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
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