April 2012 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Statement on TLD Application System
by Alan Greenberg April 13, 2012

April 13, 2012

A few more details on the TAS outage. Alan ><http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-12apr12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-12apr12-en.htm > > > >Statement on TLD Application System > > > > > >12 April 2012 > >We have learned of a possible glitch in the TLD application system >software that has allowed a limited number of users to view some >other users' file names and user names in certain scenarios. > >Out of an abundance of caution, we took the system offline to >protect applicant data. We are examining how this issue occurred and >considering appropriate steps forward. > >We apologize for any concern this may have caused and will >communicate on a regular basis on our website, which can be found at ><http://newgtlds.icann.org>http://newgtlds.icann.org > >Akram Atallah >Chief Operating Officer >ICANN

1 0

Resolutions from meeting of the new gTLD Program Committee on 10 April 2012
by Alan Greenberg April 13, 2012

April 13, 2012

First actions of the new gTLD Program Committee: - No Guidebook changes to address perception of need for defensive applications, but increased education and work at 2nd level; - No Guidebook changes in response to the GNSO RC/IOC recommendations at t he top level. Alan >From: >http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12… > > >10 April 2012 > > >Note: On 10 April 2012, the Board established the New gTLD Program >Committee, comprised of all voting members of the Board that are not >conflicted with respect to the New gTLD Program. The Committee was >granted all of the powers of the Board (subject to the limitations >set forth by law, the Articles of incorporation, Bylaws or ICANN's >Conflicts of Interest Policy) to exercise Board-level authority for >any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. >The full scope of the Committee's authority is set forth in its >charter at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/new-gtld. > > > 1. Defensive Applications for New gTLDs > > >Whereas, the Board approved the New gTLD Program with protections >for certain interests and rights, and intellectual property rights >in particular >(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm) > >Whereas, the Board provided its rationale for approving the New gTLD >Program with these elements >(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm) > >Whereas, the availability of the objection process and other aspects >of the program have been actively communicated; > >Whereas, ICANN received comment describing an apparent need to >submit gTLD applications for defensive purposes to protect >established legal rights; > >Whereas, ICANN responded by establishing a public comment period to >seek input on the sources of this perception and how it could be >addressed >(http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/new-gtlds-defensive-application…) > >Whereas, ICANN held a public workshop during ICANN's public meeting >in Costa Rica to hold a community discussion regarding suggestions >raised during the comment period, and additional suggestions with >participation from the community (http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29711) > >Whereas the New gTLD Program goals include the protection of >established legal rights,; > >Whereas, a summary and analysis of public comment was performed and >the discussion in the public workshop was transcribed; > >Whereas the sense of the public discussion indicated that trademark >protections should continue to be discussed and developed for the >registration of second-level domain names and also indicated that >cybersquatting was not likely to be a significant issue in the >registration of top-level domain names; > >Whereas, ICANN is committed to reviewing the effectiveness of the >application and evaluation process, and of the safeguards put in >place to mitigate issues involved in the introduction of new gTLDs, >following the initial application round; > >Whereas, the comments indicated that significant concerns about >awareness of the protections available and that renewed efforts >should be undertaken to broadly communicate those protections to >rights holders; > >Resolved (2012.04.10.NG1), the New gTLD Program Committee thanks the >community for its participation in the discussion of this issue. > >Resolved (2012.04.10.NG2), while the New gTLD Program Committee is >not directing any changes to the Applicant Guidebook to address >defensive gTLD applications at this time, the New gTLD Program >Committee directs staff to provide a briefing paper on the topic of >defensive registrations at the second level and requests the GNSO to >consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the >second level should be undertaken; > >Resolved (2012.04.10.NG3), the New gTLD Program Committee directs >staff to continue implementing targeted communications about the >processes used and protections available in the New gTLD Program. > > >Rationale for Resolutions 2012.04.10.NG1-2012.04.10.NG3 > >[Rationale to be provided with Minutes.] > > > >2. GNSO Recommendation for Protection of Red Cross and International >Olympic Committee Names in New gTLDs > > >Resolved (2012.04.10.NG4), the New gTLD Program Committee >acknowledges receipt of the GNSO's recommendation on extending >certain protections to the Red Cross/Red Crescent and the >International Olympic Committee names at the top level. > >Resolved (2012.04.10.NG5), the New gTLD Program Committee chooses to >not change the Applicant Guidebook at this time. > > >Rationale for Resolutions 2012.04.10.NG4-2012.04.10.NG5 > >[Rationale to be provided with Minutes.]

