.POST TLD Application
Description of TLD Policies
By signing this application through its representative, the Applicant
attests that the information contained in this Description of TLD Policies, and
all referenced supporting documents, are true and accurate to the best of
Applicant's knowledge.
_______________________________
Signature
Thomas E. Leavey
Director General
International Bureau
Universal Postal Union
_______________________________
Date
(Required for
all TLDs. Note that two special policy areas‑‑policies during the
start‑up period and restrictions on who may register within the TLD and
for what purpose‑‑are covered in sections II and III below.)
An
Executive Summary of this proposal is attached as Annex E1.
E1. In General.
Please provide a full and detailed description of all policies to be followed
in the TLD (other than those covered in response to items E11‑E21). If
the TLD's policy on a particular topic is proposed to be identical to that
reflected by a particular version of any of the following documents, it is
sufficient for your response to identify the topic, to give a brief summary of
the policy, and for the details to reference the document and section:
•
ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement
•
NSI Registrar License and Agreement
•
ICANN‑NSI Registry Agreement
•
Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy
Your response
should comprehensively describe policies on all topics to be followed in
connection with the proposed TLD. The following items (E2‑E10) are
examples only and should not limit your description.
The
.post TLD is restricted to:
1)
Postal
Administrations as defined by the Universal Postal Union (UPU), a specialised
agency of the United Nations (refer to the UPU Constitution)
2)
Alternate
Postal Administrations, if those Postal Administrations are recognised by the
legitimate government of their country as being a bona fide postal
administration
3)
For the
provision of Trusted Postal Services
and
4)
Large bona
fide users of Trusted Postal Services.
Large Bona fide users include administrations (local, national, international),
public interest organizations and commercial companies.
Trusted Postal Services are those which require one or more
of:
1)
Positive
identification of the sender (obligatory).
2)
Integrity of
message transfer (obligatory).
3)
Positive
identification of the receiver.
The
Trusted Postal Services will be used
for :
1)
eMail - trusted transmission of mail and
forms.
2)
eBusiness - trusted B2B and B2C communications
(payments, invoices, etc.).
3)
eBanking - alternative and secure internet payment
methods, statements, etc.
The
existing structure of the UPU, comprising the Council of Administration (CA)
and the Postal Operations Council (POC) will be enhanced by establishing a
.post Management Committee. The Management Committee will define all policies
regarding issuance of domain names and the operation of the .post domain.
The
Management Committee will be comprised of five members, consisting of a
representative from the UPU International Bureau and a representative from each
of the following Postal Administrations:
United States Postal Services
La Poste, France
Die Post, Switzerland
Sweden Post, on behalf of the Nordic Countries (Sweden,
Denmark, Norway, Finland)
The
.post Management Committee will
operate within a framework, to be finalised, but based on ‘cooperative’ model.
The Statutes of the Telematics Cooperative are enclosed as Annex C2.
A
working group with permanent staff and reporting to the .post Management Committee will be formed to handle the day to day
operations, notably accepting and processing applications for the use of .post.
This is the .post Accreditation Service.
All
requests for domain names under the .post TLD are made to the ‘.post Accreditation Service’, at the
Postal Technology Centre of the Universal Postal Union International Bureau or
to an organization that is certified to accredit .post domain names (.post Registrars). The certified .post Operators and Registrars will be made public on the
.post sponsor’s web site.
To
become a .post Registrar, detailed
instructions and application forms will be posted on the UPU website –
www.upu.int .
E2. TLD String.
Please identify the TLD string(s) you are proposing. For format requirements
for TLD strings, see the answer to FAQ #5.
The
TLD designator is ‘post’, synonym of
post-box, post-office, postal service in many languages. It is semantically far
from all existing TLDs, clearly conveys its scope and function and through it’s
association with Postal Administrations and confers a message of trust.
It
is sponsored by the UPU and administered by a Registry as designated by the UPU
and deemed suitable by ICANN.
The
TLD string will abide by standard internet format as found in Section 3 of RFC
1034 and Section 2.1 of RFC 1123. Only
ASCII characters will be used and will be constrained as described in FAQ#5 of
the TLD Application Process.
The
string will appear as follows:
..(subsequent
level domains)(Second Level Domain)(TLD)
E3. Naming
conventions. Describe the naming conventions and structure within the TLD. E.g.,
will registrants have names registered at the second level (directly under the
TLD, as in registered‑name.com), or will the TLD be organized with sub‑domains
so that registered domain names are created at a lower level (as in registered‑name.travel.com)?
The
naming conventions are :
a.
legal-name.post
b.
trade-mark.post
c.
generic-name.post
and
are attributed, on request, to :
1)
Postal
Administrations as defined in the UPU Constitution who are accredited by the .post Accreditation Service.
2)
Generic terms
that are relevant to the postal community (published on the .post web site).
