[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [wg-b] RESPONSE to submission from noncommercial community

>Judith Oppenheimer complains about my reminder of consumer protection by
>citing well-known trademark owners who are trying to get what they believe
>should be "their" domain. This situation is history created by the
>undifferentiated monopoly of .com along with .net and .org. The situation is
>an ugly, consumer-hostile mess and I want none of it.

Then perhaps you can help to lobby the trademark factions who are 
currently attempting to muster their forces against the addition of 
new generic top level domains?

>Our task is to think of the consumer-friendly world of the future which
>simultaneously allows the car-buying user to find VW and not be irritated
>that it is instead Virtual Works and allows Virtual Works, if they choose
>for legitimate consumer marketing reasons to be known as VW, to not be
>confused with VW cars.

Yes, and that would be wonderful.

>Mikki Barry wants to defend the right of free speech by Internet users who
>want to complain about a famous name.  Great, over to WG C, lets have
>.grudge. Or .consumer watch - lets have this useful function of the Internet
>in an honest and open way.

Unfortunately, if .grudge or .opinion or any other generic top level 
domain space were created, you can bet your left foot that the same 
corporate entities pushing for "famous mark" protection would seek to 
extend it to that domain.  After all, the UDRP goes across ALL 
generic top level domains.  Why would the "famous mark" provisions be 
any different?