Re: 60 day waiting period

[Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com>]

At 11:23 PM 01/12/97 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote:
>> 
>> At 06:52 PM 01/12/97 -0700, Terry O'Neill wrote:
>> >
>> >As a web presence provider, my company is adamantly opposed to a 60 day
>> >waiting period for domain names. 
>> >
>> >The 60 day policy means that the minimum implementation time for a website
>> >with an xxxx.yyy domain name is 60 days, strictly because of the 60 day
>> >policy, regardless of our capability to complete all other phases of
>> >development much more quickly.
>> 
>> [other arguments omitted]
>> 
>> Why fixate on the first 60 days of the life of a domain name?  Why not
>> think instead of the subsequent five years?  With the 60-day period in
>> place, a domain name that survives the 60-day period is much more likely to
>> survive the subsequent five years.
>
>Prove it.
>
>Go get declaratory statements from all 180-odd court national court systems
>which supposedly would "pay heed" to this.
>
>With all due respect, Carl, you're blowing smoke.  You have absolutely no
>basis for your position on this other than your beliefs.  Which, when you
>consider disrupting the business activities of *hundreds of thousands of
>firms*, isn't enough.

I am sure you know better than I do about how courts work, and more than I
do about domain names and trademarks.  My credentials are far skimpier than
yours, I am sure.  I have really very little to offer, merely being the
first lawyer ever to sue (successfully, as it turns out) on behalf of a
domain name owner to fight to get to keep a domain name.  

Remind me what your proposal is for the handling of trademark disputes?
And kindly provide the declaratory statements from the 180-odd national
court systems which show that your proposal will work better then IAHC's.