Re: [gnso-idn-wg] On 4.4.2

["Alexei Sozonov" <sozon@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello everyone,

Regarding 4.4.2.

IDN aliasing for existing domain holders will reduce confusion only to the 
rich people,
not the poor who really need it in Russia and elsewhere. The entire reason 
for launching IDN is
to serve local community, not to let rich take what poor already don’t have. 
Otherwise it could became political issues...
Strange, if any fair person would support aliasing (critically sensitive for 
locals issue) for whatever “reduce confusion” reason.

Alexei Sozonov



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "subbiah" <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>; "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 
<gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:53 AM
Subject: [gnso-idn-wg] On 4.4.2


> First I fully appreciate that aliasing can occur across ASCII TLDs but 
> this is a WG focused on IDN and so my following comments are focused on 
> the consequences of aliasing in the IDN realm.
>
> The Support statement states that aliasing provides protection and reduces 
> confusion for existing domain name holders. Given the statement also 
> recognizes there are disadvantages, its clear the point itself is 
> debatable.
>
> As the Alternate View states, it’s clearly true that whatever debatable 
> contribution aliasing can provide to reduce “confusion” the same can be 
> achieved by normal DNS means – i.e. new TLD strings provided. Therefore 
> the insistence that somehow on balance, the aliasing way is superior to 
> normal DNS means is in my opinion false.
>
> Therefore I would imagine, the Alternate View as expressed as is should 
> receive as much Agreement as the Agreement arrived at for stating that the 
> term “aliasing” generically includes DNAMES etc.
>
> Next, I think the whole issue of aliasing or DNS means for existing domain 
> name holders cannot be divorced from the situation of new IDN gTLDs that 
> may be issued. The same protection from “confusion” across all languages 
> could in theory be asked for by new IDN gTLD applicants.
>
> I believe the whole debate here is in essence about the primacy of 
> concept/meaning of a gTLD string or the language/culture/script itself. 
> Does language/culture come first or concept/meaning ? This is debatable 
> and in my opinion, as a speaker of a few langauegs at varying levels, 
> meaning itself is completely subject to the language/culture – concepts of 
> many things don’t apply globally across all cultures – we are all fully 
> aware of this from personal experience. To force and inject global 
> concept/meaning into local culture has been at heart the subject of most 
> wars during Mankind’s history – even Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s travels 
> was a satirical war over which way was better to crack a boiled egg and 
> was intended to satirize the rivalry between French and English cultures 
> (here we are dealing across far more diverse languages/cultures than 
> almost ASCIIesque French). Of course the underlying issue, particularly 
> with regard to existing domain holders, is really one of the financial 
> interests of the major existing registries, which have already launched 
> without any input from Language Communities. Those few of us here who were 
> here to witness the response the Chinese Community (ambassadorial 
> objections to UN and world papers and many years of united Chinese (i.e. 
> Taiwan and China remarkably together) public fury) had to the IDN.com 
> launch in two Chinese scripts (which still have not been solved really) 
> can tell you what happens when registries launch without language 
> community support.
>
> Given the above I think while a small case can probably be made to reduce 
> confusion by aliasing “concept” strings, the best way to solve it is to 
> offer every new gTLD string in any script (even for existing registries 
> and domain holders) to be put through a general case-by-case 
> bidding/award/selection process without aliasing, without regard as to 
> whether it has any purported “conceptual” connection to any other 
> potential or existing gTLD string in any other language, including ASCII.
>
> *In summary,*
>
> * (1) On the Support statement, I strongly disagree. *
>
> *(2) On the Alternate View, on almost definition terms alone, I suggest it 
> could be elevated to Agreement level for definition reasons similar to the 
> now agreed to Agreement that “Aliasing” includes DNAMES*.
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/726 - Release Date: 3/18/2007