Re: [wg-b] WG-B Deadline

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

"Hartman, Steve" wrote:
> 
> 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?


     Assuming we don't try to create a monoculture in management
systems, there could be a number of different management models. 
Indeed, I very much support experimentation in management models.  The
ccTLDs already illustrate much diversity.   fr, .kr, .uk. .de, and .us,
are quite different, for example.  And there are differences in the
.int, .edu, .gov and .mil space too.  

    Within the noncommercial constituencies, and I think within the
commercial constituencies, there is interest in creating chartered TLDs
that are by their very nature restricted.  I have heard one proposal for
a .xxbank  (the xx would stand for a country indicator) for banks that
were regulated by a particular government, which would be a restricted
commercial model (or is it a government model?), that I would support,
because it would provide assurance for consumers, as the .gov does now
for something like fcc.gov.  

   In the NGO community, people are only beginning to look at this, but
there is great interest.  I think the traditional consumer groups, the
environmental groups and the labor unions have been the most engaged so
far.  But I could see a variety of proposals from groups of different
views.  If the TLD space is large, there should be room for many
different approaches.  

   There are also proposals for TLDs that anyone could get for any
reason, like .sucks, or for TLDs that would provide an open or semi open
gateway to links from a TLD.  One could image, for example, .opinion as
an open gateway, or even TLDs that charged money to get the links.   

   This is just to illustrate a few of the possibilities.  

   I don't think WG-B is charged with evaluating these models, but it
needs to think about this as it relates to its investigation of the use
of trademarks with a new TLD.  It seems to me that restrictions on the
use of Exxon.biz have one consequence, and restrictions on the use of
Exxon.opinion, Exxon.ecology, Exxon.union, Exxon.sucks or
Exxon.isnotfair is another.  Restrictions on the use of the second types
of TLDs pretty much wipe out a entire form of expression.  

    Jamie


> 
> 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:   1.202.234.5176
> > =======================================================

-- 
=======================================================
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
=======================================================