Re: [At-Large] New gTLDs
And we are not likely to reach concensus. Perhaps .NYC and .NEWYORK should be two different gTLDs. Or perhaps they should be the aliases for the same domain as my original example of .PRAGUE and .PRAHA. In my mind, saying that aliases are not allowed (unless you happen to submit two separate bids and both are accepted) allows the most competition. Allowing aliases in a single bid allows you to (in the Prague/Praha case) reduce user confusion because you can use the name you are familiar with to get to the same gTLD. Both alternatives may be the "right" answer depending on the circumstances. As things stand now, there is no allowance for aliases in the draft policy recommendation, and that is the way it will likely stay when the GNSO finalizes it next month. 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. Alan At 01/07/2007 11:32 PM, RJGlass | America@Large wrote:
Yes, I think much more discussion on this issue is appropriate. Well before aproving additional gTLDs. The IDNs and aliases I think are great concerns. With the issue of .nyc and .newyork, I think these could well be 2 applications, 2 operators. Possibly the applicants of a TLD should have to request aliases and IDN alternatives, but we are far from coming to a consensus on these matters.
aloha, Randy Glass A@L
On 6/28/07, Annette Muehlberg <<mailto:Annette.Muehlberg@web.de>Annette.Muehlberg@web.de> wrote: 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 <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Gesendet: 28.06.07 17:11:25 An: At-Large Worldwide <<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>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/>http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>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>http://www.alac.icann.org
ALAC Independent: <http://www.icannalac.org>http://www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>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>http://www.alac.icann.org
ALAC Independent: <http://www.icannalac.org>http://www.icannalac.org
--
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>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>http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: <http://www.icannalac.org>http://www.icannalac.org
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
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/ <--------
Great to meet you all in San Juan, Here's my write-up reflecting on the problems with the current policy development process and Board review for new gTLDs. Overall, I think the entire framework of allergy to failure is wrong-headed: Aging the Internet Prematurely, One PDP at a Time <http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/07/01/aging_the_internet_prematu...> After blogging about ICANN's new gTLD policy or lack thereof, I've had several people ask me why I care so much about ICANN and new top-level domains. Domain names barely matter in a world of search and hyperlinks, I'm told, and new domains would amount to little more than a cash transfer to new registries from those trying to protect their names and brands. While I agree that type-in site-location is less and less relevant, and we haven't yet seen much end-user focused innovation in the use of domain names, I'm not ready to throw in the towel. I think ICANN is still in a position to do affirmative harm to Internet innovation. You see, I don't concede that we know all the things the Internet will be used for, or all the things that could be done on top of and through its domain name system. I certainly don't claim that I do, and I don't believe that the intelligence gathered in ICANN would make that claim either. Yet that's what it's doing by bureaucratizing the addition of new domain names: Asserting that no further experiments are possible; that the "show me the code" mode that built the Internet can no longer build enhancements to it. ICANN is unnecessarily ossifying the Internet's DNS at version 1.0, setting in stone a cumbersome model of registries and registrars, a pay-per-database-listing, semantic attachments to character strings, and limited competition for the lot. This structure is fixed in place by the GNSO constituency listing: Those who have interests in the existing setup are unlikely to welcome a new set of competitors bearing disruptions to their established business models. The "PDP" in the headline, ICANN's over-complex "Policy Development Process" (not the early DEC computer), gives too easy a holdout veto. Meanwhile, we lose the chance to see what else could be done: whether it's making domain names so abundant that every blogger could have a meaningful set on a business card and every school child one for each different face of youthful experimentation, using the DNS hierarchy to store simple data or different kinds of pointers, spawning new services with new naming conventions, or something else entirely. I don't know if any of these individually will "add value." Historically, however, we leave that question to the market where there's someone willing to give it a shot. Amazingly, after years of delay, there are still plenty of people waiting in ICANN queues to give new gTLDs a try. The collective value in letting them experiment and new services develop is indisputably greater than that