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