George wrote:

>Here's one back:
>
>	the defence fund serves two purposes: one is to defend against 
>	making the incorrect assignment of a name, and the other is to 
>	defend against making the incorrect non-assignment of a name. 
>
>	Which reason do you think will empty the pot faster?

It is not that the actions are "incorrect", its the case
of having to go to the expense of going through a legal process to defend
the actions of prior assignment to a party where another party is of the opinion
that that action has materially damaged their position in some way, or defending
the actions of non-assignment to a party who takes the position that such a
decision has materially damaged them. What are the costs of engaging in such a
legal defense? And secondly is the potential that if the aggrieved party receives
a decision in their favour with material compensation attributed in part or in full to
the name body, what is the likely amount of these damages?

Ok - so I can rephrase the question slightly.

But I am not a competent person to then attempt to answer it! 

Geoff

-- 
Geoff.Huston§telstra.net

Network Technical Manager    Locked Bag 5744,
Telstra Internet             Canberra  ACT  2601
                             AUSTRALIA

ph  +61 6 208 1908
fax +61 6 248 6165


-----------------------
And as a quick postscript  ....

Copyright of the original material in this message is asserted by Geoff Huston
Permission to reproduce those parts of this message authored by Geoff Huston, in whole or in part, in
any medium other than the Internet is expressly NOT provided by the copyright owner.
-----------------------