Re: [gnso-idn-wg] On 4.4.2

[subbiah <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx>]

That's more or less what I had in mind, of course depending on the 
levels of support/dissent. I am sure Olof is taking notes on the extent 
of such.

Subbiah

p.s. Tough job, Olof, keeping track of all these email threads. Thanks


Ram Mohan wrote:

> 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