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@xxxxxxxx --> [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of --> Spencer Dawkins --> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 12:39 PM --> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx --> 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@xxxxxxxx --> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf