Re: Re[4]: IAHC Proposal (Attacks Thereon)

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Dave Crocker allegedly said:
> 
> At 2:26 PM -0800 1/13/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >The stated purpose of the 60 day wait is to avoid or reduce expensive
> >litigation.  However, the number of lawsuits that have actually
> 
> Kent,
> 
> 	You and others keep citing this as the reason, in spite of repeated
> efforts to correct the misunderstanding.
> 
> 	The purpose of the 60-wait is to increase the stability of the name
> after the wait.

To quote the document (the paragraph before section 5.4.4):

    It is recognized that there is a substantial interest in
    minimizing litigation, including litigation against registries,
    and in encouraging resolution of legitimate disputes prior to the
    time that significant investment is made in a domain name. 

Perhaps I could be forgiven for thinking that minimization of
litigation was a desired goal :-)

> 	In effect, it is an attempt to move all the challenges into an
> initial period, before the applicant has invested heavily or gained any
> momentum behind the name.  Carl O's phrase "stable URLs" is an entirely
> reasonable example of the desired benefit.  Separate from agreeing on the
> likely benefit, let us please at least try to be accurate in defining the
> intent.

Believe me Dave, I am trying very hard to be accurate.  I have read
the document several times and thought very carefully about what it
means.  And in all honesty, going by what is written, it looks like
the intent was minimization of litigation.  There is no explicit
mention of "stability of the name" at all.

Of course, minimization of litigation and stability of name are not 
contradictory, and in fact it seems reasonable to imagine that there would 
be a strong correlation.

-- 
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