constrained by the top-down imaginings of the few on the ICANN board and councils, as by their inability to pronounce .iii. "How do you get an answer from the web?" the joke goes: "Put your guess into Wikipedia, then wait for the edits." While Wikipedians might prefer you at least source your guess, the joke isn't far from the mark. The lesson of Web 2.0 has been one of user-driven innovation, of launching services in beta and improving them by public experimentation. When your users know more than you or the regulators, the best you can do is often to give them a platform and support their efforts. Plan for the first try to break, and be ready to learn from the experience. To trust the market, ICANN must be willing to let new TLDs fail. Instead of insisting that every new business have a 100-year plan, we should prepare the businesses and their stakeholders for contingency. Ensuring the "stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems" should mean developing predictable responses to failure, not demanding impracticable guarantees of perpetual success. Escrow, clear consumer information, streamlined processes, and flexible responses to the expected unanticipated, can all protect the end-users better than the dubious foresight of ICANN's central regulators. These same regulators, bear in mind, didn't foresee that a five-day add-grace period would swell the ranks of domains with "tasters" gaming the loophole with ad-based parking pages. At ten years old, we don't think of our mistakes as precedent, but as experience. Kids learn by doing; the ten-year-old ICANN needs to do the same. Instead of believing it can stabilize the Internet against change, ICANN needs to streamline for unpredictability. Expect the unexpected and be able to act quickly in response. Prepare to get some things wrong, at first, and so be ready to acknowledge mistakes and change course. I anticipate the counter-argument here that I'm focused on the wrong level, that stasis in the core DNS enhances innovative development on top, but I don't think I'm suggesting anything that would destabilize established resources. Verisign is contractually bound to keep .com open for registrations and resolving as it has in the past, even if .foo comes along with a different model. But until Verisign has real competition for .com, stability on its terms thwarts rather than fosters development. I think we can still accommodate change on both levels. The Internet is too young to be turned into a utility, settled against further innovation. Even for mature layers, ICANN doesn't have the regulatory competence to protect the end-user in the absence of market competition, while preventing change locks out potential competitive models. Instead, we should focus on protecting principles such as interoperability that have already proved their worth, to enhance user-focused innovation at all levels. A thin ICANN should merely coordinate, not regulate. My earlier post, after the Free Expression workshop, is at <http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/06/25/icann_keep_the_core_neutra...> Feel free to adapt any of this. --Wendy <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0> (yes, I need to version my licensing) -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
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
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
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
It is my opinion that we need to dedicate some more thought on this matter BEFORE, rather than AFTER introducing new TLDs.
I'm with you. Of the new gTLDs, the only ones that have succeeded so far are .BIZ and .INFO, because they're clones of .COM. Maybe you could call .NAME a success with about 200,000 names. I think .MOBI is likely to succeed because it's going to be put in front of a whole lot of mobile phone users. Other than that, they're all gathering dust. On the other hand, there's no technical reason we can't add at least hundreds of domains per year to the root, and I agree that once ICANN opened the door to new TLDs, it's too late to shut it. The beauty contest approach has been a clear failure, so either an auction or a lottery (which is the same as an auction except for who keeps the money) is the sensible choice. If there's enough TLDs on offer, the price will be reasonable.
For the record, I don't see anything wrong with .nyc, .paris, or .cleveland. The reason is, that it serves a defined purpose - geographical.
Seems to me that ccTLDs already exist for geography, and already solve the problem of distinguishing paris.fr from paris.tx.us. The idea that you need a TLD to be cool is one of the great con jobs of all time.
I think we're a little off-track with the IDN/alias/registry arguments.
Seems to me that there is a pretty strong argument in favor of having .CHINA in Chinese, although the question of whether it's the same as or different from .CN is a significant one. I don't see any reason to treat the Chinese version of .(business) any differently from any other new TLD. R's, John PS: I said most of this a year and a half ago at http://weblog.johnlevine.com/ICANN/whydom.html and other people said it before that.
John L ha scritto:
It is my opinion that we need to dedicate some more thought on this matter BEFORE, rather than AFTER introducing new TLDs.