3)
Large
customers of Postal Administrations whose requirements justify a separate
domain name.
Under
certain conditions, in addition to the ‘legal-name.post’, ‘usual-name.post’
will be assigned, subject to review by the .post
Accreditation Service and consultation with UPU members. Precedence will be
given to applicants with :
1)
ownership of
trademarks in multiple countries,
2)
a commonly
recognized equivalent ‘.com’,
3)
the absence of
conflict with UPU members and interested third parties.
The
‘legal-name’ generally contains an abbreviation corresponding to its statutes
(SA, Ltd, Inc) etc. This may be omitted if it does not lead to confusion or
ambiguity.
‘Generic-names’
will be reserved by the UPU for :
1)
names that
denote world-wide service offerings
2)
as roots for
subsequent level domains.
Subsequent level domains based on geographic criteria
are strongly solicited by the Postal Administrations, given their national
focus, presence in the entire territory and existing Postal codes. This takes
the form of the two or three digit ISO country code, the ‘usual country name’,
with sub-domains based on the official structure of the country (communes,
towns, counties, etc.).
Where the ISO country code or “logical” country or
postal name is the second level domain, all lower level domains are determined
by each country’s postal administration based on an existing and official
source for that country. They are
assigned in such manner as to facilitate the public service role of the postal
administrations.
The UPU will solicit ICANN during the
negotiation stages to determine the best way of achieving this without creating
ambiguity or confusion with the ccTLDs.
Neither ‘usual-name’ nor ‘generic-name’ should be in conflict
with an existing country specific trademark or legal name of another
organisation. ‘Usual-name’ or ‘generic-name’ that may lead to confusion with a
person should be avoided.
If there is a conflict with an internationally
accepted term which is, however, relevant to the postal community, the term
should be avoided unless:
1)
there is a
strong case to use the term
2)
consultation
with interested parties achieves a consensus.
Examples:
The following are examples of potential domain names
that may be registered:
1) The “United
States Postal Service” is both the legal name and a registered international
trademark. The domain name would be ‘united-states-postal-service.post’.
Because the ‘usual’ name and the .com is ‘usps’, a second domain would be
admitted, after consultation and verification, as ‘usps.post’.
2) The domain
‘philately.post’ would be reserved by the UPU for use as an international site
relevant to philately, providing information of general interest and links to
Postal Administration philatelic sites.
3) The domain
‘santa-clause.post’ would be used to route email addressed to Santa Clause to
the respective country Postal Administrations who handle the voluminous amount
of mail generated before Christmas.
4) The Swiss Post
would request the domains ‘la-poste-suisse.post’,
‘die-schweizerische-post.post’, and ‘la-posta-svizzera.post’ reflecting the
multi-lingual situation in Switzerland.
5) The French Post
is the registrant for ‘laposte.com, .net, .org’. This abbreviation could be in
conflict with the Swiss Post (or other francophone Postal Administrations) who
may ask for ‘la-poste.post’. The .post Accreditation Service will emit a
recommendation based on the policies. Should this not be acceptable to one of
the parties, the UPU general policies will be invoked. Should these not provide
a satisfactory outcome, the ‘Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy’
will be invoked.
6) A large
customer of La Poste, France could request the domain ‘ABC-Company.france.post’
for the purposes of assigning postal email addresses to its employees.
7) The French Post
may also create a domain ‘marseille.france.post’ to enable the creation of
postal email addresses for public officials, such as the Mayor
(mayor@marseille.france.post), or individuals
(john.citizen@marseille.france.post).
In the future, it is possible that other lower level
sub-domains will be added.
The present policies refer to the accreditation of
Postal Administrations for ‘Trusted Postal Services’. These will be expanded in
a second phase to cover additional services such as .post web sites.
E4. Registrars.
Describe in detail the policies for selection of, and competition among,
registrars. Will domain‑name holders deal through registrars, directly
with the registry operator, or some combination of the two? What are the
respective roles, functions, and responsibilities for the registry operator and
registrars? If registrars are to be employed, how and by whom will they be
selected or accredited? If the number of registrars will be restricted, what
number of registrars will be selected? Have the qualifying registrars already
been selected? On what basis will selections among those seeking to be
registrars be made, and who will make them? If registrars are to be used, what
mechanisms will be used to ensure that TLD policies are implemented?
The proposed TLD is a restricted domain. The postal administration of every country
in the world could be delegated registrar authority for the SLDs as described
in E3, subject to conformance with UPU expectations for trust and confidentiality. This delegation can be administered by a
registrar authority as determined by the postal administration.
Delegation of SLD registrar authority will be subject
to UPU oversight. This is to ensure
that postal administrations worldwide adhere to the public expectation of trust
and confidentiality for any internet entity operating under the UPU.
