>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 15:34:08 -0800 >Reply-To: Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sender: Owner-Domain-Policy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Organization: INEGroup Spokesman >Subject: [DOMAIN-POLICY] [IPN] Friday's dot union briefing >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >All, > > SOme info on fridays meeting on the.union proposal from >Jamie Love to ICANN/DOC/NTIA > >========================================= >Subject: > [IPN] Friday's dot union briefing > Date: > Sat, 01 Apr 2000 14:00:48 -0500 > From: > James Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Organization: > http://www.cptech.org > To: > info-policy-notes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >On Friday, March 31, I attended a briefing on the issue of the .union >internet top level domain (TLD). The meeting was organized by Manon >Ress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. There were 17 participants, including the >union members and the speakers. I was one of the speakers, as were >Becky Burr and Mark Bohannon from the US Department of Commerce and >Michael Palage, who is Chair of ICANN's working group B on trademark >issues. The AFC-CIO and a number of unions attended. > >The meeting was organized for informational purposes, and it was >probably the first meeting of its type as it relates to the creation of >new TLDS for labor unions. In the beginning, it was made clear by the >union representatives that they were gathering information, to see if >the union community had interests that should be represented in the >ICANN process, and if unions would become involved in efforts to create >a .union TLD. > >I started off by providing backgrond on the DNS system and some of the >policy issues that ICANN was addressing in the discussions over new >TLDs. I talked about our earlier proposal to create several new TLDs, >incuding .union, for a variety of civil society purposes. I indicated >that we had raised these issues in the ICANN process to insure that >decisions on issues such as the use of famous names would not forclose >the use of a company or product name in connection with various domains >that were related to organizing workers, consumers and for criticisms. >(i.e., boeing.union, nike.union, texaco.isnotfair, aol.sucks, etc). I >said that while we had raised the issue of the .union domain, in order >to address various ICANN policy discussions, we thought the unions >themselves should control .union (a view not shared by everyone in the >ICANN processs). > >I said there were currently 244 country code TLDS, and 7 TLDs outside of > >the country codes, including 4 that were restricted (.int, .gov, .edu >and .mil) and 3 that were unrestricted (.com, .net and .org), and that >from a technical point of view, the system could accomodate hundreds of >thousands if not millions more TLDs. The issues regarding expansion of >the TLD space were political, not technical. > >I provided some examples of different ways the .union domain might be >used. The first would be to provide a way to indicate if a domain was >controlled by a bona fide union, just like .gov or .edu does for the >government or real higher degree granting educational institutions. It > >could also be used to provide a predictable location for information >about union information for a particular firm. For example, at gm.union > >or microsoft.union, workers could find links to unions that were >organizing workers at that company. In the common situation where there > >were more than one union, the TLD could provide for gateways to each >union's information (such as is done for http://www.scrabble.com now, to > >accomodate different owners of the scrabble trademark in the US and and >Canada (Hasbro) and elsewhere (Mattel), an example that Michael Palage >had provided. Unions could also create sites like hotels.union, >printers.union, airlines.union or supermarket.union, to provide their >members and the public with links to unionized businesses, or >information about unions issues or campaigns in these areas. These were > >only a few of the possible uses of a TLD. > >I said that ICANN would be deciding, relatively soon, the rules for new >TLDs, and that there were important issues, such as the ability to >restrict the registration, or the use of company name >(worldcom.union). > >Becky Burr and Mark Bohannon from DOC then make presentations. Becky >expanded the background of the Green Paper and White Paper, the ICANN >process, how .edu and .us worked, and other items. Mark Bohannon then >went on an extended discussion of why unions might not need .union. >Mark said they could do everything they needed by using the .org >domain. They didn't need boeing.union, he said, if they could get >boeingunion.org (assuming Boeing or someonelse didn't buy it first). >The AFLCIO already had aflcio.org, so they could be found on the >Internet, without a .union TLD. IMO, the suggestion that unions could >be happy sharing .org with everyone, saving themselves the trouble of >getting .union, was not particularly well recieved, although there were >differences of views among the participants. > >The union members wanted to know if it would be possible for a non-union > >group to get the .union TLD. Becky told the meeting that if the AFLCIO >wanted to block someone from getting .union, they could. Mark and Becky > >also said that if the unions wanted .union, they could probably do it, >but that they would have to provide a consensus proposal (consensus >among stakeholders, in this case the labor movement), it would have to >address the international aspect of ICANN, and it would have to follow >the rules laid down by ICANN and DOC on issues such as intellectual >property and disclosure of the names of domain owners. > >Some union members wanted to know about alternative root systems and to >talk about the issues of ICANN's power and control over the Internet. >Becky and Mark said that they did not want to stop people from >experimenting with these alternatives at this time, but that they were >not practical. > >Michael Palage provide an explanation of the ICANN working group B >process and the trademark issues. Michael make distinctions between the > >trademark issues for a domain like .biz and domains like .union, in >terms of the appropriate use of a trademarked name in connection with a >TLD. Michael also provided a very good explanation of the value of a >TLD to the union community, the "union label" was the phrase Michael and > >several others used in the meeting. He gave pretty straight answers to >questions about the ICANN process, and responded to a number of >interesting technical questions raised by the union members. He said >the key to success in the ICANN process was to minimize enemies, and he >did not appear to have made any enemies at the this meeting. > >Given the fact that this was an informational meeting, I don't think it >is appropriate for me to report on the details of the discussions among >the union members, and in any event, the speakers were asked to leave at > >one point so the unions could talk about this in private. > >However, I can report that there were a range of opinions expressed >during and before the meeting. There were some differences among the >union members in terms of their backgrounds, but they were very well >prepared, and knew quite a bit about the topic. The opinions seemed to >range everywhere from "this isn't very important and would be a >distraction" to "this could fundamentally change the labor movement." > >Some union members are clearly thinking that the .union TLD could be >used very effectively in organizing efforts, particularly if new digital > >signature initiatives permit online organizing and even voting. Also, >some members think it has the potential to enhance cooperation among >unions, including among unions in different countries, in dealing with a > >single company. Others are uncomfortable with the larger ambitions. > > Jamie Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >======================================================= >James Love, Director | http://www.cptech.org >Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >P.O. Box 19367 | voice: 1.202.387.8030 >Washington, DC 20036 | fax: 1.202.234.5176 >======================================================= > > >Regards, > >-- >Jeffrey A. Williams >Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) >CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. >Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Contact Number: 972-447-1894 >Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ph-1.613.473.1719 It's about travel on expense accounts to places with good beer. - BKR