I'm with you. Of the new gTLDs, the only ones that have succeeded so far are .BIZ and .INFO, because they're clones of .COM. Maybe you could call .NAME a success with about 200,000 names. I think .MOBI is likely to succeed because it's going to be put in front of a whole lot of mobile phone users. Other than that, they're all gathering dust. On the other
It depends on how you measure success. .CAT only has 20'000 names, yet it is a success. No doubt - just ask anyone in Barcelona. I think that we should stop measuring the success of TLDs in terms of sheer number of registrations, as there's much more attached to that. If you like, I'd propose - in qualitative terms - the product of the number of registrations by how much registrants feel attached to or identify with the domain: that'd already be better. Given that you can have at least several thousands of TLDs, if you only have a few thousands of registrants but that TLD really makes a difference to them in emotional or symbolic terms, why not? In any case, I have started to write down what I would like to see as principles and values to guide the introduction of new TLDs. If we all do the same, we might come up with a common statement. I already solicited a statement from the Committee several times, because the issue will certainly come up in Board discussion in the next weeks; so I would suggest that someone takes the lead on this, and we start up yet another consultation and working group. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
It depends on how you measure success. .CAT only has 20'000 names, yet it is a success.
Ah, right, I forgot about .CAT. You're right, it's not the raw size, it's the extent to which the intended community uses it. But I still don't see the beauty contest as an effective way to pick winners since it's about 3 for 12 at this point. A lottery would probably do as well, at much lower cost. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
Until Encirca, a registrar, starting selling .PRO names to anyone who wanted one, I was very happy with my .PRO address (as evidenced by this email). I would still be a fan of the TLD if it returned to its original purpose, which was to issue registrations only to verified, credentialed professionals. On Jul 6, 2007, at 8:16 AM, John L wrote:
It depends on how you measure success. .CAT only has 20'000 names, yet it is a success.
Ah, right, I forgot about .CAT. You're right, it's not the raw size, it's the extent to which the intended community uses it. But I still don't see the beauty contest as an effective way to pick winners since it's about 3 for 12 at this point. A lottery would probably do as well, at much lower cost.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex- Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
_______________________________________________ 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
John L wrote:
It depends on how you measure success. .CAT only has 20'000 names, yet it is a success.
Ah, right, I forgot about .CAT. You're right, it's not the raw size, it's the extent to which the intended community uses it. But I still don't see the beauty contest as an effective way to pick winners since it's about 3 for 12 at this point. A lottery would probably do as well, at much lower cost.
Indeed, at lower financial and regulatory cost, since the cost of fending off lobbyists or the legitimacy cost of giving in to special interests should be factored in. "Success" should be measured by the market, where, as here, there's no serious cost of failure. Why should we care if .coop or .aero fails? Does any among us (ALAC/RALO/ALS/individuals) support the 26-step process in the GNSO report, or do you support more or fewer gates to introduction of new gTLDs? Perhaps we could gather these thoughts to see whether there's At-Large consensus. GNSO repport <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/pdp-dec05-fr-a-18jun07.pdf> (Myself, I support an auction or lottery for a large number of new TLDs, limited only by registry operators' commitment to escrow the registration info against possible failure. <http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/07/01/aging_the_internet_prematu...>) --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Vittorio, I kinda agree. I agree that we need not necessarily judge the success of a domain, but what we are doing is trying to protect the stability of the web. Taking .cat as an example, I agree that this serves its unique purpose and they should be afforded their own TLD. However, does it have to be a globally-resolvable TLD sanctioned by ICANN? Well, could be but doesn't need to be. Newnet (new.net) has proven that it can successfully offer TLDs that are globally resolvable, but not sanctioned by ICANN. If .cat were to go through the same or similar process, it would still be .cat and it would still work and it would still be a success. Similarly, I could run my own DNS server from my bedroom and anyone I choose could have access to my TLD and I could call it whatever I want. This is actually the heart of my argument, to which I'm glad to have brought up. If a TLD is to be ICANN-sanctioned, then we need to put more thought into this matter, otherwise our policies could be our downfall. I've always liked what new.net has implemented, but I can't say their management policies are any better than ICANNs by any stretch. Similarly, there is absolutely nothing standing in the way of an ISP offering .nyc as a TLD, running their own DNS, and allowing their customers to use it, and setting their own policies. However, if they did, every time there was an outage then their section of the web wouldn't work, but it only wouldn't work for their DNS rather than the entire Internet. I think this is where we should tread carefully because if it were perceived that ICANN were inept (ummm, from outside the organization) then we would at that point lose the battle. What battle? Fulfilling the by-laws of the organization. Anyone can run a DNS, but when ICANN says so-and-so is a TLD, I take it to mean that it will be globally resolvable using the root-servers. Feel free to edit this statement. Finally, I don't think anyone, including me is saying that the likes of .jobs, .aero, .museum, .coop, et al are failures or useless or anything of the type, any more than .cx would be a failure or useless. I kind of like the ideas behind those TLDs, but I do question the scope of our concern. I wholeheartedly disagree that ICANN should just open the registry and say 'fight it out' just to add revenues and more choices and disregard standardization, not to mention confusion for trademark holders. Rather, the issue at hand is how it affects the population of Internet users, ie does it serve a purpose or just confuse the namespace? Additionally, What is the purpose of ICANN? aloha, Randy Glass A@L On 7/6/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
John L ha scritto:
It is my opinion that we need to dedicate some more thought on this matter BEFORE, rather than AFTER introducing new TLDs.
I'm with you. Of the new gTLDs, the only ones that have succeeded so far are .BIZ and .INFO, because they're clones of .COM. Maybe you could call .NAME a success with about 200,000 names. I think .MOBI is likely to succeed because it's going to be put in front of a whole lot of mobile phone users. Other than that, they're all gathering dust. On the other
It depends on how you measure success. .CAT only has 20'000 names, yet it is a success. No doubt - just ask anyone in Barcelona. I think that we should stop measuring the success of TLDs in terms of sheer number of registrations, as there's much more attached to that. If you like, I'd propose - in qualitative terms - the product of the number of registrations by how much registrants feel attached to or identify with the domain: that'd already be better. Given that you can have at least several thousands of TLDs, if you only have a few thousands of registrants but that TLD really makes a difference to them in emotional or symbolic terms, why not?
In any case, I have started to write down what I would like to see as principles and values to guide the introduction of new TLDs. If we all do the same, we might come up with a common statement. I already solicited a statement from the Committee several times, because the issue will certainly come up in Board discussion in the next weeks; so I would suggest that someone takes the lead on this, and we start up yet another consultation and working group. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
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
If there is some interest in allowing aliases, I will submit a statement to that effect.
I gather that there is great pressure in some quarters to grandfather aliases for gTLDs so that Verisign would get every name that means "business" or "network" in any language, Tralliance would get every name that means "travel", and so forth. Since silence means consent at ICANN (and as often as not, loud screaming opposition means consent anyway), it would be a good idea to say explicitly whether we think that's a good idea and why not. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
The registries are telling everyone that DNAME is the greatest innovation in the world, but giving Verisign every multilingual iteration of .COM and .NET is something I think we should push hard against. Yes, it means that if I want "BRET" in the Chinese version of NET, I'll need to register again, but I view the Chinese version of NET, whatever it might be, as a separate TLD. On Jul 2, 2007, at 7:25 AM, John L wrote:
If there is some interest in allowing aliases, I will submit a statement to that effect.
I gather that there is great pressure in some quarters to grandfather aliases for gTLDs so that Verisign would get every name that means "business" or "network" in any language, Tralliance would get every name that means "travel", and so forth. Since silence means consent at ICANN (and as often as not, loud screaming opposition means consent anyway), it would be a good idea to say explicitly whether we think that's a good idea and why not.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex- Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
_______________________________________________ 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
The registries are telling everyone that DNAME is the greatest innovation in the world, but giving Verisign every multilingual iteration of .COM and .NET is something I think we should push hard against.
