Marc, actually i agree with your redefinition of the world "local"
internet is global, and russian is as glabal as any language...
thanks
Alexei
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark McFadden" <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Alexei Sozonov'" <sozon@xxxxxxxxx>; "'subbiah'" <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx>;
<gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>; "'GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'"
<gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:35 AM
Subject: RE: [gnso-idn-wg] On 4.4.2
> 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
>>
>
>