As it stands, it would, in almost every circumstance, be a breach of the DAO’s constitution to use DAO funds to make charitable donations to organisations or initiatives outside of web3.
Article 3 of the constitution is clear: DAO funds may be used to support ecosystem growth and development—any remaining funds may be used to fund public goods within web3.
With respect to the idea that the DAO should set aside registration fees from objectionable name registrations for some specific purpose, I fear that this would be both a logistically and socially challenging exercise.
How, for instance, does one determine what is objectionable, while also taking into account the intentions of the registrant?
Perhaps a compromise could be acknowledging that the DAO does receive protocol revenue from the registration of objectionable names, and seeking to acknowledge the situation, in part, by rolling out a public goods grants program that attempts to boost the participation and success of different groups or communities in web3, as the DAO sees fit.
There is a Public Goods working group weekly call at 2pm ET on Tuesday, September 6th. You can join the call through this link. Anyone interested in discussing this further is welcome to join.