Group forms to object to .jobs expansion.
A group calling itself The .JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition is asking ICANN’s board to reconsider its decision to open up the .jobs top level domain name to non-company name registrations. The coalition’s members include major employment web sites such as Monster and CareerBuilder, along with a number of associations.
In a letter (pdf) to the Committee of the Board on Reconsideration, the group argues that:
-The .jobs phased allocation program violates the .jobs charter
-The members of the coalition will be harmed by the by the expansion of the .JOBS space beyond employers without any of the customary and usual protections against abusive and infringing registrations
-Other people will also be harmed by the expansion
-The board’s decision should be stayed pending the outcome of reconsideration
-ICANN’s staff-prepared comment summary was flawed
A number of job boards have been vocal opponents of the plan. Much of the opposition suggests that the purpose and charter of .jobs (an sTLD) has been violated. But I suspect we’ll see more of this sort of backlash as new top level domains are introduced in the coming years.
This is a very interesting development and a natural (as well as expected) consequence of introducing more tld’s into the current internet space. Or, in this case, simply relaxing prior restrictions on a tld so that it becomes more available.
There is nothing simple about this issue. I expect the new gtld proposal of ICANN will cause many more similar conflicts. The legal system is going to be fueled for a long time to come.
I doubt they will succeed to stop the new TLD (maybe, it’s best if they join to it)
@ GooStation – I think they might feel like they’re being held up by the registry. The allocation of the domains doesn’t appear objective; they’re looking for RFP’s from people that want to do business deals with them. So if Monster wants Monster.jobs in the first phase, they have to convince the registry that they are worthy.
Enter the U.S. Congress…and Obama
funny its not their jobs 😉
The ultimate issue here is simply fear of competition.
Companies like Monster and CareerBuilder already have their .jobs domains. Like all .jobs registrants, their use is restricted to advertising job openings at the company itself, not job openings at third-party companies.
the owner of a descriptive domain, like morticianjobs.com, might see direct competition. They do not have a trademark for “mortician” or “morticianjobs”and therefore cannot claim rights to mortician.jobs. Though nothing is stopping them from submitting a proposal to Employ Media for it.
“The ultimate issue here is simply fear of competition.”
That’s strikes me as an oversimplification. Yes, it is about “competition”, but competition from whom?
While I’m not familiar with all of the details, your characterization does not seem to capture the tenor of the objections which were posted during the public comment period.
Please correct me if I misunderstand, but the point was not that .jobs would open up competition among employment agencies, but there seemed to be an aroma of the registry itself leveraging the TLD to participate in that competition.
If the registry were going to provide neutral registry services to whomever happened to register mortician.jobs, that’s one thing.
But the comparison to .com is not so facile, when we reach your point of “submitting a proposal to Employ Media”.
What that suggests is that an element of the question of “who gets mortician.jobs” is Employ Media asking “what’s in it for me?” As between two comparable mortician placement services with all other things being equal, if what you are saying is mortician.jobs is going to the service that offers the registry more juice, then dismissing objections as “fear of competition” doesn’t quite capture the basis of the objections.
But I agree… there’s a lot of “stiff competition” in the mortician business, which was my third choice occupation. But when I wanted to use the slogan, “We put the ‘fun’ in funeral”, it was suggested I seek another occupation.