RE: [wg-b] .UNION Top-level domain name

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

I don't want to violate the "messages per day" rules for this list, but
I should answer this question by Marilyn Cade.  

The labor union community is looking at the .union TLD, at fairly high
levels in some labor organizations, to see if they want to address the
rules for the use of this TLD, or to develop a registry proposal.  I
cannot speak for anyone in the union community, however, I could
characterize this as exploratory, but serious, at this point.  But I
would also much prefer to say this "off the record" at this time, if
that is possible on an internet list.   It might be possible to say a
little more in a couple of weeks.    I'm reluctant to say a lot at this
point, because it probably isn't helpful to say too much now.  However,
given the deadline for comments on WG-B, I probably have to say enough
to drive home the point that this is a real issue, and I don't think the
unions will be thrilled if ICANN proposes that only Boeing could use
boeing.union.  

    Jamie

On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> May be a naive question, but are CWA, IBEW, et al, asking for a .union? If
> so, what are their thoughts? Marilyn Cade
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. [mailto:john@johnberryhill.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 2:04 PM
> To: mpalage@infonetworks.com
> Cc: wg-b@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-b] .UNION Top-level domain name
> 
> 
> 
> From: Michael D. Palage <mpalage@infonetworks.com>
> To: Wg-B@Dnso. Org <wg-b@dnso.org>
> 
> > Perhaps the trademark community could comment on this issue, but I do not
> > believe that they would have a big concern with .UNION as long as
> > registrants were properly screened and they did not try to sell the domain
> > name back to them at inflated prices or sell counterfeit goods on their
> > site, but maybe I am wrong. If the trademark community could offer some
> > insight on this proposed chartered top-level it would be much appreciated.
> 
> Right, then one just provides a link from the .union site, or even a framed
> page, to a commercial site located elsewhere.
> 
> The .union proposal, with the inherent assumption that there is a one-to-one
> correspondence between a company and a union, is as simplistic as the
> underlying assumption that there is a single trademark holder that may have
> an interest in a second-level domain name.
> 
> Take "nike.union" for example.  How many different unions are represented in
> the nike labor force?  One?  Hardly.  They've got Teamsters and electrical
> workers and carpenters and who knows what else working for them.  There
> isn't a "nike" union.  So the result is that you merely open up a new battle
> ground between parties who believe they are entitled to some exclusive and
> special right to a short domain name.
> 
> The "narrow technical" solution to any perceived problem over conflicts
> involving SLDs is to create a large number of TLDs so that a given SLD can
> be reflected in more than three ways.  Period.  Any other considerations are
> legal or political, not technical, and thus beyond the scope of ICANN's
> charter.  We have courts and politicians for solving the former two
> categories of problems, and there is no reason to duplicate their efforts.
> 
> John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
> "trademark community" member
> Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
> 

=============================================
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology    
P.O. Box 19367        | http://www.cptech.org 
Washington, DC 20036  | love@cptech.org       
Voice 202/387-8030    | Fax 202/234-5176     
=============================================