Re: IAHC Proposal (Attacks Thereon)

[David Collier-Brown <davecb@Canada.Sun.COM>]

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

Dave Crocker wrote: 
> 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.

  Could I quibble slightly, folks?

  The term ``purpose'', and its synonyms, are slightly too
broad for comfort, and have caused some misdirection of arguements.
  Kent is inferring a predicatble result, and proposing it as a
purpose, as such is a common use in english-language arguement.
``The effect of this is X: therfor it was intended to do X''
is the usual formation.

  Alas, it's bad logic to use this to argue that it was
intened to do X but was unsucessfull.

  Double alas, It's common enough that I caught myself doing it
yesterday (which is the only reason I noticed it in the discussion 
today!)


  Would it be fair to say that reducing litigation is not possible,
and so the committee proposed changes to improve the underlying
situation that the litigation threatened?
  If fair, ``is it true'', and ``is it suffficient'' are the next
questions to ask...  But do note that ``is it true'' is strictly
a question about ``reduucing litigation is not possible''.

--dave (darn, almost started a flame myself there) c-b
-- 
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