Department of Commerce not backing .mail objections.
It’s a big waste of money, as in order to prevail the USPS would have to show it has some sort of legal rights to the term “mail”.
ICANN just published a letter from Lawrence Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information at the U.S. Department of Commerce, saying that it does not support the objections:
Please be advised that the objections filed by the United States Postal Service (USPS) to the seven applications for the proposed new generic top level domain, .mail, are not supported by the coordinated view of the United States Government (USG). Consistent with our commitment to the multistakeholder model, the USG will present its coordinated views to the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) as it forms its consensus advice to the Board on these matters.
It would seem that, other than perhaps finding the objections without merit, the Department of Commerce is a bit miffed that USPS filed objections on its own, possibly without communicating with the DOC.
The US Postal Service doesn’t report to the Department of Commerce (DOC) so DOC’s objection is no more relevant that that of any internet loudmouth. Who cares what they think?
Actually DOC’s objections are quite relevant since they are the controlling authority on this issue. This is simply another example of the USPS acting as if they aren’t accountable to anyone or anything.
The leadership of the USPS thinks and acts like they are a privatize entity. It’s actually a very big deal that they don’t seem to work well or interface with other agencies.
Once again, USPS is not under the authority of DOC and is, in fact, not accountable to DOC.
Liam – that’s completely beside the point.
No, sir. You have misunderstood my point. I have completely understood yours and know why it is off base and not germane to the discussion.
My point was that USPS does not report to DOC and, so, must avail itself of the appeal process established by ICANN under the aegis of DOC. The Assistant Secretary of DOC cowboyed the proceedings by issuing his bizarre and unprecedented hissy statement that DOC did not support USPS’ position. Who cares? He can go right ahead and issue his advisory opinion as is his right. When an organization follows his procedures it is preposterous for him to take a stance that they should not have done so.
I never disputed DOC’s postion as the controlling authority of the ICANN contract and, frankly, I don’t know how you could have twisted and miscontrued my position as doing so. Really, I think you should reread my original post – it was extremely limited in its scope. I never made the statement you want so badly to rebut – and had I done so, I would have had to concede the point to you – but I did not make the statement you attempted to rebut. You are off base. I did not address the status of DOC as the controlling authority of the ICANN contract. Sorry – but I didn’t because I am fully aware of the laws and regulations concerning that relationship.
If you think, as apparently so also does the author of this puff piece, that USPS should or could have circumvented the established appeal process, or should have been required to circumvent it, you need to address the argument that giving ICANN the authority to make those decisions is not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. DOC can not act unilaterally to circumvent its own process without publishing it in the Federal Register, Mr. Alleman. Your belief that they can do so reveals your unfamiliarity with the Act, as well as the the ICANN contract.
Perhaps you should ponder why DOC does not take the action you mistakenly believe it should but, instead, promises to issue an advisory opinion on the USPS interventions.
To be honest with you,I find your anti-USPS tirade to be gratuitous and more than just a little bit juvenile. Really, Mr. Alleman,three of the four sentences in your post are a childish rant about your irritation about how USPS interacts with other federal agencies. Perhaps you should review Title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations to revisit your vies from an informed position. If you can commit to sticking to the germane points I might consider continuing this discussion.
Lose the rant. Lose the anti-USPS attitude. Address the facts and the regulations.
Upon rereading I realize I have grouped Mr. Allemann’s unsupportable statements with those of Mr. Jamison. I apologize if this makes the thread difficult to follow.
Allow me to restate for clarity. USPS followed the appeal process as developed and required by ICANN. Mr. Strickling of the DOC objected to the fact the USPS did not avail itself of an imaginary and nonexistent process for federal agencies and issued a hissy statement letting everyone know how offended he was. Mr. Jamison despises USPS and views the world through his smoky lenses of USPS hatred. Mr. Allemann doesn’t understand anything about the Administrative Procedure Act and the ICANN contract other than how you can make money circumventing the spirit of the law for personal gain as an internet squatter.
Liam – I didn’t understand your comments, so thanks for the follow up.
Although I know don’t understand what you’re trying to say with your last statement.