RE: [gnso-idn-wg] On 4.4.2

["olof nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ram and all,
Yes, in fact we agreed on the last call to send the following drafting to
the list:
"Agreement to address aliasing as a policy issue, rather than in terms of
any specific technical mode for implementation of such a feature."
I did send it to the list during the call and have not received any comments
to it yet.
Best regards
Olof

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ram Mohan
Sent: den 19 mars 2007 18:27
To: 'subbiah'; gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx; 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [gnso-idn-wg] On 4.4.2

Dear Subbiah,
My recollection is that on Friday's call, we changed the statement to say
something like:

"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.

-Ram
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ram Mohan
e: rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx | m: +1.215.431.0958
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


-----Original Message-----
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 
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