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 >>