[dwhly]

This statement that "If you want to build a commons, first you have to have something to share" doesn't relate in any way to a need to own this concept. Trademarking "Internet of Agreements" doesn't somehow give you more of "something to share", rather it gives you less. Whatever your reasons for capturing your IP, so that you can monetize and control it, generosity isn't among them IMHO.

What you're trying to do is define a space so that you can capture an outsized share of the attention and therefore the financial value from it. Plenty of people name spaces without needing that capture.

[leashless]

I think you'll find that most conferences have their name trademarked. We would get trampled by IBM, Microsoft and the rest if we didn't hold the trademark: in this instance, IP law protects the little guy, and that's how it should work.

I have FOSS'd very, very significant IP in my time - most notably the Hexayurt Project - and it has been incredibly hard to get things done. In this instance, we need the protection in order to have our vision - rather than that of one of the big Stack companies - shape the future a little.

You'd grudge us that?