And we are not likely to reach concensus. Perhaps .NYC and .NEWYORK should be two different gTLDs. Or perhaps they should be the aliases for the same domain as my original example of .PRAGUE and .PRAHA. In my mind, saying that aliases are not allowed (unless you happen to submit two separate bids and both are accepted) allows the most competition. Allowing aliases in a single bid allows you to (in the Prague/Praha case) reduce user confusion because you can use the name you are familiar with to get to the same gTLD. Both alternatives may be the "right" answer depending on the circumstances.

As things stand now, there is no allowance for aliases in the draft policy recommendation, and that is the way it will likely stay when the GNSO finalizes it next month.

If there is some interest in allowing aliases, I will submit a statement to that effect. The statement should include some parameters for when it is reasonable or not (since the use of aliases WILL reduce the potential for competition, there must be some rationale for doing so). In my mind, as the group representing users, less confusion may be more important than more competition. Or not.

Alan

At 01/07/2007 11:32 PM, RJGlass | America@Large wrote:
Yes, I think much more discussion on this issue is appropriate.  Well before aproving additional gTLDs.  The IDNs and aliases I think are great concerns.  With the issue of .nyc and .newyork, I think these could well be 2 applications, 2 operators.  Possibly the applicants of a TLD should have to request aliases and IDN alternatives, but we are far from coming to a consensus on these matters.

aloha,
Randy Glass
A@L

On 6/28/07, Annette Muehlberg <Annette.Muehlberg@web.de > wrote:
Dear Alan,

yes the problem has been discussed on an even simpler basis - not only even concerning the use of different languages. In case of NYC an alternative application could well be .newyork - so that woud mean it is up to the applicant to also apply for another version of TLD (or someone else could apply).


Concerning our ALAC statement to present this afternoon could you pick up what, Jaqueline put it already in her slides (unfortunately not shown):

We would like to stress that Geo/City TLDs provide a great opportunity for users.
More choice, Identification with the region/city. They offer good opportunities for local business.

Part of what has to be considered are the rights of governments to register governmental domains - (apart from Trademark issues).
A local geographical and unrestricted (!) domain is a very useful addition to the existing TLDs for the users.

Best
Annette


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
> Gesendet: 28.06.07 17:11:25
> An: At-Large Worldwide < alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Betreff: Re: [At-Large] New gTLDs


>
> Agreed. And time is VERY short.
>
> One of my comments is that the current plan is that new gTLDs will be
> processed one-by-one. But there are compelling reasons for linking
> applications in cases where the multiple TLDs will map to the same domain.
>
> This is already starting to be discussed related to IDN ccTLDs which
> map to existing ASCII ccTLDs.
>
> This applies to both IDN TLDs which will be aliases for existing
> gTLDs as well as cases where multiple language (IDN or not) versions
> of the same name. For example, in the case of Geo-TLDs, it might make
> sense for applications for .PRAGUE and .PRAHA to be linked and
> applied for at the same time if they will be aliases for each other.
>
> We are always talking about fragmenting the Internet. If we don't
> address this issue, we have the potential for fragmenting the
> Internet over language lines.
>
> As Liaison to the GNSO, I would like to raise this issue, at the very
> least for inclusion of a comment from the ALAC (it is probably too
> late to effect the body of the recommendations). Is there any support
> for my proposal?
>
> Alan
>
> At 28/06/2007 10:27 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> >All,
> >in the interesting discussion that is now developing at the public forum
> >on the introduction of new gTLDs, I will refrain from taking any
> >position, because we have not discussed any at this point in time (the
> >proposal just came out a few days ago).
> >Nonetheless, we should agree on a position as soon as possible, possibly
> >before the intermediate Board meeting in August, so that we can then try
> >to push it through, and that I have something official to say in the
> >discussions of the Board.
> >Thanks,
> >--
> >vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
> >-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> >At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
> >ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
>

--



_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org




--
-------------------------
AmericaAtLarge.org
RJPacific.com
DDMF.org