Alternate postal administrations within a country will
be delegated SLD registrar authority subject to the same expectations of trust
and confidentiality as for primary postal administrations.
Registrars for SLDs for worldwide service offerings
will be determined by the UPU.
In this proposal, the following entities are proposed:
1)
the .post Accreditation Service - a section
of the UPU
2)
.post Operators – Postal Administrations accredited to
use .post domain names
3)
.post Registrars – Postal Administrations accredited to
issue .post domain names
4)
ICANN-accredited Registrars – any organisation accredited by ICANN
to act as a registrar.
The
.post Accreditation Service receives
all accreditation requests from potential .post
Operators. Once the necessary agreements have been signed, the .post Operators can request domain
names from the .post Accreditation
Service. If these are approved, the .post
Accreditation Service transmits the necessary domain information to an ICANN-accredited registrar for
inclusion into the DNS and Whois.
The
UPU is the only .post Accreditation
Service and as a start, the only entity which communicates domain name
information to registrars. Initially, all domain names will be registered
through CORE.
Due
to the small number of domains which will be registered in this way, policies
for registrar selection are not deemed relevant.
A .post
Operator, however, may also chose to become a .post Registrar if it wishes to register .post domain names for its
customers. In the accreditation process to become a .post Registrar, the Postal Administration must either:
1)
be an
ICANN-accredited registrar
2)
use the
services of an existing ICANN-accredited registrar.
In addition, the ‘.post Registrar’ will have to
demonstrate its ability to apply all the TLD restrictions, policies and
necessary guarantees.
Again, because of the fairly low volumes involved and
the heterogeneous national situations, the current intention is to allow the
.post Registrar to chose its ICANN-accredited registrar – as long as the latter
abides by the ‘.post Additional Restrictions for ICANN-accredited registrars’.
This introduces a token amount of competition among registrars – but the
financial implications are modest, at best.
E5.
Intellectual Property Provisions. Describe the policies for protection of
intellectual property. Your response should address at least the following
questions, as appropriate to the TLD:
E5.1. What
measures will be taken to discourage registration of domain names that infringe
intellectual property rights?
All requests for domain names are accompanied by a
‘proof of ownership’:
1)
Inscription in
a national official register for ‘legal-name’
2)
Proof of
country specific or regional (i.e. Europe) trade mark ownership for
‘trademark.post’
3)
For
‘usual-name’ and ‘generic-name’:
a.
proof that it
is not a ‘legal-name’ in the registrants country of origin,
b.
registrant
motivation for requesting the name,
c.
consultation
with UPU member Postal Administrations.
E5.2. If you
are proposing pre‑screening for potentially infringing registrations, how
will the pre‑screening be performed?
Pre-screening is a necessary pre-requisite for a
domain name in the .post TLD. The pre-screening will be performed by the .post Accreditation Service, which
seats at the International Bureau of the UPU.
All Postal Administrations will send their
accreditation request to the UPU with the necessary ‘proof of ownership’. Since
Postal Administrations are already members of the UPU, verification is not
complex.
In the case of a request for a domain name for a
Postal Administration’s large customer, the Postal Administration must define,
with the UPU .post Accreditation Service
the criteria applicable in its national market.
(E.g.. ‘Registre du Commerce’ in Switzerland, CABIS in
France, etc.).
The UPU .post
Accreditation Service will review all documentation accompanying a request
for a .post domain name. The obligation will be on the applicant (Postal
Administration) to prove that they have a legal right to use the domain name(s)
being requested.
The UPU .post
Accreditation Service will also publish all requests for .post domain names
on the UPU website. There will be a formal process allowing a Postal
Administration to formally object to any request for a proposed domain name.
The process will accept any objections for a period of 30 days. During the 30
day period, the applicant will be entitled to use the .post domain name(s) on a
temporary basis, under the condition that it may be disputed. At the completion
of the 30 day period, if no objections are received, the applicant will be
granted formal ownership of the domain name. If objections are received, the
applicant can continue to use the domain name on a temporary basis and the
relevant Dispute Resolution procedures will be employed.
E5.3. What
registration practices will be employed to minimize abusive registrations?
The pre-screening of domain names ensures legal
ownership of a name.
E5.4. What
measures do you propose to comply with applicable trademark and anti‑cybersquatting
legislation?
The pre-screening of domain names minimizes the risk
of trademark infringement and cybersqatting.
E5.5. Are you
proposing any special protections (other than during the start‑up period)
for famous trademarks?
The pre-screening of domain names ensures legal
ownership of names and trademarks. This should ensure that famous trademarks
that are outside the context of the postal industry are protected
E5.6. How will
complete, up‑to‑date, reliable, and conveniently provided Whois
data be maintained, updated, and accessed concerning registrations in the TLD?
The Whois data will be maintained by the registrars.
