Comments on ".POST Sponsorship Agreement"

[Patrick Mevzek <contact@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Following the ICANN announcement at
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-02nov09-en.htm
please find below my comments related to
http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/post/post-summary-of-provisions-02nov09-en.pdf
 


In summary I mostly disagree with all provisions, for themselves, and
the fact of granting .POST such broad specific treatment.

Here is some background to explain my views.

As a long time attendee of ICANN events I remember quite a few years
ago .POST presentations explaining how this TLD will revolutionize
the world, with postal mail to email gateways, email to postal mail
gateways, global tracking of postal packages by all carriers directly
on the domain name level, and so on.

Since then, nothing happened. And I'm afraid to think that it is now
even too late, and that this TLD will perish even before having
started. 
After so many years without any news, in the last few months we do
hear back from .POST with some correspondence about contractual
problems and now this period of comments related to a new specific
contract for .POST

After this announcement, some people thought the new gTLD program
already started, without remembering that .POST was already allocated
in a previous round.
It also shows that this comment period did not attract any comment at
all, while the new DAGv3 did attract a lot of activity, and I'm sure
it is not only because the email address to comment was wrong on
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#post
(it was displayed as: post-agreement-2009@xxxxxxxxx@icann.org 
notice the double @icann.org)

This is why I fear that even if this TLD launches it will have the
competition of all the new gTLDs and have very few chances of
success.

This strongly shows that for the new gTLDs clear provisions should be
put in place so that the registry has to start before some given time
after the contract has been signed. Otherwise some TLDs will be
applied for only as defensive measures without any use, and some
other registries will try to drag things because of contractual
problems.

Now back to the specific .POST
.POST sponsor was aware of the kind of contract it would need to sign
with ICANN before even asking for this TLD. If it identifies some
points that are problems due to its nature, it could have started to
work on that just at the time the TLD has been accepted (or even
before) and not like 5 years after, just because suddenly the new
gTLD program is starting to take shape.
Even more, if the sponsor has some difficulties with the ICANN
contract, it could have chosen right at the beginning to have some
other entities, a NGO or a private sector company, either new one
created just for that purpose or an existing one, be the registry
instead of the UPU itself. Like ISOC created PIR to manage the .ORG
gTLD.

Because of this, I find no reasons to give UPU specific treatments,
even more because any change in this specific gTLD contract may be
requested later on by other registries.


* "Conflicts between the Terms of the Agreement and International
Law"
It is not something new that some parts of ICANN contracts do violate
various states laws, specifically regarding registrant privacy
rights.
So there should not be specific exemptions for .POST, but ICANN
should study globally, for all registries and all registrars, how to
reconciliate its broad international contract with local laws.

* "Transition of the TLD"
It could be argued that the situation is the same for some other
gTLDs, such as .MOBI, .MUSEUM, .COOP, .TEL, .CAT, etc.
No reason to let UPU have specific right to decide if its successor
pleases him or not.

* "IP Rights in Data"
No reason that .POST should have more rights in data that any other
gTLD.

* "Damages for Failure to Perform in Good Faith"
ICANN should have ways to correct registries problems and
misbehaviours in good faith or not, and I do not see why .POST should
be exempt from ICANN overview.

* "Arbitration"
This can be accepted broadly, meaning that it should then apply to
all registries.
So either this clause to move arbitration to Geneva is applied at the
same time for all registries, or none of them.

* "Tax Matters"
This could maybe be accepted, but should be detailed. So it should be
rejected for lack of details.

* "Indemnification" same as "Damages for Failure to Perform in Good
Faith", no reason for specific treatment in .POST


As a conclusion my comment would be that ICANN either gives .POST the
same contract with all registries, and if it can not be signed in the
next 2 months, then .POST should be given to another applicant, or
put back in the group of available TLD strings in the future gTLD
round.


-- 
Patrick Mevzek
Dot and Co <http://www.dotandco.com/> <http://www.dotandco.net/>
<http://www.dotandco.net/ressources/icann_registrars/prices>
<http://icann-registrars-life.dotandco.net/>