Re: [ga] .post and the GNSO Council
- To: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] .post and the GNSO Council
- From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 15:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=icMawN67YdDsydBPVuV2+AoilOD4fbDcHHEEqeJlJVEotP8zI2y7IZHX6ZnCS7lmcJqAbcvCX5+ndwxMkHQrG4kLLlnKPRxxeSKQJ5W7YUwLP+wPA044R79tgSDzXUeYiBexFJm8Z443Gag1Bfw2iFpUA8dOSREaHYCrmK0xxm4=;
- In-reply-to: <46E2F72F.email@example.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The .post application also raises some other
Under the Council-ratified recommendations "Strings
must not infringe the existing legal rights of others
that are recognized or enforceable under generally
accepted and internationally recognized principles of
At issue then is whether the rights of the UK's
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)
will be infringed by this TLD.
Or what about the rights of the California Commission
on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)?
Or the rights of the Peninsula Open Space Trust
Or the rights of the Pacific Ocean Shelf Tracking
Or the rights of the New York Post, or the Washington
Post, or the China Post or the hundreds of other POSTs
in the newspaper business?
More importantly, do any of these organizations even
have rights at the top level of the domain name
system? Why are we assuming that such rights exist?
Is it our intent to cripple the DNS just to placate
the trademark interests?
--- Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Of course, one might wonder why the "Universal"
> (really?) "Postal Union"
> wants its own TLD when .int is expressly for such
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.