As registrars are ICANN- accredited registrars, the minimum requirements are
guaranteed.
E6. Dispute
Resolution. Describe the policies for domain name and other dispute resolution.
If you are proposing variations to the policies followed in .com, .net, and
.org, consider the following questions:
E6.1. To what
extent are you proposing to implement the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy?
The UDRP is adopted as a last resource. Refer to E6.2.
E6.2. Please
describe any additional, alternative, or supplemental dispute resolution
procedures you are proposing.
The intent will be to resolve disputes without either
party resorting to litigation.
1)
The ‘.post
Policy’ provides guidelines on naming and the .post Accreditation Service will emit its decision on a dispute.
2)
If the dispute
concerns two members of the UPU, the general dispute resolution policies of the
UPU will be applied (see UPU Constitution – Supplementary Agreement to the
Agreement between the United Nations and the UPU - Article VIII).
3)
If the dispute
is not resolved within the UPU or if one of the parties is not a UPU member,
the UDRP will be invoked.
E7. Data
Privacy, Escrow, and Whois. Describe the proposed policies on data privacy,
escrow and Whois service.
Postal administrations are charged with maintaining
the privacy and confidentiality of the mails.
This history of protecting the privacy of individuals will be applied to
the Internet space within the requested TLD domain.
Handling of personal data in the domain, as well as
data escrow, will be in accordance with the procedures found in the ICANN-NSI
Registry Agreement.
The Registry and Registrars will operate a Whois
service in accordance with the procedures found in the ICANN-NSI Registry
Agreement.
E8. Billing and
Collection. Describe variations in or additions to the policies for billing and
collection.
Registrars and Registry Operator(s) are
ICANN-accredited. The UPU will rely on this as a guarantee of minimum
requirements.
E9. Services
and Pricing. What registration services do you propose to establish charges for
and, for each such service, how much do you propose to charge?
The UPU is a non-profit organisation. Therefore, the
UPU budgeting and finances are based on cost recovery. The fee structure
reflects this.
Postal Administrations who use the .post (.post
Operators) will be charged :
1)
An initial
non-refundable application fee of USD $1,000 to $10,000 to cover the costs of
examining the request for accreditation as a .post Operator. The fee will vary as a function of the point
contributions of its member country to the UPU. This fee will be waived for
those Postal Administrations who have contributed to the ICANN .post TLD
application.
2)
An annual fee
of USD $1,000 to $10,000 to cover the costs of operating the common components
and the policy making activities.
3)
A USD $150 fee
per domain name requested per 2 year period, covering the costs of
pre-screening, registration and registry. Special pricing may be granted for
Postal Administrations with limited budgets or bulk requests.
Postal Administrations who act as .post Registrars will be charged:
1)
An initial
non-refundable application fee of USD $1,000 to $10,000 to cover the costs of
examining the request for accreditation as a .post Registrar. The fee will vary as a function of the point
contributions of its member country to the UPU.
2)
An annual fee
of USD $500 to $5,000 to cover the costs of the policy making activities.
3)
A royalty of
USD $15 per domain name registered per 2 year period.
Fees may be adjusted annually based on the effective
costs of operating the .post. The potential initial year’s deficit will be
funded out of UPU operating budgets. Refer to the UPU Constitution (Annex C1)
General Section X for a description of UPU funding and budgeting policies and
procedures.
However, lack of funds by the postal administration of
a developing country will not result in denial of stewardship over that
country’s SLD within the domain. The
UPU will adjudicate expenses as necessary to ensure that all postal
administrations can participate and/or will assist the postal administration in
finding solutions with UPU members who possess the necessary infrastructure.
The overriding concern will be the effective implementation of the policies to
ensure trusted postal services.
E10. Other.
Please describe any policies concerning topics not covered by the above
questions.
Several sets of additional policies are needed:
1)
Policies for
Accrediting Postal Administrations as .post
Operators
2)
Policies for
Accrediting Postal Administrations as .post
Registrars
3)
Policies for
attributing domain names to Postal Administration’s Customers
4)
Policies for
defining geographical subsequent level domains
5)
Policies for
the ‘.post Additional Restrictions for
ICANN-accredited registrars’
The detailed Policies for .post Operators , .post
Registrars and the additional restrictions for ‘ICANN-accredited
registrars’ have not been finalised but will be done before a final agreement
with ICANN is signed.
E11. In this
section, you should thoroughly describe all policies (including implementation
details) that you propose to follow during the start‑up phase of
registrations in the TLD, to the extent they differ from the General TLD
Policies covered in items E1‑E9. The following questions highlight some
of the areas that should be considered for start‑up policies:
In general, the restricted nature of the TLD, the low
volume of domain names and the bona fide nature of Postal Administrations is
such that special start-up procedures are not a determinant factor.
