[At-Large] New gTLDs

Mon Jul 2 00:04:39 EDT 2007

And we are not likely to reach concensus. Perhaps 
.NYC and .NEWYORK should be two different gTLDs. 
Or perhaps they should be the aliases for the 
same domain as my original example of .PRAGUE and 
.PRAHA. In my mind, saying that aliases are not 
allowed (unless you happen to submit two separate 
bids and both are accepted) allows the most 
competition. Allowing aliases in a single bid 
allows you to (in the Prague/Praha case) reduce 
user confusion because you can use the name you 
are familiar with to get to the same gTLD. Both 
alternatives may be the "right" answer depending on the circumstances.

As things stand now, there is no allowance for 
aliases in the draft policy recommendation, and 
that is the way it will likely stay when the GNSO finalizes it next month.

If there is some interest in allowing aliases, I 
will submit a statement to that effect. The 
statement should include some parameters for when 
it is reasonable or not (since the use of aliases 
WILL reduce the potential for competition, there 
must be some rationale for doing so). In my mind, 
as the group representing users, less confusion 
may be more important than more competition. Or not.

Alan

At 01/07/2007 11:32 PM, RJGlass | America at Large wrote:
>Yes, I think much more discussion on this issue 
>is appropriate.  Well before aproving additional 
>gTLDs.  The IDNs and aliases I think are great 
>concerns.  With the issue of .nyc and .newyork, 
>I think these could well be 2 applications, 2 
>operators.  Possibly the applicants of a TLD 
>should have to request aliases and IDN 
>alternatives, but we are far from coming to a consensus on these matters.
>
>aloha,
>Randy Glass
>A at L
>
>On 6/28/07, Annette Muehlberg 
><<mailto:Annette.Muehlberg at web.de>Annette.Muehlberg at web.de> wrote:
>Dear Alan,
>
>yes the problem has been discussed on an even 
>simpler basis - not only even concerning the use 
>of different languages. In case of NYC an 
>alternative application could well be .newyork - 
>so that woud mean it is up to the applicant to 
>also apply for another version of TLD (or someone else could apply).
>
>
>Concerning our ALAC statement to present this 
>afternoon could you pick up what, Jaqueline put 
>it already in her slides (unfortunately not shown):
>
>We would like to stress that Geo/City TLDs 
>provide a great opportunity for users.
>More choice, Identification with the 
>region/city. They offer good opportunities for local business.
>
>Part of what has to be considered are the rights 
>of governments to register governmental domains 
>- (apart from Trademark issues).
>A local geographical and unrestricted (!) domain 
>is a very useful addition to the existing TLDs for the users.
>
>Best
>Annette
>
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Alan Greenberg 
> <<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> > Gesendet: 28.06.07 17:11:25
> > An: At-Large Worldwide 
> <<mailto:alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > Betreff: Re: [At-Large] New gTLDs
>
>
> >
> > Agreed. And time is VERY short.
> >
> > One of my comments is that the current plan is that new gTLDs will be
> > processed one-by-one. But there are compelling reasons for linking
> > applications in cases where the multiple TLDs will map to the same domain.
> >
> > This is already starting to be discussed related to IDN ccTLDs which
> > map to existing ASCII ccTLDs.
> >
> > This applies to both IDN TLDs which will be aliases for existing
> > gTLDs as well as cases where multiple language (IDN or not) versions
> > of the same name. For example, in the case of Geo-TLDs, it might make
> > sense for applications for .PRAGUE and .PRAHA to be linked and
> > applied for at the same time if they will be aliases for each other.
> >
> > We are always talking about fragmenting the Internet. If we don't
> > address this issue, we have the potential for fragmenting the
> > Internet over language lines.
> >
> > As Liaison to the GNSO, I would like to raise this issue, at the very
> > least for inclusion of a comment from the ALAC (it is probably too
> > late to effect the body of the recommendations). Is there any support
> > for my proposal?
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > At 28/06/2007 10:27 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> > >All,
> > >in the interesting discussion that is now developing at the public forum
> > >on the introduction of new gTLDs, I will refrain from taking any
> > >position, because we have not discussed any at this point in time (the
> > >proposal just came out a few days ago).
> > >Nonetheless, we should agree on a position as soon as possible, possibly
> > >before the intermediate Board meeting in August, so that we can then try
> > >to push it through, and that I have something official to say in the
> > >discussions of the Board.
> > >Thanks,
> > >--
> > >vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
> > >-------->  finally with a new website at 
> <http://bertola.eu/>http://bertola.eu/  <--------
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >ALAC mailing list
> > ><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > 
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >
> > >At-Large Official Site: 
> <http://www.alac.icann.org>http://www.alac.icann.org
> > >ALAC Independent: <http://www.icannalac.org>http://www.icannalac.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > <mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > 
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: 
> <http://www.alac.icann.org>http://www.alac.icann.org
> > ALAC Independent: <http://www.icannalac.org>http://www.icannalac.org
> >
>
>--
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC mailing list
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>At-Large Official Site: <http://www.alac.icann.org>http://www.alac.icann.org
>ALAC Independent: <http://www.icannalac.org>http://www.icannalac.org
>
>
>
>
>--
>-------------------------
>AmericaAtLarge.org
>RJPacific.com
>DDMF.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070702/ef7e42cb/attachment.html 