Spencer,
I will make three observations regarding your question. It
may be that this will help the confusion, one way or the other.
1) I will not be suckered into a search for "prior art" on this. I
am not certain it exists, but I am certain that its existence is
not necessarily relevant. :-)
2) Ultimately, civilized people recognize assignment authorities as
the mechanism by which values can become property. Any time you
have property, you may have either litigation, or murder, when a
question of ownership arises.
3) Sometimes, the likelihood of an event is unmeasurable and possibly
irrelevant in the face of the fact that the possibility certainly
exists.
--
EG
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
--> Spencer Dawkins
--> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 12:39 PM
--> To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> Subject: Re: net.stewards [Re: BitTorrent (Was: Re: [Isms]
--> ISMS charter
--> broken- onus should be on WG to fix it)]
-->
-->
--> > Generally, the existence of an assignment authority does encourage
--> > its (proper) use - mostly for the reason you state above. Just as
--> > "nobody will want to accept an official registration polluted by
--> > prior use", "nobody" (deliberately in quotes) will want
--> to attempt
--> > to establish an unofficial registration using the approach you've
--> > described. Doing so is - at the very least - going to adversely
--> > affect popularity and is very likely to result in interference and
--> > potentially even litigation.
-->
--> "litigation"?
-->
--> Do we have prior art that this is a likely result?
-->
--> Spencer, honestly confused (for once)...
-->
--> _______________________________________________
--> Ietf mailing list
--> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-->
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf