Re: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San Jose - 062599

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 08:44:44AM -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> 
> I suggest you read my report: http://www.law.miami.edu/~amf/commentary.htm
> It's all 1.  There's an executive summary if you need terse.

The executive summary does not describe the tweaks.  And, while the 
body contains many suggestions for changes, it does not indicate 
which ones you consider the "tweaks".

If it is difficult for you to reread your own text and find the
tweaks, imagine how it must be for someone else. 

One could also read Harald Alvestrand's comments (thanks for the
reference), at http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/wiponote.html, which *are*
terse.  I quote part of his statement relating to the mandatory
dispute policy:

  To make a long story short: I support the mandatory dispute
  resolution procedure. 

  I think the value of uniformity is overrated, but having this
  procedure in place is much better than the one NSI has been using
  up to now. 

  The process as specified gives any party accused of or victim of
  cybersquatting a fairly early "day in court", at a much more
  reasonable price than any normal court procedure.  The point has
  been made that this procedure forces people to be subject to a
  process which is strange to them; my somewhat acerbic comment is
  that the normal court system is already totally alien to 95+ % of
  the population of any given country. 

  But this is what I'd call a "second attempt"; we should be ready to
  reevaluate the process when it's been at work for a year.  "Rough
  consensus and running code"....

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain