Dan Yager writes:>LPA believes that a .union TLD,
such as nike.union, is significantly different in character than .museum or .edu,
which are primarily benign TLDs dedicated to providing information.<
A .union TLD
would probably of necessity need to be chartered and restricted. That restriction
could include company names. Companies would no doubt use the UDRP to go after them
anyway. Whichever union(s) represent nike workers would presumably register under
their legal name and perhaps a variant or two, eg: teamsters.union.
>By contrast,
a .union TLD would be inherently adversarial and advocacy related because of the
nature of union-employer relations.<
An organization representing business interests
advocating the non-creation of a .union domain can be seen as adversarial.
>This
does not even begin to address the issue of what the chartering entity would be.
Already, it appears that disputes have arisen between the AFL-CIO in the United States,
and the international trade union movement regarding control and management of such
a site.<
This should be no concern of yours, mine (unless I'm a union member or
wish to visit a .union site), or ICANNs. If the unions can't get their act together
to come up with an agreed upon charter then there either won't be .union sites (which
will have no negative impact on the DNS) or there will be lawsuits, etc. amongst
unions. If ICANN creates a .union TLD and leaves it up to the unions to police it,
then they are perhaps saving themselves from being party to such suits. Should it
be up to third parties to decide if .edu or .mil or .gov are being managed properly?
If the unions make a mess of .union that's their problem.
Opposing the creation
of a .union domain because it 'might' cause problems between unions, or 'might' confuse
workers (are there existing union websites that are now confusing workers?) isn't
a part of ICANN's mandate
>LPA's complete comments to ICANN may be viewed
on LPA's web site.<
Your link seemed to be incorrect. The apparently correct one
is below.