[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San Jose - 062599
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
To make a long story short: I support the mandatory dispute
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
email@example.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain