Michael, > I argued for requiring some sort of frequency as an element of > every allegation of abuse: I thought that part of being a > cybersquatter was doing it a lot. This did not impress the WIPO > staff, it appears. > I have wondered before why the temporal diomension seems to get such short shrift. A lot of the positions taken on this list sound as if they are intended to be for ever and always; likewise, distinctions between already-existing conditions and anticipated future conditions (and what can be done about them) are often lost. Perhaps having a DNS entry to reflect one's running average rate of registration (redline at 1/mo?) is the way to factor the time element back into the picture... > As a general matter I am not horrified by having to rely somewhat > on the good faith of truly neutral parties. I don't think there > are many things in life where one can draw the perfect bright line > rule in advance. The issue, though, is to give those neutrals > about the right instructions, not just "do what you will". and a > strong statement that free expression is a value to protect should > be one of those instructions. At *this point in time, might such neutrals not be in the best position to advise what the 'right instructions' should be(come)? If bright lines are all folks can see (or are looking for), almost any prior statement tarnishes immediately -- even 'free expression,' when one recalls the 7 dirty words and suchlike. kerry