1 0

ICANN Board resolution - 10 April 2012 - Establishment of New gTLD Program Committee
by Alan Greenberg April 13, 2012

April 13, 2012

Creation of a new Board Committee delegated to take any and all actions on behalf of the Board related to the new GTLD program. This committee excludes any Directors who have conflicts related to the program. Alan >From: >http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-10apr12-en.htm > >10 April 2012 > >Establishment of New gTLD Program Committee > > >Resolved (2012.04.10.01), the Board hereby establishes the Board New >gTLD Program Committee as follows: (i) the voting members of the >Committee will consist of: Rod Beckstrom, Cherine Chalaby, Chris >Disspain, Bill Graham, Erika Mann, Gonzalo Navarro, Ray Plzak, R. >Ramaraj, George Sadowsky, Mike Silber, and Kuo-Wei Wu; (ii) the >liaisons to the Committee will be Thomas Roessler; and (iii) the >Chair of the Committee will be Cherine Chalaby. > >Resolved (2012.04.10.02), the Board hereby delegates to the Board >New gTLD Program Committee all legal and decision making authority >of the Board relating to the New gTLD Program (for the round of the >Program, which commenced in January 2012 and for the related >Applicant Guidebook that applies to this current round) as set forth >in its Charter, which excludes those things that the Board is >prohibited from delegating by law, or pursuant to Article XII, >Section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws. > >Resolved (2012.04.10.03), all members of the New gTLD Program >Committee reinforce their commitment to the 8 December 2011 >Resolution of the Board (Resolution 2011.12.08.19) regarding Board >member conflicts, and specifying in part: "Any and all Board members >who approve any new gTLD application shall not take a contracted or >employment position with any company sponsoring or in any way >involved with that new gTLD for 12 months after the Board made the >decision on the application." > >Resolved (2012.04.10.04), the Board directs the CEO to prepare a >document setting forth a process for the creation of Board >Committees to address future situations where there may be multiple >Board members with perceived, potential or actual conflicts of >interest on an issue. > > >Rationale for Resolutions 2012.04.10.01-2012.04.10.04 > >In order to have efficient meetings and take appropriate actions >with respect to the New gTLD Program for the current round of the >Program and as related to the Applicant Guidebook, the Board decided >to create the "New gTLD Program Committee" in accordance with >Article XII of the Bylaws and has delegated decision making >authority to the Committee as it relates to the New gTLD Program for >the current round of the Program which commenced in January 2012 and >for the related Applicant Guidebook that applies to this current round. > >Establishing this new Committee without conflicted members, and >delegating to it decision making authority, will provide some >distinct advantages. First, it will eliminate any uncertainty for >conflict Board members with respect to attendance at Board meetings >and workshops since the New gTLD Program topics can be dealt with at >the Committee level. Second, it will allow for actions to be taken >without a meeting by the committee. As the Board is aware, actions >without a meeting cannot be taken unless done via electronic >submission by unanimous consent; such unanimous consent cannot be >achieved if just one Board member is conflicted. Third, it will >provide the community with a transparent view into the Board's >commitment to dealing with actual, potential or perceived conflicts. > >This resolution should have a positive impact on the community and >ICANN as a whole as the New gTLD Program Committee will be able to >take actions relating to the New gTLD Program for the current round >of the Program and as related to the Applicant Guidebook without any >question of conflict arising. No fiscal impact is anticipated as a >result of this action and there will be no impact on the security, >stability no resiliency of the domain name system.

