Thursday, 13 August 2009

A Storm In A Fairtrade Tea Cup


Oh dear. The organic fertiliser appears to have hit the wind turbine.

Green domain sparks war of words

The battle to take control of a new internet domain aimed at environmental groups has escalated.

Words? Stop messing about. Give them guns and lock them in a room.

Dot Eco, a consortium backed by former US vice president Al Gore, describes a plan by its main competitor - Canadian green group Big Room - as "unworkable".

Big Room has said that publication of the analysis was "unfortunate".

What a lot of fuss. Considering these guys are all so very worried about the planet, couldn't they just share?

Both groups are hoping to win the right to sell .eco "top-level domain names", which are similar to .com or .uk.

Dot Eco, which boasts supporters such as the Sierra Club and the Alliance for Climate Protection, aims to sell domain names to raise funds for green organisations.

It has already entered into contracts to give away 57% of its profits from sales, it has said.

Big Room, which is endorsed by WWF International and Green Cross, also plans to generate money from the sale of .eco domain names to fund "sustainability projects".

Oh, I see. There's a hell of a lot of profit involved. And there was me thinking it was about saving Gaia.




6 comments:

banned said...

Good luck to them, at least it will be easy to avoid visiting their sites by accident so making them think someone actually cares about their nonsense.

Angry Exile said...

Using my Sololmon like wisdom I'd suggest we cut them all in half and let them all use .eco. Have I got that the right way round?

aljahom said...

sweet... I think I'll buy:

IBurnPolarBears.eco

IDontJustHugTheTrees.eco

FuckMeItsFreezing.eco

and

AlGore-BerkleyHunt.eco

Of course, there are plenty of domains to squat on... monbiot.eco, porrit.eco, artd.eco etc

AJ

BTS said...

IfYou'reSoBotheredBuyAFan.eco

18-30SealClubbingHolidays.eco

Anonymous said...

O/T but have you heard of this lot DP?

http://www.isa-gov.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=290

It's a body that's been set up to protect "children and vulnerable adults" from...well anyone 'unsuitable', really.

From November 2010 it will be an offence for an employer to recuit without checking that the potential employee is registered with the ISA and by 2015 ONLY people who are ISA registered will be able to work in jobs LIKELY to involve contact with children or vulnerable adults. It is the individual's responsibility (natch) to pay the fee of £64.00.

Perhaps I've missed it but nowhere can I find a definition of a 'vulnerable' adult or what consitutes contact with children or what 'likely contact' amounts to.

I work in a field in which neither truly vulnerable adults nor children are involved, yet I've come across this through my professional body. I do, however, deal with elderly people and I'm wondering whether the State, in its infantilisation of the population, now regards people as vulnerable simply on the grounds of their age!

They'll have us all on a database by hook or by crook (and I feel bloody aggrieved at having to pay £64 to 'prove innocence').

Jay

neil craig said...

A licence to print money, except no paper costs.