Re: [gnso-idn-wg] On 4.4.2

[Tan Tin Wee <tinwee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My two cents is that if we were to use alias to reduce confusion to an
existing ASCII registry string, who decides what is similar in meaning
or equivalent?

There is a Chinese word for money-making financial enterprises
(which we sometimes call them companies or commercial in English),
called "gongsi" and could be used as a Chinese TLD of financial
enterprises (which by the way, the Chinese have already in effect
fully deployed across over a hundred million Internet users in
China  for a number of years now).

Now what is the correct translation of that or equivalent of that in
English – ".biz" owned by Neustar or ".com" owned by Verisign ?

I think trying to go across languages and trying to force or
presuppose equivalence in meaning without reference to the
relevant language committees will cause far more confusion
than the confusion it is trying to solve.

I am therefore against IDN aliasing (except in limited genuine script
variant cases) and feel that in principle, no IDN string in a given language
should be assumed to have any meaning or other connection with another
string in another language, ASCII included. There are just too many
imponderables.

Therefore, every gTLD application should be assessed on its own merit
and open to all to apply.

bestrgds
Tin Wee

Alexei Sozonov wrote:
> Avri,
>
> I guess with whatever "reduce confusion reason" I  did  not intend to
> imply special limited cases  like "variant script" . I am actually only
> against automatically aliasing all existing tld holders in name of
> "reduce confusion"
>
> Alexei
>  
>  
>  
>
>  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idn-wg] On 4.4.2
> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:33:36 +0100
> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> To: gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> References: <45FECE2F.70406@xxxxxxxxx>
> <006c01c76a53$814d38e0$6401a8c0@legato>
>
>
>
> On 19 mar 2007, at 19.21, Alexei Sozonov wrote:
>
>  > Strange, if any fair person would support aliasing (critically 
>  > sensitive for locals issue) for whatever “reduce confusion” reason.
>
> well, i think we need to differentiate:
>
> - there is a notion of granting automatic aliasing to all existing 
> tld holders.  I do not know how strong the support for that is, but 
> it is certainly not something i support.  and it is not, as far as i 
> can, envisioned in the current discussions.
>
> - there is the notion of limited aliasing for idn applicants that i 
> have been advocating which i do believe is a reasonable facilitation 
> mechanism.
>
> Which notion of aliasing are you referring to?
>
> a.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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