1 0

Verisign request to implement RGP for .name
by Alan Greenberg April 12, 2012

April 12, 2012

Verisign has submitted a Registry Service request to implement a Redemption Grace Period (RGP) for .name. The general ICANN Registry Service page is http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep and the Verisign letter is at http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep/verisign-request-redempti…. The RGP currently is currently implemented for all unsponsored gTLDs except .name. The Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP recommended that all unsponsored gTLDs and all new gTLDs have the RGP and these recommendations have received Board approval. The document submitted by Verisign on March 20th requests permission to implement the RGP on all second level names, all third level names, and on e-mail forwarding. ICANN officially has 15 days in which to act but at the moment the request is still pending. As noted, under PEDNR .name would need to implement the RGP, but PEDNR was silent regarding whether this would be done at both the 2nd and 3rd level as well as e-mail forwarding. As GNSO Liaison and Chair of the PEDNR WG, I was given early notice that this request might be coming, and based on the feedback from several ExCom members, I told Verisign that the feedback was positive, but any formal ALAC statement would depend on exactly what was in the Registry Service Request. It is not yet clear when ICANN will formally approve or reject this request, but I believe that the ALAC should make a formal statement on it, preferably at the ALAC meeting next week. The recommended statement follows. Alan ===================================== The ALAC supports the Verisign request to implement the Redemption Grace Period (RGP) for .name at the 2nd and 3rd level as well as for e-mail forwarding. We note that the request states that the RGP is Registry voluntary. This is currently correct, but once the Board approved Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP recommendations are implemented, it would be mandatory for .name. For most TLDs, the RGP only applies to 2nd level registrations, and PEDNR was silent as to whether it should also apply at any other levels. The ALAC applauds Verisign for taking the initiative to begin implementation of the RPG for .name prior to it being formally required, and is particularly pleased that they have chosen to implement it at all levels at which registrations are made.

4 3

CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Verisign Request to Implement Redemption Grace Period (RPG) for .name
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 11, 2012

April 11, 2012

Dear All, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a call for comments be made on the draft "ALAC Statement on the Verisign Request to Implement Redemption Grace Period (RPG) for .name <https://community.icann.org/x/a7TbAQ>" in preparation for the start of the ALAC ratification process. The current draft can be found on the "At-Large Statement on the Verisign Request to Implement Redemption Grace Period (RGP) for .name Workspace <https://community.icann.org/x/a7TbAQ>." Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by 16-Apr-2012 23:59 UTC. Please note that ALAC will be discussing the draft Statement and voting on it during the ALAC call on 17-Apr-2012 <https://community.icann.org/x/lq7bAQ>. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN At-Large Staff E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:18 PM >To: ALAC Working List >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Verisign request to implement RGP for .name >Importance: High > >Please replace the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the proposed >statement with "We note that the request states that the RGP is >voluntary." > >Alan > >At 11/04/2012 04:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >>Verisign has submitted a Registry Service request to implement a >>Redemption Grace Period (RGP) for .name. >> >>The general ICANN Registry Service page is >>http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep and the Verisign >>letter is at >>http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep/verisign-request-redemp >>tion-grace-period-20mar12-en.pdf. >> >>The RGP currently is currently implemented for all unsponsored gTLDs >>except .name. The Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP >>recommended that all unsponsored gTLDs and all new gTLDs have the RGP >>and these recommendations have received Board approval. >> >>The document submitted by Verisign on March 20th requests permission to >>implement the RGP on all second level names, all third level names, and >>on e-mail forwarding. ICANN officially has 15 days in which to act but >>at the moment the request is still pending. >> >>As noted, under PEDNR .name would need to implement the RGP, but PEDNR >>was silent regarding whether this would be done at both the 2nd and 3rd >>level as well as e-mail forwarding. >> >>As GNSO Liaison and Chair of the PEDNR WG, I was given early notice >>that this request might be coming, and based on the feedback from >>several ExCom members, I told Verisign that the feedback was positive, >>but any formal ALAC statement would depend on exactly what was in the >>Registry Service Request. >> >>It is not yet clear when ICANN will formally approve or reject this >>request, but I believe that the ALAC should make a formal statement on >>it, preferably at the ALAC meeting next week. >> >>The recommended statement follows. >> >>Alan >> >>===================================== >> >>The ALAC supports the Verisign request to implement the Redemption >>Grace Period (RGP) for .name at the 2nd and 3rd level as well as for >>e-mail forwarding. >> >>We note that the request states that the RGP is Registry voluntary. >>This is currently correct, but once the Board approved Post Expiration >>Domain Name Recovery PDP recommendations are implemented, it would be >>mandatory for .name. For most TLDs, the RGP only applies to 2nd level >>registrations, and PEDNR was silent as to whether it should also apply >>at any other levels. >> >>The ALAC applauds Verisign for taking the initiative to begin >>implementation of the RPG for .name prior to it being formally >>required, and is particularly pleased that they have chosen to >>implement it at all levels at which registrations are made. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >>ALAC(a)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) > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)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+(A >LAC)

