I like .TFZ (trademark free zone) too!
Kathy
:
> On 28-Mar-15 12:00, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>> <html>
>> <head>
>> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
>> </head>
>> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
>> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">+1 to Milton. I remember the old days
>> when there was no way in a domain name to criticize a trademark
>> owner without losing your domain name. Newspapers could criticize
>> and critique large companies for practices they did not like even
>> in headlines (such as abuse of migrant workers); Saturday Night
>> Live (a popular US TV show) could parody; but not in domain
>> names.<br>
>> <br>
>> For years we posited a ".SUCKS" domain name where you could
>> register a trademark and make it very clear that the domain name
>> was going to be used for legal expression - to criticize, critique
>> and parody. I remember talking about how much I wanted it years
>> ago - long before the New gTLD program. How it would make life
>> clearer online and provide clear protections for speakers. <br>
>> <br>
>> $2500 is a lot of money, but not out of line with what is being
>> asked by other New gTLD Registries. I heard that one new registry
>> is demanding the absurd price of $30,000 for its "landrush" domain
>> names -- and that's truly extortion. But $2500 while high is
>> ballpark - that chance to pull your (your company's) trademark out
>> of .SUCKS and not be part of the free speech and discussion to
>> come. <br>
>> <br>
>> Best,<br>
>> Kathy<br>
>> <br>
> I guess I'm opaque. I don't see how this advances any cause. This neither
> advances free speech, nor provides any real protection to reputations.
>
> The people with trademarks and money will try to control criticism by
> buying these names.
> They will use trademark law, landrush and any other rules to prevent
> others from
> acquiring/using them in ways that offend/hurt their organizations.
> Many can afford to
> try hard. Those who can't - remember, there are also small businesses,
> not just
> megaacorps - will be disadvantaged. For them, $2,500 is not small
> change. Think of the
> coffee shop where an employee is incited to do something rude, just
> once, but it goes viral with
> people piling on and using language that I won't cite here. Criticism
> isn't always justified.
>
> This doesn't help free speech or protect organizations' reputations.
>
> On the other hand, the critics will try alternate names to get around
> these efforts.
> corp.sucks. Corp.really.sucks. Corp.reallyreallyreally.sucks.
> howcorp.sucks.
> harvardcourses.sucks. harvardprofs.sucks. harvarddoesnt.sucks... So the
> game of whack-a-mole won't actually protect the organizations, as has
> been pointed out.
> But the critics, who often have shallow pockets, will pay for domain
> names and attorneys.
>
> This also doesn't help free speech.
>
> The only people who benefit are the domain name holders and the
> attorneys. (Sorry
> Kathy - I don't mean that ALL attorneys are evil :-)
>
> In fact, there are dozens of sites that post criticism/customer
> complaints with names unrelated
> to the object of their criticism. E.g. without endorsement: I did a
> quick search on one large
> company and turned up: www.comsumeraffairs.com, pissedconsumer.com,
> customerservicesscoreboard.com, ripoffreport.com, complaintslist.com -
> and I got bored as
> the list continued for many more pages. You don't need a specific
> domain name to
> criticize. Frankly, I have some empathy for the targets of these sites,
> as they are universally
> negative. Good experiences are very, very rarely reported.
>
> So take a deep breath, and remember: "It's just a name." Yes, there
> need to be rules
> for some kind of fairness in acquisition and retention. No, the DNS can
> not be the
> vehicle for advancing every cause. It's just a dictionary of names.
>
> And, remember when I posited ".tfz", as in 'trademark-free zone'.? As
> in, for individual
> domain name holders to be free of harassment. I'd still like the
> l'Orange family to have
> the ability to use their name in some TLD without fear of the French
> telecomm company
> claiming ownership. But non-corporate domain name holders still have
> virtually no rights.
>
> Ultimately, this is a tempest in a teapot. You can't effectively
> protect anything by
> acquiring domain names. For critics and targets alike, there's always
> another forum.
>
> For registrars and scam artists, there are always more people willing to
> pay.
>
> And around here, there is always the temptation to rise to the bait &
> try to map
> anything related to name allocation onto our favorite causes...
>
> Timothe Litt
> ACM Distinguished Engineer
> --------------------------
> This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
> if any, on the matters discussed.
>
>
>
|
