.POST Comments [DO NOT APPROVE]
- To: <stld-rfp-post@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: .POST Comments [DO NOT APPROVE]
- From: "Gagan Patnaik" <gp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 04:59:45 -0700
I take this opportunity to thank ICANN and the organizers of this forum for
receiving public comments on proposed sTLDs. My comments specifically relate to
proposed [.post] sTLD.
In brief, the proposed [.post] sTLD should not be approved as proposed.
1. The proposal lacks specifics. As a sponsored TLD, [.post] must be used
within that community only, the postal community. Examples of this would be
similar in scope to [.aero] and [.museum]. Yet, the proposal ambitiously
describes extending benefits to "the postal industry, the vendor industry and
the global user industry." Now, what is a "user industry?"
2. The proposal promises to deliver fantastic services that would magically
appear if [.post] is attached to a domain ("secure," "trusted," etc., are the
guarantees being promised in the proposal, where as, no such guarantee can
realistically be expected even today from experienced network providers.
The sponsors have not shown demonstrated prior ability to carry out their
proposed goals. Domain expertise is lacking: the postal authorities are good at
delivering surface mail, where as, electronic mail and related services call
for entirely different skillset, or at least experience.
Granted, the sponsor can outsource provisioning of such services to contractors
who would provide actual services. But that is already being done by others.
Why infringe on others' similar, ongoing, service delivery models?
3. ICANN should be extra careful when considering granting [.post] sTLD to an
entrenched monopoly such as the postal services. The United States Postal
Service (USPS), the U.S. DPO in UPU parlance, is a quasi-government monopoly.
The postal authorities of almost every other country are government controlled
monopolies. So far, these entities have not succeeded in the free market arena
of service delivery on the Internet. The question is then of competition. These
entities have resources, but have not innovated. Part of the reason is that
postal services' core-competency is physical delivery services. That does not
mean that postal service monopolies should also be guaranteed their stake on
the Internet based mail [postal] service delivery. The proposal claims to be
the most qualified to offer such services.
This raises significant antitrust issues, for which ICANN should also be
extra-careful in cooperating.
Case-in-point: the [.post] proposal goes beyond the limited use within the
postal community to extend services to convert street-addresses to electronic
form. This is precisely what my company has been developing for more than the
past two years and is ready to provide. Our business operated within the ICANN
approved ccTLD based address creation. For more information,
please visit http://www.e-nivas.us/~demosite/index.html.
This sTLD should not be approved.
For further information please contact me at gp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
US Home Registrar
110 West C Street, Suite 1300
San Diego, CA 92101