jamielove writes:>Examples of names that should be
permited, without consent of trademark owner, would be boeing.union,
With the
possible exception of the above example I agree with you. What if boeing has numerous
unions (as I imagine they do), and who would united.union be (airlines union or trucking
union, or a union called United)? As Dan Yager pointed out in a post I otherwise
disagreed with, what if boeing had no union? And what if boeing workers changed unions?
There could be a messy fight over whom owns the name.
These latter points should
properly be worked out by the interested parties, not left up to ICANN, as you stated
so accurately, I'm just pointing out potential problems. As a former shop steward,
negotiator, and member of Teamsters for a Democratic Union (I still have my knees),
I felt semi-qualified to do so.
Boeing union workers aren't legally called the
Boeing Union (I imagine there is case law against this), so I'd suggest the company
name not be used in this fashion. Registering boeing-sucks.com or boeing.sucks should
have no such restrictions even if it is a site owned by a boeing union and/or the
boeing union site(s) under their legalname.union link to it.
>ICANN should permit
groups to create restricted TLDs, such as domains only available to insured banks
or to labor unions, but should not itself get involved in the details of the registry
management, beyond a few areas where ICANN's oversight addresses technical problems
for Internet navigation or stability. Governments should enforce and make trademark
policy, not ICANN, for example, and ICANN should also avoid policies that undermine
privacy or free speech.<
Agree absolutely. That ICANN needs to be told this, or
that it is even up for debate, shows just how far off the rails they have already
gone in a fairly short time.