E12. How do you
propose to address the potential rush for registration at the initial opening
of the TLD? How many requested registrations do you project will be received by
the registry operator within the first day, week, month, and quarter? What
period do you believe should be considered the TLD's "start‑up
period," during which special procedures should apply?
The UPU does not anticipate a significant rush in the
start-up period. The first wave of registrations will concern :
1)
the Postal
Administrations, with around 400 to 1000 domain names – to be registered over a
6 month period.
2)
the generic
postal domain names – less than 200.
The second wave will concern the customers of Postal
Administrations, notably the geographical mapping of domain names. The volume
will depend on the Postal Administration’s business plans.
Examples:
1)
Postal
Administration 1 may assign domain names to all cities, communes and national
administration services. This would result in over 30’000 domain names. In all
probability, Postal Administration 1 will become a .post Registrar, using the technical services of an
ICANN-accredited Registrar. The planned time frame is 6 to 12 months for
completion.
2)
Postal
Administration 2 would only have its
own domain names – 3 to 4 at most and will not be requesting domain names for
his customers.
E13. Do you
propose to place limits on the number of registrations per registrant? Per
registrar? If so, how will these limits be implemented?
No, the domain name registration policies will ensure
that the volume is manageable.
E14. Will
pricing mechanisms be used to dampen a rush for registration at the initial
opening of the TLD? If so, please describe these mechanisms in detail.
No, pricing will not be used to dampen registration as
it is not needed and not compatible with the UPU funding mechanisms.
E15. Will you
offer any "sunrise period" in which certain potential registrants are
offered the opportunity to register before registration is open to the general
public? If so, to whom will this opportunity be offered (those with famous
marks, registered trademarks, second‑level domains in other TLDs, pre‑registrations
of some sort, etc.)? How will you implement this?
No, there is no need for a ‘sunrise period’ as the
general public will not be eligible for domain names under .post. It is up to
each of the Postal Administrations to assign trusted eMail addresses to the
general public.
E16. As noted
in the New TLD Application Process Overview, a restricted TLD is one with
enforced restrictions on (1) who may apply for a registration within the
domain, (2) what uses may be made of those registrations, or (3) both. In this
section, please describe in detail the restrictions you propose to apply to the
TLD. Your description should define the criteria to be employed, the manner in
which you propose they be enforced, and the consequences of violation of the
restrictions. Examples of matters that should be addressed are:
E17. Describe
in detail the criteria for registration in the TLD. Provide a full explanation
of the reasoning behind the specific policies chosen.
As stated previously, the .post TLD is restricted to :
Postal Administrations, whether public, semi-private
or private as defined in the UPU Constitution, large bona fide customers of
accredited Postal Administrations, which may include administrations, public
interest services and commercial companies (who will be required to apply
policies similar to Postal Administrations) who wish to provide Trusted Postal Services as defined in
E1.
As a starting point, this is the target population
over which the UPU can ensure the effective application of the policies and
procedures.
There are many commercial postal services in the world
that do not meet the criteria of Postal Administrator as defined by the UPU.
Until such time as they can be integrated within the UPU framework, they will
not be able to register a domain name directly. However, they are not a priori
excluded from the process as they can apply for a domain name as a customer of
a Postal Administration. It is expected that better solutions will be found
once the proof of concept phase is terminated. There is a clear will within the
UPU to expand the role of non-member organisations.
There are many commercial companies, that are not
postal services, but who wish to provide or who already provide similar trusted
services. They will not be eligible for a .post domain unless they apply
through a Postal Administration and agree to the restrictions associated with
.post. Special care will have to be taken to ensure effective application of
the policies.
It is probable that during the ‘proof of concept’
phase, the UPU with selected Postal Administrations will test the feasibility
of including such ‘third parties’ in the .post domain.
There are UPU member organisations that may not be
able to enforce the policy of sender/receiver identification to the quality
criteria deemed necessary by the advanced internet members. In such cases, it
may be necessary to introduce degrees of trust. Such policy would be formulated
later with particular attention to balancing the impact on the internet
community at large and the needs of the Postal Administrations.
E18. Describe
the application process for potential registrants in the TLD.
An applicant will submit a formal request to be an
accredited .post Operator to the .post
Accreditation Service of the UPU with the following:
1)
Full legal
description of the applicant with supporting legal proof.
2)
Statutes of
the applicant, proving the Postal Administration nature of the applicant.
3)
A list of
requested domain names with a justification for each (see policies).
4)
A formally
approved business plan which includes the Trusted Postal Services.
5)
The necessary
application fees.
A complete ‘application form’ will be prepared before
a final agreement is reached with ICANN on the delegation of authority for
.post.
Upon receipt of the application, the .post Accreditation Service will
acknowledge receipt of the application within 5 (five) business days, inform
the applicant if part of the application is incomplete or if complimentary
information is required, and schedule the formal review of the application
within 20 (twenty) business days.
