[At-Large] New gTLDs

Thu Jul 5 21:36:52 EDT 2007

I remember back when, I was at a meeting hosted by a couple of ICANN
representatives.  In the room were the likes of the President of
Register.com and the gentlemen who started .jobs and at least one other TLD,
about the time they were accredited as registries.

So, question time, I ask something to the tune of, "We have yet to really
establish objectives in what we want from new TLDs, why does there seem to
be such a rush in getting a handfull of new TLDs established?"

Well, I was almost laughed out of the room.  So, as I sit here laughing
about this same sham again, I wonder again, "what's the rush?"  Have we seen
anything spectacular from .aero, .jobs, .coop, .museum?  How about .biz and
.info?  But I also agree with the proponents who say the spectacle of the
fact is none of our business - but is it?

It seems to me the idea is to start a TLD registry, and before the sunrise
period is over you pass breakeven and everything else is gravy.  Yah, great
as a business model but what of functionality of the Internet?  I almost had
my mind changed that it is nothing more than a confusion of the namespace -
almost.

It is my opinion that we need to dedicate some more thought on this matter
BEFORE, rather than AFTER introducing new TLDs.

For the record, I don't see anything wrong with .nyc, .paris, or
.cleveland.  The reason is, that it serves a defined purpose -
geographical.  .mobi serves a defined purpose.  But, I'm not sure about
these aliases that we're discussing, I think there's something deeper that
we need to consider.  I think we're a little off-track with the
IDN/alias/registry arguments.  If it's confusing to us, what about grandma
trying to send an email?

-Randy Glass
A at L

On 7/4/07, Roberto Gaetano <roberto at icann.org> wrote:
>
> IMHO, DNAME is a strawman, in particular for IDN.
>
> I have serious difficulties in seeing specific cases in which aliases
> could
> be useful, and surely not in the case in which an IDN TLD is aliased with
> an
> ASCII TLD.
>
> The reason why it is debated is for slowly introducing the concept that
> registries who have a TLD should be granted the right to other
> "equivalent"
> TLDs, like for instance IDN versions of the original string. This came up
> already some time ago in the discussion with the Registry Constituency.
>
> For this reason I have reacted to the ccNSO proposal for the introduction
> of
> IDN TLDs asking to make clear that the IDN TLD is related to the
> ISO-3166-1
> entry, but not to the ccTLD current operator. If the authority of the
> country or territory who "owns" the ISO-3166-1 code wants to appoint the
> current ccTLD operator to manage also the IDN TLD, it is their right to
> decide so, but it should not bee seen, in any way, as the "default"
> solution. I am worried that this could create a precedent that gTLD
> registries could use as a claim for IDN strings.
>
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > [mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
> > Alan Greenberg
> > Sent: 02 July 2007 20:09
> > To: At-Large Worldwide
> > Cc: At-Large Worldwide
> > Subject: Re: [At-Large] New gTLDs
> >
> > At 02/07/2007 08:38 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> > >Alan Greenberg ha scritto:
> > >>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.
> > >
> > >I think that we should really work out a comprehensive statement, at
> > >least if we can manage to do so in the next couple of
> > months: I think
> > >that the chances to influence the agreement reached in the GNSO work
> > >are scarce (that's the feeling I had whenever the matter was
> > discussed
> > >with Bruce Tonkin, the former GNSO Chair now on the Board,
> > as it looks
> > >like that what is being proposed is a hard fought
> > >compromise) and so we might focus on getting our points in
> > at the Board
> > >level, especially on those matters which are more under the
> > purview of
> > >the Board (procedures, fees, timing, etc.).
> >
> > I agree completely. There is little chance of aliases being a
> > full-fledged recommendation at this late time. But recent
> > discussions about IDN TLDs and City-name TLDs have increased
> > the interest in aliases, and if we put in a statement, it
> > will be included in the report that goes to the board.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l
> > ists.icann.org
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC
> > Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> 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
> ALAC Independent: 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/20070705/42df5353/attachment.html 