[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] .UNION Top-level domain name
From: James Love <email@example.com>
To: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> It should not surprise Dr. Berryhill or others on
> this list that there smart people in the union community that are also
> thinking of these and many other issues.
There's no shortage of clever people. My only point is that ICANN is
advertised to be an administrator of "narrow technical" issues. Hence, if
there is a technical decision to be made, then it should be made on the
technical merits, not political considerations.
> Dr. Berryhill seems to have staked out a position, namely that unions
> should have no claim on the use of .union, and could not even restrict
> its use for union purposes if they were the registry.
I would prefer to characterize my own positions rather than to have them
summarized in a way that is not at all consistent with my point. There are
lovely technical reasons to have chartered and/or non-chartered TLDs. If
one of them is .union, then that would be great, wonderful and fine with me.
If the unions want to bust heads over their own version of the domain
dispute sweepstakes, that's fine too. But there is no reason to consider
this singular proposal as by any means special or different from any of the
other TLD proposals which were put forward and proceeding toward
implementation before IAHC, excuse me, ICANN and a squadron of utterly
clueless newbie lawyers decided that the progress of technology needed to
stand still for them.
Now, if I want to form a group of people and call ourselves the Mailing-List
Compulsives Union, whose blessing am I going to need to get a domain name?
John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.