ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index    

Summary/analysis of comments posted

  • To: <stld-rfp-post@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Summary/analysis of comments posted
  • From: "Kieren McCarthy" <kieren.mccarthy@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:02:47 -0800

Posted by Kieren McCarthy, General manager of public participation, ICANN



Summary of public comments on The Universal Postal Union's (UPU) intended
business model for the proposed .post sponsored top-level domain. 


October 2007






The Universal Postal Union (UPU), applicant for sponsored .post top-level
domain, wrote to ICANN to share details of its proposed business model. The
communication was sent to ICANN to inform all ICANN constituencies and
stakeholders of the issues being discussed in the contract drafting. 


The purpose of the posting was to engage stakeholders that might have
specific questions and/or concerns about the UPU business model. 


The UPU proposes, among other things, that it be allowed supply second-level
domains to its member countries (Designated Operators, or DOs) and that they
be allowed to supply domains under them for no charge and without going
through ICANN-accredited registrars. 


This public comment period was created to invite input on the request which
would then be used in ongoing discussions. In total, two comments were


This analysis summarizes the comments from the online forum. Where possible
and practical, individual comments have been attributed to individuals or
organizations by attaching initials to the comments.  A key to the initials
used can be found at the end.



General comments


One commenter stressed that ICANN should pay close attention to the
precedent of keeping uniformity between all registry contracts [JN]. 


The second outlined a series of concerns [CC]:


* That the approach might be confusing to consumers by departing from the
norm for country codes

* That there was no mention of a system for trademark holders to reserve
particular names

* That it was not clear who would handle domain disputes

* That if ICANN-accredited registrars did not have to be used to register
domains that clear rules be laid down to cover the behaviour of these other

* That it was not clear what the charge for registering domains would be 

* That the proposal was lacking in specific details





CC       Caroline Chicoine

JN        Jon Nevett

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index    

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy