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