[ALAC] .post Agreement Amendment Request

Wed Apr 11 04:26:38 UTC 2012

This is a request from the .post sponsor and if approved, would apply 
only to .post.

With regard to non-cc TLDs, as far as I can see, the new gTLD 
Registry Agreement has no rules regarding the use of other TLDs at 
the second level.

Alan

At 10/04/2012 09:45 PM, Hong Xue wrote:
>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?
>
>Hong
>
>
>
>
>See
> > 
> http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/mobi/proposed-post-amendment-07dec11-en.pdf.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > 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
> >>postal service.
> >>
> >>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
> >>level domains.
> >>
> >>- Evan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>I presume that their specific interest is to be
> >>allowed to use the ccTLDs, giving them roots such as:
> >>.ca.post
> >>.uk.post
> >>.au.post and so forth, although it would also include all of the
> >>gTLDs (presumably current and future). The current list is at
> >><http://data.iana.org/TLD/tlds-alpha-by-domain.txt>http://data.ian 
> a.org/TLD/tlds-alpha-by-domain.txt.
> >>
> >>Alan
> >>
> >> >.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
> >> ><<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/post-amendment-201 
> 2-0>> 
> 9apr12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/post-amendment-2012-09apr12-en.htm>here.
> >> >Public Comment Box Link:
> >> ><<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/post-amendment-201 
> 2-0>> 
> 9apr12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/post-amendment-2012-09apr12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/post-amendment-2012-09apr12-en.htm
> >> >
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>ALAC mailing list
> >><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >>
> >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> >>ALAC Working Wiki:
> >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Com 
> mittee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Evan Leibovitch
> >>Toronto Canada
> >>Em: evan at telly dot org
> >>Sk: evanleibovitch
> >>Tw: el56
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> > 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
>http://www.iipl.org.cn/
>19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
>Beijing 100875 China