.  Which has been pointed out
several times on this list, influding myself.
> 
>   I'd really like to see more arguements **for** the time period.
> Sally, Karl, can you follow up on my question about previous use
> of waiting or publication periods, and what they've done or
> not done?  I don't want to conclude they're bad just because
> no-one's laid out their good features.  After all, I independantly
> suggested a waiting period of 30 days.  Please tell me it wasn't
> a bad idea (:-))

  Well David, I am going to dissappoint you.  It is a bad idea.  At
least from my point of view (humbly).  
> 
> > 3)  The only argument given for non-use was so that the domain applicant
> > wouldn't become attached to the domain name.

  I beg your pardon.  Many other arguments have been presented for 
non-use.  
> 
>   Well, its a bit stronger than that: I remember the cost of
> re-doing our tradename from ``Trilium Technologies'' to ``Xanaro
> technologies'' when we found that most U.S. residents thought
> of **Atom Bombs** when they heard our name, rather than small white
> flowers...
>   That was painfull!
> 
>   The quality of the arguements about keeping the registries out of the
> conflict resolution process are starting to weigh against the (and my!)
> desire to prevent conflict...

  Well glad to hear that.  But there has been no really good arguments
that would difinitivly show that a waiting period would accomplish
preventing conflict.  In fact the contrary is more likely the case.
> 
> > And as I have siad before, ANY attempt to - through registry policy -
> > alleviate perceived problems in regard to points of law will severely
> > backfire, one only needs to look as far as NSI to know this is so.
> 
> --dave
> --
> David Collier-Brown,  | Always do right. This will gratify some people
> 185 Ellerslie Ave.,   | astonish the rest.        -- Mark Twain
> Willowdale, Ontario   | davecb@hobbes.ss.org, canada.sun.com
> N2M 1Y3. 416-223-8968 | http://java.science.yorku.ca/~davecb

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