In GNSO IDN WG, I and a couple of others did speak loud against any attempt to create a "DNAME" model when ".info", "museum" and "asia" registries raised their "concerns" over confusing similarity. You can see from the WG Final Report that the DNAME argument was not accepted and confusing similarity does not cover "semantic similarity" as these registries wished. However, since IDN WG is now being melted into a new gTLD hot pot, that flavor is diluted and we return to the starting point--asking what confusingly similar is again. Yes, it means that if I want "BRET" in the Chinese version
of NET, I'll need to register again, but I view the Chinese version of NET, whatever it might be, as a separate TLD.
I guess the Chinese version could be "布瑞特。网络" (Bret.net). Hong On Jul 2, 2007, at 7:25 AM, John L wrote:
If there is some interest in allowing aliases, I will submit a statement to that effect.
I gather that there is great pressure in some quarters to grandfather aliases for gTLDs so that Verisign would get every name that means "business" or "network" in any language, Tralliance would get every name that means "travel", and so forth. Since silence means consent at ICANN (and as often as not, loud screaming opposition means consent anyway), it would be a good idea to say explicitly whether we think that's a good idea and why not.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex- Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
_______________________________________________ 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
The registries are telling everyone that DNAME is the greatest innovation in the world
I gather that DNAME interacts poorly with DNSSEC. That's really a nit, it's not a big deal to run a database that puts the same contents into umpteen zones and signs them all.
Yes, it means that if I want "BRET" in the Chinese version of NET, I'll need to register again, but I view the Chinese version of NET, whatever it might be, as a separate TLD.
I agree, but we better have a plausible story about why that's not hopelessly confusing. A good start would be to point out that nobody seems to have trouble telling .COM from .BIZ. R's, John
I agree, but we better have a plausible story about...
I'd rather hear the plausible story that these these U.S.-based companies (Verisign, Afilias, Neustar) plan on telling the governments of China, Russia, Iran and so on as to why they get to run the IDN versions of COMMERCIAL, INFORMATION and BUSINESS in the official languages of their countries simply by virtue of having an ICANN contract for .COM, .INFO and .BIZ. Really, I'd like to hear that one. Not that their answer really matters though, because when you allow these U.S. companies to use DNAME to extend their ICANN-franchise into other countries and other languages, you'll just chase the Chinese, Russian, Iranian and other governments of the world into their own walled DNS gardens and proprietary roots. Bret
Bret Fausett ha scritto:
I'd rather hear the plausible story that these these U.S.-based companies (Verisign, Afilias, Neustar) plan on telling the governments of China, Russia, Iran and so on as to why they get to run the IDN versions of COMMERCIAL, INFORMATION and BUSINESS in the official languages of their countries simply by virtue of having an ICANN contract for .COM, .INFO and .BIZ.
I agree with you, yet I think that it is a bit more complicated than this. "Commercial" is a broad concept, prone to local nuances and several semantic equivalents, so it is easy to see why you should have different competing incarnations of it, also in different languages. On the other hand, there is just one Catalonia, so I would expect .cat to point at the same registry whatever is the script in which it is expressed (as long as the translations represent Catalonia, rather than cats or caterpillars). It looks to me that telling between categories of TLDs that have different types of meanings, and thus different features and requirements, might be a natural next step to manage the semantic expectations of the end user. However, categorizing in advance - even if you ensure room for new categories and unexpected ideas - also creates several disadvantages, so I am still not sure about where we should go. I understand that the objections process in the proposal is meant to give the flexibility to deal with this, but we should understand whether that works well in practice (e.g. both to allow national and other geopolitical entities control over their name's representations, and to prevent too broader protection such as Verisign preventing any new .com-like TLD). -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
participants (8)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Bret Fausett -
Hong Xue -
John L -
RJGlass | America＠Large -
Roberto Gaetano -
Vittorio Bertola -
Wendy Seltzer