To catch up on this topic (I admit I was way behind) you will have to follow several steps.
Step 1 Read this post by John Zappe on ere.net: Guests Invited to Hear Million Job Board Plan. My summary: Direct Employers, a “nonprofit association of employers” has invited 29 people to a meeting which will “answer questions that have come up” about the Direct Employers plan to build “tens of thousands” of new job boards using the .jobs top domain. The names of the 29 people are not revealed, but Zappe says they are “easily recognizable.” Included are “recruitment leaders,” “job board CEOs,” and “a few industry writers.”
Step 2 Read this other post by John Zappe on ere.net: A “Universe” of .Jobs Job Boards is Set to Launch. Follow carefully (it’s very twisty) and continue to the end—which is a bit challenging to common logic.
Step 3 Visit the curiously cute Employ Media sales site http://goto.jobs/. View the tutorials if you like, then click Buy Now and choose GoDaddy. There you will see a nuts-and-bolts explanation of the .jobs “rules,” available from links in the right-hand column.
Step 4 Visit the stately Direct Employers website http://www.directemployers.org/. Scroll down and click on “Enter the Universe.” Oops—apparently Universe has been sucked into a black hole. [Now fixed – Ed]
Step 5 Re-read Guests Invited to Hear Million Job Board Plan. Notice the following statement by Direct Employers Executive Director Bill Warren: “We are not so vain that we think anyone really cares about what we are doing. However, we have had many phone calls with questions about what we are doing and how we are building out the domains.”
Those two sentences do not seem to fit together comfortably. But it gets better! Scroll down and read the Comments section, which turns into a very subtle scrap among apparent stakeholders in the issue.
Since I am the outsidest possible outsider in terms of these proceedings, my only goal in the present post is to encourage attention. After a few readings of the above items (plus another Zappe post on the topic, which provides valuable background), I think I’ve figured out what the flap is all about. But your guess is just as good as mine, so I won’t attempt to interpret.
However, I will hypothesize. Suppose a not-for-profit group joined forces with a for-profit group and sort of annexed a large amount of potentially high-value territory in an area that was supposed to be controlled by a certain set of rules. Suppose other people with interests in the area asked questions about this, but couldn’t get very good answers. Suppose it was all awfully important to begin with, but—since everything moves so darn fast these years!—it may turn out to be somewhat irrelevant in the end.
According to the Comments exchange noted above, the names of the invitees were not publicized as a matter of courtesy. And it appears many of them were expected to be otherwise engaged at the time of the scheduled meeting, while Warren expects to be otherwise engaged at the time of a public forum where matters might have been clarified to a larger audience. So it doesn’t look as if there will be an outcome to this story any time soon. But it’s definitely worth knowing about . . .
Latest posts by Cynthia Giles (see all)
- A Nice Place to Work . . . - January 27, 2011
- Economies of Scale: Small Business Resources for Big Business Ideas - November 8, 2010
- The Global Gender Gap Report - November 3, 2010
- Alphabetical Order: More about the Candidate Experience - October 14, 2010
- The (In)Famous Candidate Experience - October 5, 2010