[ga-full] Re: Some thoughts on a chartered GTLD for trade unions

["!Dr. Joe Baptista" <baptista@pccf.net>]

This .union is a bad idea.

1.  It completely ignores existing .union domain holders in the name.space
root zone.  Even though the name.space root zone is run in an
unprofessional manner - documented from time to time in these groups, one
must still respect the legacy domains operational in existing
roots.  Those domains were registered by the domain holders in good faith
- and as such should not be ignored.

2.  From what I can see of this application - there will only be a need
for a few hundred domain holders in the dot.union top level domain.  At
most 2,000 second level domains.  Yet the union people want to operate a
redundant mirror of the .union zone under .syndicat (french), .sindicato
(spanish), and .gewerkschaft (german).

    This is a terrible waste of namespace.  Although the namespace is very
vast - as the dot.com zone files shows it can accomodate millions of word
combinations, it would be a pity to take common english and foreign
language terms and limit their use in the root.

    It would be more appropriate for the unions to pick something like
.ICFTU, .TUAC, or .UNI - which are proper abriviated organizational names
which identify the entities involved as opposed to using proper english
and foreign language words - which are better suited to the use of the
very unwashed masses they claim to represent.

Regards
Joe Baptista
dot.GOD Hostmaster

On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Dany Vandromme wrote:

