Re: proposed change in IAHC proposal wording re 60-day period

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <o.crepin-leblond@ic.ac.uk>]

Carl Oppedahl wrote:

> >I expect that if a specific trademark top level domain category is present,
> >trademark disputes will be taken out of other gTLDs.
> 
> I suggest that this view is mistaken.  Exxon or Kodak or Xerox is going to
> take offense at a domain name containing the trademark, regardless of the
> domain that it is in.

1. I should have specified disputes involving non-coined, common language
   words.
2. Exxon, Kodak or Xerox will not care about a 60 day waiting period anyway.

> In further considering the existing operation of the ISO 3166 second level
> domain spaces, IAHC recommends that the administrators of these spaces add
> a fixed 60 day notification period between application and delegation so as
> to attempt to reduce the subsequent levels of litigation within these name
> spaces, as per the related recommendations in section 4 of this document
> relating to gTLDs.

Some inspired soul on the IAHC list suggested making this 60-day waiting
period optional. If the domain name holder wishes to have that little more
weight in court when being challenged, they can opt for going through a
60-day waiting period. For those of us who just want to carry-on with our
own business, with domain names we know will not bother anybody, we'll
kindly do without it.

I believe we've reached an agreement.


-- 
Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond, EE Dept | Also: Global Information Highway Ltd.
Imperial College of Science, Tech. & |       Mobile: +44 (0)956 84 1113 
Medicine, London  SW7 2BT, UK        |       Fax:    +44 (0)171 937 7666
<foobar@ic.ac.uk>            In Funk We Trust             <foobar@gih.com>