1 0

Fwd: [soac-discussion] Input for Monday/Thursday schedule at ICANN 44
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond April 11, 2012

April 11, 2012

FYI - this signals the return of the SO/AC common public sessions. As a reminder, these used to take place, until the time slots were used in ICANN meetings for staff briefings on hot topics such as the new gTLD process & the applicant guidebook. For an example of what an SO/AC public meeting is (might I say with *excellent* moderating from Patrick Sharry), please have a look at: http://mex.icann.org/node/2612 Please note that these are NOT the topics for the Public Forum. I am delighted that these are now back on the agenda and I hope that you will all be able to suggest topics. In order for us to speak with one voice and to avoid overwhelming Filiz Yilmaz with conflictual ideas, may I please ask that we suggest topics internally during the next two weeks, until 25th April & I liaise with Filiz to send our list by the closing date. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Message original -------- Sujet: [soac-discussion] Input for Monday/Thursday schedule at ICANN 44 Date : Wed, 11 Apr 2012 06:08:15 -0700 De : Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> Pour : soac-discussion(a)icann.org <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> Copie à : Sebastien Bachollet <sebastien.bachollet(a)icann.org> [Sent on behalf of Sébastien Bachollet] Dear SO and AC Leaders, ICANN Public Participation Committee would like to ask your input on specific subjects and topics that you would like to see during ICANN 44 Public Meeting, which can be accommodated in specific sessions. This will help to organize specific but common interest sessions that are interesting to the majority of the ICANN Community, as well as combining sessions which hopefully can support efforts for better time management for everyone. The idea is for public open sessions, where these common topics of interest can be discussed with participation from the ICANN Community openly. Receiving your input, we will see which topics can be combined in specific sessions and how they can be realized. We may need to come back to you and ask you to volunteer or nominate a Chair person for each session. Please note there will be another, separate call for topics to take place in the agenda of Public Forum at ICANN 44. This mail is for other sessions that you or your groups would like to see dedicated on other specific topics, not for Public Forum agenda topics. Please provide your suggested session topics by 28 April 2012 to Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org <mailto:filiz.yilmaz@icann.org>>. Kind regards, Sébastien Bachollet

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Verisign request to implement RGP for .name
by Alan Greenberg April 11, 2012