During this period, the UPU .post Accreditation Service will review all documentation
accompanying a request for a .post domain name. The obligation will be on the
applicant (Postal Administration) to prove that they have a legal right to use
the domain name(s) being requested.
The UPU .post Accreditation Service will publish all
requests for .post domain names on the UPU website. There will be a formal
process allowing a Postal Administration to formally object to any request for
a proposed domain name. The process will accept any objections for a period of
30 days. During the 30 day period, the applicant will be entitled to use the
.post domain name(s) on a temporary basis, under the condition that it may be
disputed. At the completion of the 30 day period, if no objections are
received, the applicant will be granted formal ownership of the domain name. If
objections are received, the applicant can continue to use the domain name on a
temporary basis and the relevant Dispute Resolution procedures will be
employed.
The application dossier will be transmitted to the
voting members of the .post
Accreditation Service for review and to non-voting experts for comment.
The formal review, done by the ‘.post Accreditation Service’ permanent members, will emit a
decision in the form:
1)
Accreditation
granted
2)
Accreditation
granted with conditions
3)
Accreditation
refused with motives.
In case 1 and 2 above, the formal agreement is
finalised, signed and put in effect. The .post
Accreditation Service informs the registrar of the domain name and related
information that must be processed.
The formal agreement will be elaborated before a final
agreement is reached with ICANN on the delegation of authority for .post.
In case 3 above, the applicant may chose to change the
proposal if it is feasible, accept the refusal or request appeal in accordance
with the UPU Dispute Resolution Procedures.
Publication of the applications, deliberations and
decisions will be done on a .post web site accessible to UPU members, as per
existing UPU procedures. Significant sections will be made available to the
general public for comments and for information.
E19. Describe
the enforcement procedures and mechanisms for ensuring registrants meet the
registration requirements.
The application process ensures that the applicant has
a legal claim to the domain name and is a real Postal Administration.
The applicant’s formal and approved business plan is a
strong indication that Trusted Postal Services will be implemented.
The generally trustworthy nature of applicants (UPU
member Postal Administrations) reinforces the probability of effective
implementation.
The final ‘.post Agreement’ will have provisions to
allow the UPU or designated organisations to audit the effective application of
key operational requirements on an ongoing basis. This will probably be in the
form of a quality programme.
E20. Describe
any appeal process from denial of registration.
The UPU’s Dispute Resolution Process will be employed.
Please refer to the UPU Constitution (Annex C1) – Section II, Chapter IV -
Settlement of Disputes.
E21. Describe
any procedure that permits third parties to seek cancellation of a TLD
registration for failure to comply with restrictions.
Third parties may lodge formal complaints to the
‘.post Accreditation Service’. These may take several forms:
1)
Domain name
ambiguities or conflicts
2)
Service
related complaints associated with .post
3)
Other valid
concerns relating to .post
The ‘.post Accreditation Service’ will
·
Inform the
third party that the complaint is being considered,
·
Lodge the
complaint in a publicly available register, and
·
Provide the
third party with information on how the complaint is being managed.
It is too early at this stage to define the precise
mechanisms for resolution. However, the ‘.post Accreditation Service’ will
review the registered complaints on a regular basis.
Complaints not related to 1 - 3 above will be answered
with the statement that it is not within the power of the ‘.post Accreditation
Service’ to act and will suggest, on a best effort basis, on where the third
party may address their complaint.
E22. This
section is intended to allow you to describe the benefits of the TLD and the
reasons why it would benefit the global Internet community or some segment of
that community. Issues you might consider addressing include:
E23. What will
distinguish the TLD from existing or other proposed TLDs? How will this
distinction be beneficial?
No existing TLD currently proposes, as the key
differentiator, Trusted Postal Services. The .int, .gov and .edu TLDs provide
trust for defined registrant populations. This in turn gives credibility to the
internet users of these TLDs.
The UPU and its members clearly support new TLDs which
are of global interest and associated with a distinct quality label. We firmly
believe .post supports this.
There will be strict policies governing the use of the
domain. The most important element governing the use of the domain will be
TRUST. The .post domain will be a label that exhibits trust based on the
following principles:
1) Trust that "name".post is held by a party
that has the indisputable right to "name".
2) Trust that name@service.post is held by a party that
has the indisputable right to name.
3) Trust that a message (web page or email) from
name.post or name@service.post actually comes from name.
4) Trust that a service provided by service.post conforms
to high (security) standards.
5) Trust that a message sent to name@service.post is
delivered to name - if necessary even
by physical delivery and optionally a delivery notification sent back to the
sender
6) Trust that a message (of some form) existed at a
certain point in time
7) The .post TLD will both serve a community and a market
– due to the mixed private and public service nature of Postal Administrations.
