Hi RichyHenderson. I agree that we are nearing a consensus. There are
two possible differences which could be important though.
You wrote -- "ALL names are offered at Landrush. If already trademarked at Sunrise,
then winning Landrush applicant becomes reserve (has the right to challenge or leave
Afilias to challenge). If challenge is successful, automatic transfer of name to
the Landrush winner."
DomeBase Proposal (paraphrased to be similar) -- All names
offered at Landrush. If already registered at Sunrise, then winning Landrush
applicant has right to challenge and keep name, without TM interest, after the challenge
period is over, for a minimal fee. (NOTE: Landrush challenge would only be
successful if Sunrise Squatter sitting on the name)."
Differences: You request
that Landrush applicant gets the right to challenge. Anyone has this right
now. The key is not the right to challenge, but the right to challenge and
keep a name registered by a Sunrise Squatter with bogus trademark information, without
trademark rights by the challenger. I do not see this explicitly in your proposal
and this spooks me a lot.
In fact, if a cynic were to critique your proposal word
for word, it might not require any change by Afilias at all --
(1) Land Rush has
right to challenge... already exists
(2) Leave to Afilias to challenge... already
(3) If challenge is successful, transfer to winner... true by definitiion
don't mean to be unappreciative of your work. I do appreciate your work and
effort. I just have observed that there is a greater chance of achieving objectives
if the rules are more explicit with respect to those objectives.
concerning "leave to Afilias to challenge". Unlike some folks on this board, I do
not think that folks at Afilias are are bad folks -- but they do have limited funds
and will have a dilly of a time defining what is "questionable" -- so there will
probably be many more names that Land Rushers would wish to challenge than Afilias
would be able to challange. At this point, I think that the DomeBase proposal
more explicitly guarantees the desired result, but I am biased :). I am also
open to correction and response. I have been wrong before.