Christoph There are definitely points that can be addressed and improved (always) and I already agreed that we should include one of the points you touched on in the FAQ, the problem with some of the items you raise is that they essentially boil down to no management of domain names that use or are easily confused with our marks.
I repeat the wording here "Please don’t register a domain that looks or sounds similar to an OSM mark, or includes a misspelled OSM mark" if the domain in question does not fulfill the criteria then it is not affected. For the domains that do conflict in the end we put the ganrdfathering procedure in to place. As I pointed out to Jochen the number of potentially relevant domains is not particularly large and not all of them are easily confused with with our marks. This should not be major drama. In an age in which essentially all OSM related activity takes place on the Internet and domain names are essentially ersatz-trademarks I can't see excluding them from the policy as being sensible. Sorry. Simon On 04.08.2017 20:00, Christoph Hormann wrote: > Simon, if you immediately dismiss or ridicule any critical thought here > this will not really be a "public review and consultation". Without > insisting that my own arguments on the matter have merit may i suggest > you let people articulate and discuss their thoughts and refine their > opinion in open discussion even if it appears to you they are in error > (which might at least in some cases be due to you misunderstanding > them). > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