In summary, the .post domain names will be used as a
support for Trusted Postal Services which require:
1) identification of the sender
2) integrity of the message
3) identification of the receiver.
By identification we understand :
1)
validity of the name
2) validity of the physical address (if there is one)
3) the name is a public official or moral person (e.g.
mayor), as defined in the national legislation.
Many Postal Administrations are currently offering
services to provide an email address to every citizen within their country. One
example is that a Postal Enterprise is currently planning to assign third level
domain names to all cities, communes and national administration services to
enable email addresses for citizens or employees to be issued under these
domains.
For the initial implementation of the .post domain, it
is proposed to extend these services in selected countries by providing a .post
email address. For example: john.citizen@washington.usps.post. In addition to
the email address the customer will also be given a digital certificate to
facilitate secure communications. The issuance of a .post email address will be
subject to strict identification and authentication policies. The result will
be recognition of a .post email address as a trusted electronic identity. The
Trusted Postal Services associated with these email addresses will help the
general public accept the internet as a more secure medium.
Other services that can fall into this category are:
§
Trusted Time Stamps
§
Electronic signatures
§
Secure Document Exchange
§
eStamps
§
Hybrid Mail services
§
Address Directory Service
§
etc.
Exactly which services are proposed is up to the
Postal Enterprise – but if they rely on identification of the sender or
receiver and the message integrity facilities proposed under .post, then they
can be called a ‘Trusted Postal Service’.
A Universal Address Directory Service is also being
proposed as a trusted postal service. Obviously such a service would be subject
to strict policies concerning the protection of private and confidential
information. Therefore, those individuals or organisations that do not want
their details published on a directory can rightly choose to have any
information made unavailable for public viewing. A Universal Address Directory
Service, based on the X.500 Directory standard, would be very similar to a
“Global White Pages”. However, its purpose will be to facilitate secure and
trusted communication and delivery of information to individuals.
A Postal Address Directory would enable multiple
methods of communication within a single service. It would contain multiple addresses
and include information such as:
·
physical addresses for home,
business, holiday locations
·
electronic mailbox address (i.e.
different from email, an Electronic Post Office Box - in future this may be a
separate location for receipt of all electronic communications and services)
·
e-mail address
·
telephone numbers
·
digital certificate
·
delivery methods
·
etc.
The Universal Address Directory will enhance existing
and provide new Hybrid communication services. For example: I send an email to
my mother living in another country. She does not have an email address or
access to a computer. Using the Global Directory, the email is printed by the
destination Post. The physical address is taken from the Directory and the
email becomes a letter, which is delivered by the destination Post. The cost
would be based on the cost of a local stamp in the destination country.
These Trusted
Postal Services are primarily focused on addressing the weaknesses of
today’s internet by providing new services that will enable:
·
eMail - trusted transmission of mail and forms.
·
eBusiness - trusted B2B and B2C communications (payments, invoices,
etc.).
·
eBanking - alternative and secure internet payment methods,
statements, etc.
E24. What
community and/or market will be served or targeted by this TLD? To what extent
is that community or market already served by the DNS?
The .post TLD will both serve a community and a market
– due to the mixed private and public service nature of Postal Administrations.
The .post TLD will serve the community of Postal
Administrations who in turn serve the community at large. Assigning an eMail
address to each habitant in a region or country and providing convenient access
points in post offices is one of the more ambitious projects in the internet.
The Trusted Postal Services associated with these eMails will help the general
public accept the internet as a more secure medium.
The Postal Administrations, their customers and the
public are already served by DNS. We firmly believe that the .post TLD will
help accelerate the general acceptance of the internet with the ‘have nots’ and
the ‘not sure’.
E25. Please
describe in detail how your proposal would enable the DNS to meet presently
unmet needs.
The UPU is attempting to add trust and validity to the
DNS, which will subsequently increase its preciseness. Only entities that are truly in the domain -
as certified by a UN sponsored international organization - can be identified
in the DNS as part of .post. This will allow the internet community to test the
idea that organizing the DNS along known categories will increase usability.
The overcrowded .com domain contains entities from every conceivable industry.
It is impossible to quickly find and use a desired site on the web if it has a
common name. Consumers cannot accurately distinguish one entity from another
based on its DNS entries. A restricted, industry vertical domain will allow for
simpler use of the internet.
E26. How would
the introduction of the TLD enhance the utility of the DNS for Internet users?
For the community served by the TLD?
By facilitating the introduction of large scale trust
services. A .post domain would achieve a similar level of trust as .edu, .int,
.gov. As with these, the .post has the potential to influence many aspects of internet users’ (present and future)
day to day activities.
E27. How would
the proposed TLD enhance competition in domain‑name registration
services, including competition with existing TLD registries?
The present proposal would not have a significant
impact on domain-name registration : neither for registrars nor registry
operators.
