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. > > >