[ALAC] .post Agreement Amendment Request
hongxueipr at gmail.com
Wed Apr 11 01:45:22 UTC 2012
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Alan Greenberg
<alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> The current restriction is for ALL TLDs in the list, both cc and
> generic. The requested change eliminates the entire restriction.
I wonder whether the revision would be applied "prospectively" to the
new gTLD strings approved by ICANN in the future. If this second-level
"copycat" is allow, especially among gTLDs, one registry can easily
copy any other TLDs at its second-level and their business model,
would that be discouraging to innovation?
> I do note that the current restriction DOES allow them to use the two
> letter ccTLDs at the second level WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE RELEVANT
> GOVERNMENT. The change would eliminate the need to ask the government
> (for the ccTLDs). I presume if this was a perceived to be a problem,
> the GAC would weigh in on it.
> As I said in my message, my assumption is that they are particularly
> interested in the ccTLDs, but that is a presumption on my part. ALAC
> could certainly say that it has no problem with the two-character
> ccTLDs, but not the others. Personally, I don't see a real problem though.
> For the record, a brief check of registry contracts seems to indicate
> that this is a stock clause in all registry agreements, both
> sponsored and unsponsored.
> At 10/04/2012 04:17 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>>On 10 April 2012 15:51, Alan Greenberg
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>>.post is asking to be allowed to use 2nd level domains which match
>>all of the TLDs.
>>All of the TLDs (including generics) or just the two-letter CC codes?
>>That's a significant distinction to me.
>>Using the two-digit codes is perfectly legit since these are
>>international standard codes anyway. And every country has its own
>>In this context I see <ca.post> as a very positive and user-friendly
>>alternative (and easier for an international public to guess)
>>compared to <<http://canadapost.ca>canadapost.ca> and
>><postescanada,ca> so that makes perfect sense. I'd almost wonder why
>>they hadn't tried this sooner.
>>Now, if they want .com.post and .org.post I personally have a slight
>>problem with that, because it could come across as an effort to game
>>and confuse. But my objection is not enough to want to stop them,
>>because other ccTLDs such as the UK also use category-based second
>>I presume that their specific interest is to be
>>allowed to use the ccTLDs, giving them roots such as:
>>.au.post and so forth, although it would also include all of the
>>gTLDs (presumably current and future). The current list is at
>> >.post Agreement Amendment
>> >9 April 2012
>> >Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 9 April 2012
>> >Categories/Tags: Contracted Party Agreements
>> >Purpose (Brief):
>> >ICANN is posting today for public comment the Universal Postal Union
>> >(UPU) request to amend its Sponsorship TLD agreement to remove the
>> >requirement to reserve the "previously-reserved IANA domain strings"
>> >at the second level. This change in the agreement means that .post
>> >would be allowed to register, for example, biz.post, com.post,
>> >uk.post, etc. Comments may be submitted through 9 May 2012.
>> >You may access the Public Forum
>> >Public Comment Box Link:
>>ALAC mailing list
>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>ALAC Working Wiki:
>>Em: evan at telly dot org
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
Dr. Hong Xue
Professor of Law
Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
Beijing Normal University
19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
Beijing 100875 China
More information about the ALAC