However, the current application proposes CORE as the
registry operator – rather than the dominant NSI.
Some Postal Administrations may wish to become ICANN-accredited
registrars. As a minimum, Postal Administrations who are .post Registrars will chose their ICANN-accredited registrars. The
UPU policy does not impose restrictions on who can do the DNS registration as
long as they conform to a set of minimal requirements concerning the Whois and
as long as they only accept .post
Registrars as registrants.
E28. Recent
experience in the introduction of new TLDs is limited in some respects. The
current program of establishing new TLDs is intended to allow evaluation of
possible additions and enhancements to the DNS and possible methods of
implementing them. Stated differently, the current program is intended to serve
as a "proof of concept" for ways in which the DNS might evolve in the
longer term. This section of the application is designed to gather information
regarding what specific concept(s) could be evaluated if the proposed TLD is
introduced, how you propose the evaluation should be done, and what information
would be learned that might be instructive in the long‑term management of
the DNS. Well‑considered and articulated responses to this section will
be positively viewed in the selection process. Matters you should discuss in
this section include:
The answers below reflect the current views of the UPU
and the founding Postal Administrations of .post. We welcome input from ICANN
on this important topic. Especially important will be the role of the .post
proposal relative to the other new TLDs selected by ICANN for evaluation. We
expect some overlap of functionality and value for TLDs such as ‘.bank’,
‘.mail’, ‘.name’ . The UPU and its members are open to discussions with
sponsors of related TLDs with a view of finding the best solution that is in
the interest of the internet community at large.
E29. What
concepts are likely to be proved/disproved by evaluation of the introduction of
this TLD in the manner you propose?
Postal Administrations take a global view of their
services – by providing services to an entire population. Several Postal
Administrations are already well advanced to assigning eMail accounts to the
entire population and putting access points in thousands of convenient
locations.
There is one key concept that will be proven by the
.post TLD: that Trusted Postal Services will significantly increase the use of
the internet by the general public.
The introduction of a .post domain will allow the
internet community to test the idea that organizing the DNS along known
categories will increase usability. The
overcrowded .com domain contains entities from every conceivable industry. It
is impossible to quickly find and use a desired site on the web if it has a
common name. A restricted, industry
vertical domain will allow for easier use of the internet.
E30. How do you
propose that the results of the introduction should be evaluated? By what
criteria should the success or lack of success of the TLD be evaluated?
The success of the introduction will be measured with
three criteria:
1)
How many
Postal Administrations adopt the .post TLD as a quality label?
2)
How many
Postal Administrations start national programmes?
3)
What
percentage of transactions (whether it is eMail, B2B or B2C) are conducted
under the .post trust environment?
Points 1) and 2) measure the effectiveness of the sponsor
– the UPU. Point 3) measures the success of the Postal Administrations.
E31. In what
way would the results of the evaluation assist in the long‑range
management of the DNS?
The growth of the internet and the DNS is staggering
and it is thought to continue for many years to come.
As global service providers, the Postal
Administrations will be contributing to the volume on the internet – in ways
which may become explosive. In a particular country, within a one year time
frame, the entire population may receive an eMail account. This large-scale
introduction could pose issues for DNS.
The UPU is ideally suited to representing the Postal
Administrations when they have issues with the DNS or the internet and as such
can assist in the long-range planning.
If this model for domains is effective, the DNS can
evolve to a more “directory-like” entity.
There are numerous categorization schemes that could be used to enhance
the domains on the internet and the DNS.
Standard Industrial Codes (SICs) are used in the United States as a way
of categorizing businesses. Under this
scheme, postal services have a code of 43.
The DNS can leverage a categorization scheme and the alphanumeric features
of domain names to categorize entities that are in today’s .com domain. This evaluation will also extend to the
governance model. The UPU is proposing
an existing, international body as the registration governance agent. If this is successful, it can be extended to
other, existing entities that validate the identities of firms/organizations
and their membership in an industry or group.
This would add trust and validity to the DNS and share the burden of
registration and authentication with the organizations best equipped to perform
the functions.
E32. Are there
any reasons other than evaluation of the introduction process that this
particular TLD should be included in the initial introduction?
This proposal has been elaborated based on a series of
initiatives by Postal Administrations that are being implemented today.
In many cases, these initiatives address a common
problem : trust and security on the internet.
The issue is not the technology or the means – they
exist. The issue is the perception in the publics view. It takes a
sophisticated user to understand when a site is secure and the value of
certificates and encryption.
Secure electronic communication should become as
simple as putting a letter in a post box in order to convince the general
public!
The proposed .post TLD is designed to address these
issues.
(c) 2000 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
All rights reserved.
Updated August 15, 2000
Annex E1
Executive Summary
Annex E2
Global Postal Trust Services (GPTS)
Certificate Policy