[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



Dave Crocker writes:
>"The purpose of the 60-wait is to increase the stability of the name
>after the wait.

>	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."

Leo Smith asks...
The use of a 60 day wait as a remedy to enhance the stability of URLs needs
rethinking.
The first step is to analyze the perceived benefits...
Without the wait, what would happen, and with the wait what would happen?
First, let's divide the entire universe of URLs into two groups: Those URLs
that will never encounter a trademark challenge, and those URLs that end up
in a trademark dispute. Without the wait, the stability of the group of
URLs defined as those that will never receive a challenge from a trademark
rights holder remains 100% stable. Using .com for analysis, this means that
roughly 796,000 out of 800,000 URLs are 100% stable. Granted, we don't know
which ones they are specifically, but they do exist as stacle URLs.
If the wait were to cut the problem in half, stability would be
strengthened in an additional 2,000 URLs. Using hindsight, the benefit of
enhanced stability comes to 2,000 out of 800,000 URLs, or from a percentage
basis, to one quarter of one percent of the total URLs. 
Is the above result worth  a major imposition on 800,000 URLs?

----------------------------
Dave Crocker, Director                                       +1 408 246
8253
Internet Mail Consortium                                 (f) +1 408 249
6205
127 Segré Place                                            
dcrocker@imc.org
Santa Cruz, CA  95060 USA                                
http://www.imc.org

[IAHC member, expressing strictly (or loosely) personal opinions]

----------