I remember back when, I was at a meeting hosted by a couple of ICANN representatives.  In the room were the likes of the President of Register.com and the gentlemen who started .jobs and at least one other TLD, about the time they were accredited as registries.

So, question time, I ask something to the tune of, "We have yet to really establish objectives in what we want from new TLDs, why does there seem to be such a rush in getting a handfull of new TLDs established?"

Well, I was almost laughed out of the room.  So, as I sit here laughing about this same sham again, I wonder again, "what's the rush?"  Have we seen anything spectacular from .aero, .jobs, .coop, .museum?  How about .biz and .info?  But I also agree with the proponents who say the spectacle of the fact is none of our business - but is it?

It seems to me the idea is to start a TLD registry, and before the sunrise period is over you pass breakeven and everything else is gravy.  Yah, great as a business model but what of functionality of the Internet?  I almost had my mind changed that it is nothing more than a confusion of the namespace - almost.

It is my opinion that we need to dedicate some more thought on this matter BEFORE, rather than AFTER introducing new TLDs.

For the record, I don't see anything wrong with .nyc, .paris, or .cleveland.  The reason is, that it serves a defined purpose - geographical.  .mobi serves a defined purpose.  But, I'm not sure about these aliases that we're discussing, I think there's something deeper that we need to consider.  I think we're a little off-track with the IDN/alias/registry arguments.  If it's confusing to us, what about grandma trying to send an email?

-Randy Glass
A@L


On 7/4/07, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
IMHO, DNAME is a strawman, in particular for IDN.

I have serious difficulties in seeing specific cases in which aliases could
be useful, and surely not in the case in which an IDN TLD is aliased with an
ASCII TLD.

The reason why it is debated is for slowly introducing the concept that
registries who have a TLD should be granted the right to other "equivalent"
TLDs, like for instance IDN versions of the original string. This came up
already some time ago in the discussion with the Registry Constituency.

For this reason I have reacted to the ccNSO proposal for the introduction of
IDN TLDs asking to make clear that the IDN TLD is related to the ISO-3166-1
entry, but not to the ccTLD current operator. If the authority of the
country or territory who "owns" the ISO-3166-1 code wants to appoint the
current ccTLD operator to manage also the IDN TLD, it is their right to
decide so, but it should not bee seen, in any way, as the "default"
solution. I am worried that this could create a precedent that gTLD
registries could use as a claim for IDN strings.

Cheers,
Roberto



> -----Original Message-----
> From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> [mailto: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
> Alan Greenberg
> Sent: 02 July 2007 20:09
> To: At-Large Worldwide
> Cc: At-Large Worldwide
> Subject: Re: [At-Large] New gTLDs
>
> At 02/07/2007 08:38 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> >Alan Greenberg ha scritto:
> >>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.
> >
> >I think that we should really work out a comprehensive statement, at
> >least if we can manage to do so in the next couple of
> months: I think
> >that the chances to influence the agreement reached in the GNSO work
> >are scarce (that's the feeling I had whenever the matter was
> discussed
> >with Bruce Tonkin, the former GNSO Chair now on the Board,
> as it looks
> >like that what is being proposed is a hard fought
> >compromise) and so we might focus on getting our points in
> at the Board
> >level, especially on those matters which are more under the
> purview of
> >the Board (procedures, fees, timing, etc.).
>
> I agree completely. There is little chance of aliases being a
> full-fledged recommendation at this late time. But recent
> discussions about IDN TLDs and City-name TLDs have increased
> the interest in aliases, and if we put in a statement, it
> will be included in the report that goes to the board.
>
> Alan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l
> ists.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