Re: How does a 60-day waiting period promote URL stability? (was something else)

[davidk@ISI.EDU]

> KOON SANG LIM writes :
> 
> Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> > I will therefore repeat the proposal that an inspired soul (and I am
> > sorry I have forgotten who it was) has come-up with in this forum, and
> > that is to make the 60-day period *optional*.
> > 
> > If a domain name requestor does not need the added safeguard of a 60-day
> > publishing period, then let them do without it.
> > For those that will want the added safeguard, they can choose the option
> > of having the 60-day safeguard in place.
> > 
> > This solves FACT 1, FACT 2, FACT 3, and leave FACT 4 to be decided
> > accordingly.
> > 
> 
> This sounds like a great idea!  I agree and support it.  The individuals 
> and organisations who need the domain names should be mature enough to 
> determine whether they need the added(speculatively) protection of the 
> 60 days or not as long as neither the registries, nor CORE, nor IAHC get 
> involved in any dispute.  For those who opt for no publication period, 
> they may need to commit that they will have no recourse against the 
> registries or CORE or IAHC if they find themselves in legal disputes 
> next time.

At first thought this really sounds nice, at second thought it doesn't
solve anything. Making it optional will force everybody to use the option
since a judge will simply ask: Didn't you use the optional wait period ?

I think the idea of making this optional is just a way of applying the
wait period to everybody (while 99% of the people don't want it) through
a back-door.

Furthermore, it doesn't deal with some more fundamental questions. It is
just not the task of the IAHC to deal with special interests like
trademarks (and infringers). It makes the central repository more
complicated then necessary. It needs all kind of special things like
temporary domains which is an idea that just cannot work. The system is
supposed to be designed for the end-users and it seems that they don't
want a wait period at all. The IAHC proposal is not a proposal where we
should bargain and compromize, we need to get the best result for 99% of
the end-users and if it seems that they don't want and don't need a wait
period at all, why then making the system more complicated (with all the
associated costs)? Why making things more complicated when it can be done
in a simpler way? We already have enough procedures defined by
governments to 'protect' consumers that in fact turn out to protect the
producers or the few smart people that know the rules. The system without
wait period already provides all the hooks for trademark owners to act
when they think it is needed and I don't see any reasons why they should
get more then that and let the end-users pay for that. In addition to
this, the Internet is a dynamic environment where everything can be done
quick, fast and efficient and I feel that it is a bad idea to impose all
kind of arbitrary rules that are not proven to work, and even if they
work only in a court of a specific country, and will as a result slow
down business for everybody on this planet,

David K.
---