RE: [alac] Guide to Domain Names

["Sebastian Ricciardi" <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please slow down.

I understood this guide was intented to be specific for gTLDs. ALAC
participation was the genesis of this idea. 
We cannot go backwards and re adapt all the work Miriam has done to include
references about how to register 250 ccTLDs that may have strong differences
in the process. For example, registe a domain name in .ar is free, while
registering a domain name in .jp can be expensive. Some ccTLDs do not have
any kind of Dispute Resolution Policy, while others do, etc.

I is very important for the user (At least in LAC, don´t know about other
ICANN regions, but I suspect this situation is pretty much the same) to
understand how to deal with gTLDs. They know how to do it with ccTLDs or in
any case, they have local support for asking questions and ask for help in
their own laguage. Situation is very different with gTLDs, as I saw making a
small investigation regarding .ORG domains here.

If ALAC don´t want to use this work, I would ask for a spanish and
portuguese translation and publish a 3 language guide for gTLDs sponsored by
the LAC RALO as a it first step right after the MOU in Sao Paulo.

Best regards,

Sebastian

  

-----Mensaje original-----
De: owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Nick
Ashton-Hart
Enviado el: Miércoles, 15 de Noviembre de 2006 06:15 a.m.
Para: shahshah@xxxxxxxx
CC: Wendy Seltzer; alac@xxxxxxxxx; Miriam Sapiro
Asunto: Re: [alac] Guide to Domain Names

Thanks for the comment Siavash (and everyone else for theirs).

As those on the call will remember, we came up with a process which is meant
to:

1) Incorporate all ideas that the ALAC has about the structure and content
of the document;
2) Allow the writers to take those views into account to come up with a
document which the ALAC can support and believes will be useful.

What was agreed on the call was as follows:

1) Committee members would review the document and provide detailed comments
and edits. The idea here is that the comments should be sufficiently
detailed that if you were the writer, you would be able to use them to
accurately reflect the comments made accurately in the text, so, please be
as specific as you can. I know that a number of you have fundamental
structural issues with the document. If you can provide examples of
documents which have a structure that you think would be better, either send
it, give us a URL, and do tell what about that document in your view
recommends it.

2) These comments would come in, insofar as is possible by the conclusion of
the Sao Paulo meeting, but in any case not later than the 31st December.

3) A redraft incorporating the comments received would then be prepared.

I suggested that we could take some time at one of the meetings in Sao Paulo
to review the comments made up to that time, and if people wish to orally
make further comments, I can then take those, plus the written ones received
until the end of the year, and compile them together and send all of it to
Miriam with a copy to ALAC too, to make sure I didn't miss or misstate
anything.

Perhaps the following specifics could be helpful in addressing some of the
most recently-stated issues:

1) decide that a subsequent guide will address ccTLDs, but that this one
will only address gTLDs.

2) ensure the name is changed to "A Guide to Generic Top-Level Domain Names"

3) add a preamble noting that the guide focuses only on gTLDs and there are
250 country code tld's and these will be addressed in an upcoming "A Guide
to Country Code Top-Level Domain Names"

And then also, in SP show the draft guide to members of the ccNSO Council
and invite them to work with the ALAC in creating such a guide focussed on .

On 15/11/06, Siavash Shahshahani <shahshah@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Wendy,
> I really think that a fair and general guide to domain system which 
> can receive ALAC/ICANN endorsement would be most welcome at least in 
> my community. People trust such an endorsement, which makes it more 
> imperative that it be unbiased and clarify common misunderstandings. 
> Let me give you an example. The IDN table of .ir Registry was sent to 
> IANA more than a year ago, but it has not appeared yet on the IANA 
> list(for reasons I don't want to speculate about now). This makes 
> people question the authoritativeness of our IDN offering, and we are 
> constantly asked why we're not getting IANA endorsement.
> So in short, I think the idea of putting out a guide is a very good one.
> I'd be happy to participate in a working group to make it happen.
> Best,
> siavash
>
> > Thanks Siavash,
> >
> > I'll reiterate to Miriam that this document cannot use ALAC's name 
> > without revisions that meet the Committee's consensus approval.  I 
> > agree that as a matter of fairness in competition, ICANN and ALAC 
> > cannot sponsor a guide that describes just some of the domain names.  
> > It does a disservice to registrants and users of domain names to 
> > imply that some are better than others just because they are easier 
> > to describe.
> >
> > Do you think this is a project it's worthwhile for ALAC to pursue, 
> > if it can be made more inclusive?  (I don't know whose idea it was, 
> > or why it came to have ALAC's name in the first place.)
> >
> > --Wendy
> >
> > At 04:52 PM 11/14/2006 +0330, Siavash Shahshahani wrote:
> >
> >>I wish to record a basic objection to the 'Guide' appearing as an 
> >>ALAC product. In the introduction it is stated that that the guide 
> >>is  primarily focused on gTLDs and, in fact, it is not hard to 
> >>notice that ccTLDs are totally ignored. For 'A Guide to Domain 
> >>Names' presumably directed at the less-informed this is totally 
> >>unacceptable. Note that:
> >>1. Roughly one third of existing domains in world are cc domains.
> >>2. There is already a good deal of misinformation at least among the 
> >>populace of developing countries thinking that their native ccTLD is 
> >>somehow less 'official', less respectable or intrinsically less 
> >>secure than a '.com'.
> >>I think that if the registry sponsors listed on page 3 want to put 
> >>out a guide for gTLDs, let them do it in their own name. I am well 
> >>aware of the difficulty of dealing with the varieties of ccTLD 
> >>practices, but still a short general guide not dealing with minute 
> >>details can be produced that covers both types of domains.
> >>-Siavash
> >>
> >>
> >>-------------------------------------------------
> >>IPM/IRNIC
> >>P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq.
> >>Tehran 19548, Iran
> >>Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113
> >>Cell: (+98 912)104 2501
> >>Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00
> >>Email: shahshah@xxxxxxxx, shahshah@xxxxxx
> >>-----------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>-------------------------------------------------
> >>IPM/IRNIC
> >>P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq.
> >>Tehran 19548, Iran
> >>Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113
> >>Cell: (+98 912)104 2501
> >>Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00
> >>Email: shahshah@xxxxxxxx, shahshah@xxxxxx
> >>-----------------------------------------------
> >
> > --
> > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, 
> > Berkman Center for Internet & Society 
> > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> > Chilling Effects: http://www.chillingeffects.org
> >
> >
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> IPM/IRNIC
> P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq.
> Tehran 19548, Iran
> Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113
> Cell: (+98 912)104 2501
> Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00
> Email: shahshah@xxxxxxxx, shahshah@xxxxxx
> -----------------------------------------------
>


--
--
Regards,

Nick Ashton-Hart
PO Box 32160
London N4 2XY
United Kingdom
UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011
USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135
mobile: +44 (7774) 932798
Win IM: ashtonhart@xxxxxxxxxxx / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@xxxxxxx /
Skype: nashtonhart
Online Bio:   https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.5/533 - Release Date: 13/11/2006
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.5/533 - Release Date: 13/11/2006