RE: [gnso-idn-wg] On 4.4.2

["Mark McFadden" <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>From Alexei: "The entire reason for launching IDN is
to serve local community"

Unless there is an exciting or galactic redefinition of the world "local" to
mean "global" I completely disagree.

Mark



----- 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
>