Leah and all, I believe that we are in complete agreement here wit respect to the LPA letter to the ICANN Board and staff. It is indeed insulting and IMHO wrong headed. Politically speaking it could make some headway though as it is inherently negative towards Unions. As you likely know, negative politics and the media seem to go hand in hand and plays well with the public at large, as was clearly shown with the Clinton scandal. The same could happen here, but most likely on a much smaller scale in this instance... THe ICANN Board and staff could take advantage of the use of negative politics as it did with NSI in the past in this situation with the potential .UNION gTLD being managed or controlled by the Labor Unions. It is for this and other reasons we [INEGroup] believe that a light weight approach to determining registries and new TLD's should prevail or predominate any ICANN policy regarding Registries in general. If not the DNS wars will most likely take a turn for the worse, and I don't like the various potential of that occurring. I personally have no direct affiliations with unions or a position on them one way or another generally speaking. Some unions are good ones and others are not. The fact remains that they are a necessary evil IMHO and have been for over half a century in the USA anyway. So to deny them a gTLD of .UNION should they so choose to run a registry for .UNION would seem both politically unpalatable and frankly in violation of the tradition of the Internet to date. J&L Enterprises ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Dear Mr. Williams, > > My comments here are not necessarily to be taken as for or against > having a .union TLD. I have not made up my mind whether I would > be in favor of it or not at this point. I tend to think we do not need > it, but am neutral at the moment. The comments are more to > address the obvious intent of the LPA as typical of big business in > this endeavor to control the new TLD,s as much as taking control of > the ICANN policies and the UDRP to the detrement of domain name > holders. > > I hope I have made myself abundantly clear. The LPA letter > insulted my intelligence. > > "LPA is an association of the senior human resource executives of > more than 200 leading corporations in the United States. LPA’s > purpose is to ensure that U.S. employment policy supports the > competitive goals of its member companies and their employees. > LPA member companies employ more than 12 million employees, or > 12 percent of the private sector U.S. workforce. > > Well, duh... Who represents the other 88 percent? Sheesh! > > "LPA members have a substantial interest in making sure that > employees receive accurate information about whether they are > represented by a union or not. " > > Well, duh again! Sure they do. It's called propaganda control and > disinformation. > > "The addition of a .union top-level domain could prematurely > undermine employee confidence in the use of the Internet as a tool > for communicating with employees. " > > Now, give me a major break. Having been in the work force as well > as having been an employer, for well over 30 years, I can tell you > that most employees are not so backward that they cannot make > up their own minds about what to believe on the net. Nor are they > so stupid they can't see what an organization is trying to "sell." An > organization can be the employer as well as the "union." Been > there, done that. > > Besides which, it does not matter whether there is a chartered TLD > or not. Unions will post their information or misinformation in any > TLD, just as the major corporations do on their intranets. I just > "love" the "benevolent dictator" who must think for his serfs, don't > you? > > "I. The Creation of a .union TLD Would Create Confusion and > Administrative Problems > > "LPA believes that a .union TLD would create more problems than > benefits and should be dropped from consideration, particularly at > this stage of domain name expansion. The creation of a .union TLD > could confuse employees, especially those who are not familiar with > union organizing procedures. " > > When did the public become unaware of union "procedures" > (tactics)? AND when did employees become brainless? Perhaps a > little "confusion" may be good, not bad. It would invite questions, > certainly. > > "The .union domain name would also likely require the chartering > entity to put in place sophisticated application and management > procedures to reduce the inevitable disputes that would arise > among competing unions..." > > It probably would. However, that would become the problem to > solve by the TLD chartering entity before gaining approval. > > Yes, the battle has begun. > > Leah Gallegos > > > James and all, > > > > Well this is no small wonder here is it? It looks like the battle > > for a .UNION gTLD has begun in earnest. I hope that the Labor unions > > on a global scale will file a response to this letter. > > > > James Love wrote: > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 09:02:53 -0400 (EDT) > > > From: James Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: [Random-bits] LPA opposition to .union TLD > > > > > > The Public Policy Association of Senior Human Resource Executives, a > > > corporate group that fight labor union organization efforts, has > > > filed a 6 page letter with ICANN, opposing the creation of a .union > > > top level domain.. Jamie > > > > > > http://www.lpa.org > > > http://www.lpa.org/lpapublic/downloads/00-173_LPA_ICANN_Comments.pdf > > > > > > ============================================= > > > James Love, Consumer Project on Technology > > > P.O. Box 19367 | http://www.cptech.org > > > Washington, DC 20036 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 > > > ============================================= > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Random-bits mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits > > > > > > --- > > > You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Jeffrey A. Williams > > Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!) > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph# > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Idno-discuss mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/idno-discuss > > Leah Gallegos > Domain Names - Can Yours Be Reverse-Hijacked? Yes it can! > Join in the conversation at the DOMAINWATCH > forum http://www.delphi.com/domainwatch/start . > Help us keep free speech and free enterprise > on the Internet. > ALSO, visit http://www.TLDlobby.com. > for information, and links > re: ICANN, domain disputes, etc. > Member: http://www.applyatlarge.com > (Unofficial ICANN at large membership) > Member: http://www.domain-owners.org > http://www.jandl.com > http://www.creativecompusec.com Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph# Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
