RE: [gnso-idn-wg] On 4.4.2

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

Ram and all,
Sure - I'll make a "Note" out of it instead (I like easy tasks ;-)
Best
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 22:16
To: 'subbiah'
Cc: gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx; 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [gnso-idn-wg] On 4.4.2

Subbiah,
Yes, the "alternative view" could easily be converted into just a statement
of fact.  Olof, could you make this happen, perhaps as a "Note" similar to
other "Notes" elsewhere.

Where I see all this coming to is:
-> There is Support (as we define the word in our WG) for the "Support"
position stated in 4.4.2.  Leave it as-is.
-> What is missing is the "Alternate View", or perhaps another "Support"
statement that states the opposing perspective - I think the WG should see
the formulation of this statement.  We would then state both points of view
for the record.

Does this work for you and the rest of the WG?

-Ram

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


-----Original Message-----
From: subbiah [mailto:subbiah@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:06 PM
To: rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx; 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-idn-wg] On 4.4.2

Ram,

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,

Subbiah



Ram Mohan wrote:

>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