Once upon a time, the introduction of new TLDs was thought to be a way to prevent monopoly. We have missed the train 10 years ago, and, wrt breaking monopoly, we will not have a second chance. However, the debate is still ongoing. Some of the new ones did bring an added value, maybe there are some new ideas that can benefit from a TLD, we will see. But the issue of the aliases has little to do with new ideas, and much to do with making easy money. As you say, nothing wrong with that, but what's the benefit for the Internet? About IDN, we are in a different ball game. In that case we are talking about providing the capability to people whose script is not the one currently used to access the internet without having to learn/use a foreign set of characters. Regards, Roberto _____ From: RJGlass | America@Large [mailto:jipshida@gmail.com] Sent: 06 July 2007 03:37 To: Roberto Gaetano Cc: Alan Greenberg; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] New gTLDs 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: <mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> 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 <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