Rival Green Groups Bid To Snatch .eco Domain

Peace Corps Library writes "BBC reports that two rival environmental groups are lining up supporters to try to take control of the new .eco domain aimed at green groups. In March, former US vice president Al Gore backed a bid by the California group Dot Eco to operate the .eco TLD, but now a Canadian environmental group known as Big Room has launched a competing bid to manage it. 'We're two different applicants with two different business ideas. Ours is to sell domain names to raise funds for organizations who can effect change,' says Minor Childers, co-founder of Dot Eco. The group has already entered into contracts with its supporters — such as the Sierra Club and the Alliance for Climate Protection — to give away 57% of its profits from sales. Big Room also plans to generate money from the sale of .eco domain names to fund sustainability projects around the world, however, the consortium, which includes WWF International and Green Cross International — founded in 1993 by former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev, also believes that .eco could be used as a labeling system to endorse companies with green credentials. Despite having differences about a model for .eco, both groups will 'definitely have to sit down' together at some point, says Childers. 'We could be one of the biggest contributors to environmental causes anywhere in the world.'"

Comments

Deprecate .com etc and emphasize country TLD's

[sadler121]

Which is why we should deprecate them and turn toward country level TLD's. Let individual countries have control over what domains are allowable. If a company, say Google, has a server in the US, their .com name would end up as google.com.us, if they have a server in Germany, it would be google.com.de. A government web site in the US would be congress.gov.us or in Germany, bundestag.gov.de.

This could even extend to political organizations with in a State. So, in the US, fl.gov.us would be the root to all of the Florida state government web sites, where as ut.gov.us would be for Utah's state government.

There are plenty more examples, but it comes down to de-centralizing control over DNS to the lowest level of political representation.

Re:No one cares

[rswail]

.gov is "non-national"? Since when?

Re:Anyone here old enough?

[sumdumass]

Ah, it's true. Because they need to remain competitive. If a business voluntarily spends a boatload of money to clean up emissions and their competitors don't, they'll go out of business. That's why, at least, environmental regulations level the playing field among competitors (which falls apart when this doesn't happen in other countries though).

No it is not true. It may have been at one point in time but hasn't been true for longer then Captain Planet has been on the air. That was because of regulations too.

I'm also old enough to remember when cap and trade was a conservative answer to prohibitive environmental regulations. It would give incentives to companies to voluntarily cut emissions so they could sell unused credits to pollute to other companies on the open market that might not be able to do that sort of clean up. The government would just set an overall target level.

Then you are old enough to have questionable memory. This was never a plan offered by the republicans. There was some talk about limiting Sulfur emissions a while back in a manner similar to cap and trade but it was never a party line stance and never as far reaching as the current debacle has gone.

Seems that now Democrats are pushing the idea, it's suddenly evil (although I suspect some of that comes from classifying carbon dioxide as a pollutant, but the conservative groups should say that instead of billing the "cap and trade" concept as flawed -- it *was* their own creation after all)

Ideas are different in minor details but the democrat's plan would cause far more harm with little to no results. You need to focus on the details or end up passing a bail out plan that pays Executive bonuses just to find out that you are the congress critter who put that into the law at the request of the administration after both of you are criticizing it. When a democrat congressman stands on the floor ridiculing all of the calls to read a fucking bill before it get voted on by saying you would need two days and two lawyers just to understand it, then there is a problem. A serious problem.

In short, the details are important and if your stuck on the concept, then you might as well trade in a Jaguar for a ford pinto because the concept is the same even though the details are completely different. I know most democrats do not read the bills they vote into law because they don't think they have two days or two attorneys, but at least lets find out what is being pushed. And yes, the Cap and Trade they are pushing is a nightmare for the US economy. They know it and wouldn't even add three simple exemptions to the bill that would halt it if unemployment went up more then so much from the already high 2009 rates, if gas got over $5 a gallon or if inflation skyrocketed to a certain point above the 1008 levels. They know it will happen and see those amendments which I would call reasonable safeguards as ways to defeat the cap and trade.

Say whatever you want, but you cannot deny that. If unemployment wasn't going to soar by design, that amendment should have went in, if inflation wasn't going to soar, that amendment would have got in. And if they didn't expect gas prices to soar, that amendment would have gotten in. But they do expect all that to happen which is why they wouldn't place any safe guards against it in the legislation and if you think that is acceptable, you are a fool.