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.). Anyway, this is what we said several years ago: http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/response-stld-process-09oct03.htm And also, this on IDNs: http://alac.icann.org/announcements/announcement-23nov05.htm and something also here: http://www.icann.org/presentations/alac-statements-lux-14jul05.pdf We could start from those principles, if they are still agreeable, and update them under the light of the process that is now being proposed. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------