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

RE: [wg-b] WG-B Deadline

How would special interest domains (eg. .isnotfair, .union) work? Would a
website in a special interest domain be required to advocate a particular
viewpoint? Could a ".union" website be anti-union? A ".green" website
anti-green? Can a person own a ".isnotfair" website and put any content on
the site, even if the content doesn't address anything as fair or unfair?

Steve Hartman
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	James Love [SMTP:love@cptech.org]
> Sent:	Friday, March 24, 2000 4:48 PM
> To:	Mikki Barry
> Cc:	mpalage@infonetworks.com; wg-b@dnso.org; Ress, Manon Anne
> Subject:	Re: [wg-b] WG-B Deadline
> As you know, we are quite interested in a number of noncommercial top
> level domains that would work with a company name.   For example,
> .union, which is something that several labor unions at looking at,
> would likely be used in connection with a company name, such as
> nike.union.
> And we are looking at the use of names like .isnotfair, that would be
> used by civil rights groups.  So I would not want to say that
> Cocacola.isnotfair or Texaco.isnotfair (two companies involved in
> disputes over racial discrimination) would not be an appropriate
> domain.   
> I have talked with a number of environmental groups that are looking to
> advance the notion of a domain such as .ecology or .green, to use as a
> mechanism to make businesses more accountable to consumers for their
> record on the environment.  
> There are no reasons why these TLDs should be excluded on the basis of
> trademark concerns, and the report should make this clear.  
> In Cario, the trademark interests were quite clear that TLDs of this
> type did not present a problem in terms of the trademark owner.  I
> believe the discussions there should be reflected in the WG-B report.
>    Jamie Love
> Mikki Barry wrote:
> > 
> > My concerns are the same as always.  There is no place for an
> > unfettered, unlimited list of "famous marks" to be used for
> > exclusionary purposes across all gTLDs.  The current proposals have
> > no upper limit, are being chosen by those with severe bias, and there
> > is no mechanism for protecting free speech interests.
> -- 
> =======================================================
> James Love, Director           | http://www.cptech.org
> Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org 
> P.O. Box 19367                 | voice: 1.202.387.8030
> Washington, DC 20036           | fax:
> =======================================================