April 11, 2012

Please replace the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the proposed statement with "We note that the request states that the RGP is voluntary." Alan At 11/04/2012 04:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Verisign has submitted a Registry Service request to implement a >Redemption Grace Period (RGP) for .name. > >The general ICANN Registry Service page is >http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep and the Verisign >letter is at >http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep/verisign-request-redempti…. > >The RGP currently is currently implemented for all unsponsored gTLDs >except .name. The Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP >recommended that all unsponsored gTLDs and all new gTLDs have the RGP >and these recommendations have received Board approval. > >The document submitted by Verisign on March 20th requests permission >to implement the RGP on all second level names, all third level >names, and on e-mail forwarding. ICANN officially has 15 days in >which to act but at the moment the request is still pending. > >As noted, under PEDNR .name would need to implement the RGP, but >PEDNR was silent regarding whether this would be done at both the 2nd >and 3rd level as well as e-mail forwarding. > >As GNSO Liaison and Chair of the PEDNR WG, I was given early notice >that this request might be coming, and based on the feedback from >several ExCom members, I told Verisign that the feedback was >positive, but any formal ALAC statement would depend on exactly what >was in the Registry Service Request. > >It is not yet clear when ICANN will formally approve or reject this >request, but I believe that the ALAC should make a formal statement >on it, preferably at the ALAC meeting next week. > >The recommended statement follows. > >Alan > >===================================== > >The ALAC supports the Verisign request to implement the Redemption >Grace Period (RGP) for .name at the 2nd and 3rd level as well as for >e-mail forwarding. > >We note that the request states that the RGP is Registry voluntary. >This is currently correct, but once the Board approved Post >Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP recommendations are implemented, >it would be mandatory for .name. For most TLDs, the RGP only applies >to 2nd level registrations, and PEDNR was silent as to whether it >should also apply at any other levels. > >The ALAC applauds Verisign for taking the initiative to begin >implementation of the RPG for .name prior to it being formally >required, and is particularly pleased that they have chosen to >implement it at all levels at which registrations are made. > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)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+(AL…

1 0

Re: [ALAC] .post Agreement Amendment Request
by Alan Greenberg April 11, 2012

April 11, 2012

As I discovered when replying to Hong's comment, as far as I can find, there are no rules in the new gTLD Registry agreement about using non-CC TLDs at the second level. If anyone knows that I am wrong, please point me to the contract rule. So (presuming no error on my part) if there were a .sport, edu.sport would be a valid registration. Of course, old, new and prospective TLD registries (could attempt to get these 2nd level names during a sunrise-process I guess. Alan At 10/04/2012 05:23 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Um, well...seems to me that a partial removal of the current >restriction might be appropriate here. May even help 'em survive the >leaner times ahead. And by default, add a little competition to the space. > >I can see my way to let 'em register, for example, jm.post. I could >sell that as a revenue-share opportunity or, as an extreme, >preparatory for the day when your plain old letter-handling post >office is no more. Notice this position is presumed on ccTLD >cooperation. Need collaborative work from the start to design and >agree the business process. > >Add .CAT to the list of those that might be considered....maybe. > >But right now I cannot see let 'em at .aero, .arpa, .museum, .com, >.biz etc. Too gimmicky...and spammy. > >But I stand to be convinced. > >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > >.post is asking to be allowed to use 2nd level domains which match >all of the TLDs. 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.iana.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-2012-0 > 9apr12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/post-amendment-2012-09apr12-en.…>here. > >Public Comment Box Link: > ><<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/post-amendment-2012-0 > 9apr12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/post-amendment-2012-09apr12-en.…>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/post-amendment-2012-09apr12-en.… > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)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+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] .post Agreement Amendment Request
by Alan Greenberg April 11, 2012

April 11, 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(a)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-amen…. > > > > 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@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)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.…>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.…>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/post-amendment-2012-09apr12-en.… > >> > > >>_______________________________________________ > >>ALAC mailing list > >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)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+(AL… > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>-- > >>Evan Leibovitch > >>Toronto Canada > >>Em: evan at telly dot org > >>Sk: evanleibovitch > >>Tw: el56 > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)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+(AL… > > > >-- >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

1 0

Re: [ALAC] .post Agreement Amendment Request
by Alan Greenberg April 11, 2012

April 11, 2012

The current restriction is for ALL TLDs in the list, both cc and generic. The requested change eliminates the entire restriction. See http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/mobi/proposed-post-amen…. 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@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)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.iana.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-2012-0 > 9apr12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/post-amendment-2012-09apr12-en.…>here. > >Public Comment Box Link: > ><<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/post-amendment-2012-0 > 9apr12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/post-amendment-2012-09apr12-en.…>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/post-amendment-2012-09apr12-en.… > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)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+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto Canada >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56 >

3 3