a. Third-and-higher-level domain names within a registered second level domain may only be used internally by the registrant of the second level domain absent a written license from Sponsor.
b. Second level domain registrants may submit a proposal todotCoop to allow the maintenance of third-level domains for the use of eligible cooperatives. The following restrictions will apply for the use of third-level domains by organizations other than the second-level registrant and must be included in the proposal for third-level domain usage:
Users must be members of the second level registrant organization;
Users must be independently eligible for .coop domains based on the .coop Charter;
The second level registrant will be assessed a fee by dotCoop for verification of eligibility of each of these third level domain users;
The second level registrant will be responsible for maintenance of DNS information for each third-level domain;
Each third-level domain user must agree to the terms of the agreement of the registrar of the second-level domain which includes the terms of the current .coop Registration Agreement.
DotCoop will evaluate Third-Level Domain proposals as quickly as possible. All decisions concerning acceptance or rejection of a Third-Level Domain proposal are at the discretion of dotCoop.
If a proposal is accepted, dotCoop will then enter into specific negotiations with the proposing cooperative to define all aspects of the implementation associated with supporting the proposed Third-Level Domain resulting in a mutually agreeable contract.
We need to work out what we want to do and then contact domains.coop to see if our plans are acceptable to them.
I agree this to be next step, but also not blocking as we can start with registering an unrestricted domain for non-coop clients until we sort this with dotCoop.
I like it! and have added it to the Service level page. Also included Ben’s naming proposal.
And I have added a 7th footnote in the small print:
" 7 Other terms of use are defined in the Terms of Use"
We do need to improve and validate those Terms of Use (recall that I copied them over from CommonsCloud), but we do need disclaimers and all. Who’s volunteering for the revision?
I agree, Chris. Can we formulate the doubt we have? Here’s a stub: With Meet.coop we are setting up a cooperative online meeting platform providing services to members. We define ourselves as a multistakeholder cooperative with operational members producing the service and user members making use of it (see wiki:Membership). We propose to use the meet.coop second and third level domain names for providing this service to them. A doubt that has come up is whether it would be problematic with respect to the Third Level Domain Name Policy of DotCoop. In concrete, when some member opts for the larger service we provide them with a member-specific subdomain of meet.coop. The service is still a cooperatively produced service between various cooperatives, but the 3rd level domain name might include the name of a non-cooperative actor. Would that be ok or should we use other domain names for such cases?
Does that reflect our doubt? Maybe you could best pose the question, Chris, as you have registered the domain with them?
We have our first multi-user member and we need a subdomain. I suggest we buy a separate domain meetcoop.TLD immediate and go from there as we need to deliver the service asap.
Personally I’d suggest we just don’t worry and go ahead and use a subdomain of meet.coop !
I doubt the .coop registry have the resources to police it and given users are members there as using it in the context of being a member of a co-op, even if their legal entity (if indeed they have one) isn’t a co-op itself. Plenty of co-ops around the world are made up of non-co-ops.
Indeed, plenty of people who aren’t co-ops at all are using .coop domains too, eg http://accountancy.coop/ who used to be a co-op but no longer are.
With Meet.coop we are setting up a cooperative online meeting platform
providing services to members.
We define ourselves as a multistakeholder cooperative with operational
members producing the service and user members making use of it (see meet.coop - The Online Meeting Cooperative).
We propose to use the meet.coop second and third level domain names
for providing this service to them.
A doubt that has come up is whether it would be problematic with
respect to the Third Level Domain Name Policy of DotCoop.
In concrete, when some member opts for the larger service we provide
them with a member-specific subdomain of meet.coop.
The service is still a cooperatively produced service between various
cooperatives, but the 3rd level domain name might include the name of
a non-cooperative actor.
Would that be ok or should we use other domain names for such cases?
We will get back to you about this later this week/early next week. The team member who I needed to speak with has been on annual leave.
It is Case 388554 on their system if anyone wants to follow it up via support@domains.coop.
However as Webarchitects are the legal owner of the domain we are responsible for the use of the domain and we are not going to sanction the use of the domain in a way that clearly contradicts the .coop third level domain policy without their support.
I’m writing as a member of the Online Meeting Cooperative, Meet.coop re Case 388554
Chris from Web Architects, cc’d, emailed about this previously, but we’ve been waiting over a month for a response and we now have an urgent need to resolve this issue.
In short, Meet.coop wish to offer members, who may themselves not be co-ops, the use of meet.coop subdomains to use for their online meetings (the online meeting service they are using as members of meet.coop)
Third-and-higher-level domain names within a registered second level domain may only be used internally by the registrant of the second level
I’m assuming that if the Meet.coop co-op owned the meet.coop domain our proposed usage wouldn’t be an issue as it would be deemed internal use?
The issue arises because the Meet.coop co-op is not yet incorporated and so Web Architects are the legal registrant of meet.coop.
Therefore please could you give Web Architects written permission to allow members of meet.coop (as opposed members of Web Architects) to use subdomains of meet.coop ASAP - we having paying members who urgently require this service and so a swift response would be greatly appreciated.
We’ve just reinstalled and updated demo.meet.coop please test There was no TURN server setup, so that could have been responsible for some of the problems - we have added the turn.ca.meet.coop turn server. The problem with webcam sharing on Safari seems to persist at least on my side, it could be connected to IPv6.
I understand @chris’ concern as Webarchitects is the legal owner of the domain, so he is the one who has authority to interpret the terms, and decide whether the subdomains we want to create is appropriate use.
On the other hand, we have urgent services to deliver by next Tuesday. How shall we proceed?
My proposal is, by end of Friday, @chris can decide whether to use meet.coop or purchase a new domain that we agree on at Thursday’s All Hands as backup, and we proceed with that moving forward.
Further to this email, we hereby give approval for members of meet.coop to use their sub-domains. Please let me know if you have any queries or issues with this.
This is resolved and we are using subdomain.meet.coop. @chris agreed to that and helped us get set up, and yes, while he was on holiday last Friday, thanks to Collocall’s effort, we delivered one Multi-user account and an Event account (temporary Multi-user account) with dedicated Greenlight container sharing the ca.meet.coop BBB resource ahead of schedule.
So happy to see that over the last days and weeks together you managed to set up the new services for these members! Today I’m back and slowly going through a pile of mail, hoping to meet up with you later this week.
There was no TURN server setup, so that could have been responsible for some of the problems - we have added the turn.ca.meet.coop turn server. The problem with webcam sharing on Safari seems to persist at least on my side, it could be connected to IPv6.
plus some text to reach 20 characters!