Re: [wg-b] WG-B Deadline

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

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:   1.202.234.5176
=======================================================