[ga] .post and the GNSO Council
- To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [ga] .post and the GNSO Council
- From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 08:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=saHvmSC0/ggvsEBHYKUao+cfu10vssSxSrtxQFls6JFzMtqss+VkG0GeQveMttqJ1rEtDLjYI7LPQmXJXUF5ps8iZho21Wen3yDmdhzx2NadWV+gYn6p2xemrNL1haz74QmjSrIYWzTLTalZ6XxSrvJw20gE/ljbR87zWoCMAKA=;
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I find it interesting that on the very same day that
the GNSO Council votes to accept all of the new gTLD
recommendations (including #19: Registries must use
only ICANN accredited registrars) that the Universal
Postal Union puts forward a revised business plan for
.post (akin to that of .museum) that calls for the
registry to directly register a certain number of
names without using ICANN-accredited registrars.
It appears that we can continue to rely upon the
Council to thwart innovation in the namespace.
Also interesting is that the UPU will operate on a
non-profit basis and the UPU will offer a
GDP-based cost model based on each country's ability
to pay as prescribed by standard UN development
.post will rely on a number of country designated
operators (DOs) "including those that may not wish to
either seek accreditation or partner with an
existing ICANN accredited registrar".
How will the Board react to this development?
Hopefully they'll be a lot less foolish than the
members of the GNSO Council that have found
"consensus" on a really stupid recommendation.
The UPU proposal is here, and it's a good read:
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.