[alac] RE: Re: Do we care about *.travel ?

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, go ahead.
I wanted to comment as well, but this is my only free evening in the week,
and I feel I need to concentrate to the EURALO bylaws.
My only point is that we should also reference the SSAC opinion. The
stabilty of the Internet is not something that is useful for engineers only,
but also a guarantee for consumers. I am sure that the author of Internet
for Dummies can put in understandable words the concept that if the lower
levels of the internet protocols start trying to interpret matters that have
to be decided in the upper (applicative) levels, the place becomes a mess.

As for .museum, the fact that a mistake has been done once does not mean
that it has to be repeated on a larger scale. For instance, the fact that we
have .uk while the ISO code is GB does not imply that any country can now go
to IANA and have a different string registered as their ccTLD identifier.
This would be, incidentally, one of my arguments when the matter will be
brought to the ICANN Board.

Roberto Gaetano
ALAC
ICANN Board Liaison
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: alac-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:alac-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola
> Sent: 26 September 2006 11:44
> To: John L
> Cc: ALAC -- ALAC; alac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Re: Do we care about *.travel ?
> 
> John L ha scritto:
> > I hear that the technical committee for the *.travel 
> application will 
> > be convening shortly, so it would be good for us to have 
> our comments in soon.
> > 
> > Suggested reasons we don't like the *.travel wildcard:
> 
> I think your reasons are good, so go ahead :)
> -- 
> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] 
> bertola.eu.org]<-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...