[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] .UNION Top-level domain name
Well, it is clear that people on this list are not generally aware of
the various proposals being considered by the labor community for the
use of the .union domain. And without speaking for anyone in
particular, I can report that one proposal is to use the .union TLD as a
gateway to links to bargaining units, when it is used in connection with
a company or a product. Thus, every union that represented workers at
Boeing, worldwide, could have a link to boeing.union. However, it does
seem to me that this will be something for the unions to sort out.
This of course would not be the only use for a .union TLD, but it would
be a very important one. If people really want to discussion union
organizing strategies on this list, we can get into this in more detail.
(I assume it may be a bit outside of the scope of wg-b).
I can also report that the gateway concept is being considered for other
non commerical TLDs that would work with a particular company, product
or organization name. For example, the environmental community is
looking at different models for TLDs that would work in connection in a
product or company name. Consumer groups have been talking about
.complaints or .customer in connection with a product or company name,
in various proposals, some modeled after the "Citizens Utility Boards"
that exist in some states now, others proposals are diffferent.
People may like or dislike these proposals for a variety of reasons. But
I don't think it can be said that they would undermine the legitimate
interests of trademark owners. Of course, there is also the .sucks
proposed TLD (by more than one group), and this also would work with a
company or product name.
In Cario, the various proponents of various famous name lists, said that
they thought that these uses should not be excluded, and that their
objective was to keep something like exxon from begin registered in
exxon.web, exxon.biz, exxon.ps etc, by parties other than Exxon.
I am pointing out that there exists a class of TLDs that by their very
nature involve speech, comment or some other legitimate reasons to use
the company or product name. I don't think it is in the interests of
the trademark community to oppose these other issues, and seek overly
broad exclusions of the use of company or product name in a domain.
I will raise this issue in the non-commerical constituency list, and ask
for a resolution on this point, and I will also ask the 64 member Trans
Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (the TABD counterpart) for a resolution on
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
> From: Michael D. Palage <email@example.com>
> To: Wg-B@Dnso. Org <firstname.lastname@example.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 | email@example.com
Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176