> On Wed, 31 May 2000, Pruett, Duncan wrote:
> > Greetings.
> > 
> > A number of international trade union organisations have been following the
> > deliberations of the NCDNHC with interest. As some of you may know, early
> > consultations have begun within the trade union movement about the
> > possibility of an application being made to ICANN to run a chartered GTLD
> > for trade unions.
> > 
> > As we continue to assess the issue, we would like to share with you a
> > preliminary discussion paper recently prepared by the ICFTU on behalf of 3
> > international trade union organisations (ICFTU, UNI, and TUAC*). Any
> > comments from members of the NCDNHC would be welcome. Please feel free to
> > forward them to us at this address:
> > 
> > duncan.pruett@icftu.org (ICFTU Brussels)
> > (with copies to schneider@tuac.org (TUAC, Paris) and
> > neil.anderson@union-network.org (UNI, Geneva))
> > 
> > ..and we will integrate them in ongoing internal discussions on the matter.
> > 
> > Duncan Pruett
> > Information / IT Coordinator
> > International Confederation of Free Trade Unions
> > Tel: +32 (2) 224 0219
> > GSM: +32 (477) 861 903
> > ___________________________
> > 
> > 
> > DOT UNION - AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE:
> > 
> > Having only recently become aware of the ongoing discussions, regarding
> > the creation of a new non-commercial top-level Internet domain, along the
> > lines of ".union", the Trade Union Advisory Committee (TUAC -
> > http://www.tuac.org),
> > Union Network International (UNI - http://www.union-network.org), and the
> > International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU -
> > http://www.icftu.org)
> > would like to offer a few shared perspectives on the discussion. This is
> > based on verbal and written reports on the March 31 briefing to US-based
> > trade unions, organised by Manon Ress in Washington DC, as well as
> > supplementary information picked up from the "nc-tlds" and "NCDNHC" mailing
> > lists, and
> > other related sources. We would also like to thank Manon Ress for making the
> > effort to involve those of us based in Europe who have not, till now, been
> > very involved in these internationally-relevant discussions.
> > 
> > This note is not intended to constitute a position paper, but rather a
> > contribution to the ongoing discussion, and a registration of interest in
> > the discussion on the part of the international trade union organisations.
> > _______________
> > 
> > 1. Consensus proposal
> > 
> > According to Jamie Love's written report, persons from the US Dept of
> > Commerce (DoC) present at the March 31 meeting indicated that "if the unions
> > wanted .union, they could probably do it, but ... would have to provide a
> > consensus proposal (consensus among stakeholders, in this case the labor
> > movement)". We think that it would be quite possible for the union movement
> > to come up with such a proposal, and we would be quite prepared to
> > participate in
> > its preparation.
> -
> agree
> -
> > 
> > 2. Validity of this initiative
> > 
> > Although we are persuaded of some of the potential merits of the idea, (such
> > as its possible role in the expansion of Internet-based organising), we feel
> > that the introduction of such a top-level domain would provide plenty of
> > opportunities for misuse, were it not properly managed. The most predictable
> > misuse of such a system would be likely to come from "company unions" or
> > other organisations which are not seen by the labour movement as bona fide
> > trade unions. We therefore feel this initiative would only be worth pursuing
> > if the labour movement were able to exclude certain applicants from using
> > the ".union" domain. In other words, only a "chartered" domain would be
> > feasible.
> -
> agree. Charter would be required
> -
> > 
> > 3. International aspect
> > 
> > The DoC participants in the Washington DC meeting also said that for such a
> > proposal on ".union" to succeed, it "would have to address the international
> > aspect of ICANN". Given not only the global nature of trade unionism, but
> > also the existence of well-developed international democratic trade union
> > structures, a formula could and should be backed by the international trade
> > union bodies. TUAC, UNI and the ICFTU will, as a next step, inform other
> > international trade union bodies about this discussion.
> > 
> > 4. Registrant Approval Mechanism
> > 
> > Given the close partnership that exists between the international trade
> > union organisations, it is quite feasible that some kind of registrant
> > approval mechanism could be evolved and managed at the international level.
> > It should be noted that all of the trade union organisations we know to have
> > participated in the DC meeting are represented in one or more of the
> > international trade union bodies being referred to here (ie. ICFTU, UNI and
> > TUAC). Of course, we would need to consider the cost implications of an
> > undertaking to manage
> > registration for a top level domain. We would also need to consider whether
> > certain elements of the process could be outsourced.
> > 
> > 5. Language question
> > 
> > One of the issues dominating the debate seems to be the concern that
> > ".union" is not universally understood to mean "trade union". In the
> > international trade union bodies, we have over 50 years of experience in
> > dealing with these issues (albeit that for most of this period we have
> > mainly been dealing with paper and not internet domains). The ICFTU, which
> > represents over 200 national trade union centres from around the world
> > (including the AFL-CIO) has 4 official languages. English, French, Spanish
> > and German are accepted and used by its affiliates as a "lowest common
> > denominator". If the international union movement can agree internally on
> > the language issue, there should be no need for outsiders in the "nc-tlds"
> > discussion, or in the ICANN working groups, to lose time telling us what is
> > and what is not acceptable. Based on the above, one possible solution may be
> > to establish 3 or 4 synonyms which all point to the same "root". In other
> > words, we are wondering whether it is technically feasible to have a limited
> > number
> > of top level domains (TLD) all be interchangeable. For example:
> > 
> > union (english)
> > syndicat (french)
> > sindicato (spanish)
> > gewerkschaft (german)
> >
> -
> Why not if technically simple. However, That should be restricted to
> recognized official languages. Risk to have as many aliases as cc entries.
> - 
> > This proposed solution might even serve as a model for some other proposed
> > top level domains (eg. ".ngo/.ong/.ong/.nro" or ".ltd/.sa/.sa/.gmbh").
> > 
> > We don't think this approach would face that much opposition from those
> > currently using the commercially available TLDs - for instance, these three
> > addresses all point to pretty much the same IP address/name server:
> > 
> > www.yahoo.com
> > www.yahoo.org
> > www.yahoo.net
> > 
> > Is there really any difference between this practice and the solution
> > proposed above?
> -
> Yes, in the yahoo example, there are three different naming spaces, with
> eventually differents registries. Be aware that in your proposal, the same
> registry will handle pseudo naming spaces.
> - 
> > 
> > ___________
> > 
> > * ICFTU has 216 affiliated organisations in 145 countries and territories,
> > and represents 123 million workers, 39 million of whom are women; TUAC has
> > 55 affiliated organisations in the 29 OECD member countries, and represents
> > 70 million workers; UNI has 900 affiliated organisations in 140 countries
> > and represents 15.5 million workers
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: vandrome@renater.fr
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-2645B@lyris.isoc.org
> > 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dany VANDROMME                    |  Directeur du GIP RENATER
> 
>                 Reseau National de Telecommunications 
>          pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche
> 
>                                   |  ENSAM
> Tel   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30     |  151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
> Fax   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31     |  75013 Paris
> E-mail: Dany.Vandromme@renater.fr |  FRANCE
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: baptista@pccf.net
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-2645B@lyris.isoc.org
> 

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html