Re: [ALAC] .post Agreement Amendment Request
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-amend.... 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@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.htm>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.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/post-amendment-2012-09apr12-en.htm
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@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+(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
On 10/04/2012 23:43, Alan Greenberg wrote :
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-amend....
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.
Although not with any specific knowledge, this of course would apply to any domains which were registered after ICANN's birth. I don't recall UK.COM, for example, to have had to ask anyone at the time it was created, circa 1996. I can recall many other 2-letter 2nd level domain names pre-dating ICANN that would clash with ccTLDs -- some also causing problems at the time due to the bidirectional nature of addresses at some point. (yes, parsing was done in the 2 directions) But then everything in the UK is done differently, starting with a ccTLD that's not an ISO3166 country code. :-) Kind regards, Olivier
At 10/04/2012 08:01 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
On 10/04/2012 23:43, Alan Greenberg wrote :
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-amend....
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.
Although not with any specific knowledge, this of course would apply to any domains which were registered after ICANN's birth. I don't recall UK.COM, for example, to have had to ask anyone at the time it was created, circa 1996. I can recall many other 2-letter 2nd level domain names pre-dating ICANN that would clash with ccTLDs -- some also causing problems at the time due to the bidirectional nature of addresses at some point. (yes, parsing was done in the 2 directions)
But then everything in the UK is done differently, starting with a ccTLD that's not an ISO3166 country code. :-)
.uk is a ccTLD and not subject to a formal contract with ICANN, so there are no rules of ICANN's making here (other than ones that are required for DNS stability and such things as IDN). For existing gTLDs, the words in the contract are that they may not register NEW ones that clash. Ones pre-dating the contracts are grand-fathered until/unless dropped. (Yes, some of us do remember "backwards" parsing - ie UK.AC.OXFORD.PHYSICS.VAX). And JANET lives on - www.ja.net) Alan
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@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-amend....
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@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.htm>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.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/post-amendment-2012-09apr12-en.htm
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@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+(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@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+(ALA...)
-- 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
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Hong Xue -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond