I also agree. Someone has to speak for the "little guy". That someone 
should be us.

On 10/5/2011 4:51 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote:
> I'm on record saying I love this idea.
>
> What do you envision? Actions such as trying to have NCSG run this 
> TLD, making representation to some other orgs to convince them this is 
> a good idea, or some other degree of DIY approah?
>
> Or rather enshrining the principle that some gTLD may self-regulate 
> away from the trademark-first mentality, or some other degree of 
> "prepare the regulatory grounds for cool applications" approach?
>
> Nicolas
>
> On 10/5/2011 12:28 PM, Timothe Litt wrote:
>> So why can't we focus some energy on protecting the rest of the 
>> membership?  I suggested .TFZ (trademark free zone) a while back, but 
>> although there were no alternatives offered, the consensus was that 
>> anything that could be seen as weakening a trademark anywhere was was 
>> unacceptable to the members holding trademarks.  So we seem to be 
>> focused on (even only responsive to) trademark issues - albeit for 
>> "non-commercial" holders.
>> If all we're going to be is a niche in the trademark wars, I don't 
>> see what NCSG is doing for me...
>> I'd like to hear from the candidates - what ideas do you have for 
>> protecting the domain name interests of the non-trademark holding 
>> members?  How can we reconcile the trademark holders' interests, 
>> which are recognized in law, with the interests of those who can't 
>> obtain trademarks for their uses and have no law to fall back on?  
>> Surely we can come up with administrative/policy solutions - or even 
>> advocate for appropriate law?
>> I'd also like to see other members take an interest in something 
>> other than how to tweak trademark-based rules... (And once in a 
>> while, Whois privacy :-)
>>
>> Timothe Litt
>> ACM Distinguished Engineer
>>