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
--