- ALAC - lists.icann.org

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

.post Agreement Amendment Request
by Alan Greenberg April 10, 2012

April 10, 2012

.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. 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-2012-09apr12-en.…>here. >Public Comment Box Link: ><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.… >

3 3

Fake Renewal Notices Report - Draft ALAC Comment
by Alan Greenberg April 3, 2012

April 3, 2012

As requested, I have posted a draft ALAC statement on the Fake Renewal Notice Report - https://community.icann.org/x/J6-bAQ Olivier has informed me that comments on this draft can be submitted on the Wiki until Wednesday, 11 April 2012 @ 23:59 UTC. I am also sending this note to the At-Large mailing list but feel free to re0distribute to regional lists if you choose. Alan

1 0

Fake Renewal Notices Report - Comment period
by Alan Greenberg March 28, 2012

March 28, 2012

I call your attention to the report on Fake Renewal Notices. There is a comment period open until April 20th. http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/fake-renewal-notices-report-21m… Since this is a topic relevant to individual registrants, and since one of the recommendations suggests referring the issue to the ALAC, I believe it is essential that the ALAC issue a comment. I would be happy to draft a comment if so requested. I have opened a Confluence page at https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/gTLD+Fake+Renewal+Notices+Report. I am also sending this note to the At-Large mailing list. Alan

2 1