Re: [gnso-idn-wg] On 4.4.2
- To: rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-idn-wg] On 4.4.2
- From: subbiah <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:05:40 -0800
My statements below do not refer to the Agreement that we all agreed on
- the definition of what "aliasing" means. As for the Agreement
statement below that is not yet in the draft I also have no problem.
My issue is with the original Support statement and its sister
Alternative View, since that is what we are talking about now after
finiahsing with all "Agreemens".
While the debate maybe moved to a policy arena, from a merely technical
one, the core issue is still the same - and after all we are dealing
with a Policy WG. My two points are again, wherever you feel it should
be addressed in the document (but here seems appropriate since teh
Support statement and Alternative View are right there):
(1) The Alternative View is really in essence a statement of fact. That
normal DNS means can achieve/mimic the effect of aliasing. So formally
it could be an Agreement. This is not a big issue for me though.
(2) The Support statement contends that alisaing will alleivate
"confusion". My point is such confusion has to be placed in the context
of other greater confusion it may cause that while "alleviating" some
limited ones. Second it suggests that "existing domain holders" have by
virtue of "existing" have de facto rights that should translate into
"confusion alleviation rights". Admittedly policy issues and not
technical but nonetheless it is being assumed in this Support
statement, which for the several reasons in my original email below I am
not supportive of.
Hope thaty helps,
Ram Mohan wrote:
My recollection is that on Friday's call, we changed the statement to say
"Agreement to address aliasing on a policy level rather than focus on
particular technical approaches."
I don't see it reflected in the document yet.
e: rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx | m: +1.215.431.0958
From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of subbiah
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:54 PM
To: gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx; GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
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
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.
* (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