Anybody still interested in Arabics? - IDN Forums

jacksonm · #1 (**permalink**) 1st November 2007, 07:06 PM

What is the general feeling among the group? Is anybody still interested in Arabic domains, knowing that they probably won't be aliased at least for a long time?

Waste of money or solid investment?

.

Rubber Duck · #2 (**permalink**) 1st November 2007, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacksonm

What is the general feeling among the group? Is anybody still interested in Arabic domains, knowing that they probably won't be aliased at least for a long time?

Waste of money or solid investment?

.

I am not quite sure where you get all this from.

When the ccNSO were talking about fast tracking it was muted that this would only apply to those that are aliased.

**tee1** · #3 (**permalink**) 1st November 2007, 07:42 PM

For me I have only been waiting since feb 06, there are some here that have been waiting since 2000 for IDNs in general, I can wait a few more years for arabic domains.

tee1

jacksonm · #4 (**permalink**) 1st November 2007, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tee1

For me I have only been waiting since feb 06, there are some here that have been waiting since 2000 for IDNs in general, I can wait a few more years for arabic domains.

Yes, but would you still buy them today?

.

**tee1** · #5 (**permalink**) 1st November 2007, 07:52 PM

yes as well as Hebrew.

tee1

jacksonm · #6 (**permalink**) 1st November 2007, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rubber Duck

I am not quite sure where you get all this from.

When the ccNSO were talking about fast tracking it was muted that this would only apply to those that are aliased.

For sure country codes will be aliased and likely fast tracked. I'm talking about .coms and .nets. From what Sammy reported, it's basically a dead deal.

.

Rubber Duck · #7 (**permalink**) 1st November 2007, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacksonm

For sure country codes will be aliased and likely fast tracked. I'm talking about .coms and .nets. From what Sammy reported, it's basically a dead deal.

.

Well we will see what Sammy's remarks are worth later.

As I see it, the aliasing is simply a matter of the applicant explaining the aliasing within his application. It is normal for the applicant to have to represent the way they are going to represent online communities in this way. If technically it is easy to do Aliasing for ccTLDs, I cannot see what the big deal is gTLDs. Of course it might have made things a bit clearly if I could have heard anything from today's meeting!

IDNCowboy · #8 (**permalink**) 1st November 2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rubber Duck

Well we will see what Sammy's remarks are worth later.

As I see it, the aliasing is simply a matter of the applicant explaining the aliasing within his application. It is normal for the applicant to have to represent the way they are going to represent online communities in this way. If technically it is easy to do Aliasing for ccTLDs, I cannot see what the big deal is gTLDs. Of course it might have made things a bit clearly if I could have heard anything from today's meeting!

As always you should run for president. Sammy's remarks are worthless and you are King. Do not argue with RD. PERIOD

jacksonm · #9 (**permalink**) 1st November 2007, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rubber Duck

If technically it is easy to do Aliasing for ccTLDs, I cannot see what the big deal is gTLDs.

Politics, pure politics.

.

Fka200 · #10 (**permalink**) 1st November 2007, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacksonm

For sure country codes will be aliased.

Any sources? Been hearing about IDN ccTLDs all week.

jacksonm · #11 (**permalink**) 1st November 2007, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fka200

Any sources? Been hearing about IDN ccTLDs all week.

No sources, just a strong feeling. I should have reworded that.

What's the latest?

.

Rubber Duck · #12 (**permalink**) 1st November 2007, 09:00 PM

I am just trying to counteract what appears to be complete rumour mongering.

If there is something to this then somewhere there will be a document we can all look at. If there isn't then it is pure hogwash.

Please provide your references.

Anyway, if you want Arabic dot coms from me don't bother asking unless you are prepared to pay serious money.

It seems kind of weird that we have all this talking down of the prices when nobody even seems to be attempting to sell any of them.

jacksonm · #13 (**permalink**) 1st November 2007, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rubber Duck

I am just trying to counteract what appears to be complete rumour mongering.

You've got a lot of policing to do!

.

Rubber Duck · #14 (**permalink**) 1st November 2007, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacksonm

You've got a lot of policing to do!

.

If you actually analyse who has been contributing to writing the New gTLD policy over the months you will see why Verisign and the other gTLD registries are not going to be left out in the cold.

jacksonm · #15 (**permalink**) 1st November 2007, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rubber Duck

If you actually analyse who has been contributing to writing the New gTLD policy over the months you will see why Verisign and the other gTLD registries are not going to be left out in the cold.

In your opinion, when would you estimate that .com and .net aliasing/dname (or similar) will be deployed to us for free? Just a guesstimate...

.

Rubber Duck · #16 (**permalink**) 1st November 2007, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacksonm

In your opinion, when would you estimate that .com and .net aliasing/dname (or similar) will be deployed to us for free? Just a guesstimate...

.

Yes, with about 99% certainty.

The basic point is that ccTLD PDP are gTLD PDP are quite separate. China has its voice in the ccNSO whose remit is to govern ccTLDs whilst Verisign has its voice in a much smaller pond that govern the gTLDs. China may apply for a gTLD but they ain't writing the policy.

jacksonm · #17 (**permalink**) 1st November 2007, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rubber Duck

Yes, with about 99% certainty.

The basic point is that ccTLD PDP are gTLD PDP are quite separate. China has its voice in the ccNSO whose remit is to govern ccTLDs whilst Verisign has its voice in a much smaller pond that govern the gTLDs. China may apply for a gTLD but they ain't writing the policy.

No, the question was "when".

.

Rubber Duck · #18 (**permalink**) 2nd November 2007, 01:50 AM

Resolving, end of 2008.

IDNCowboy · #19 (**permalink**) 2nd November 2007, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rubber Duck

Resolving, end of 2008.

As you have said in the past...

Sources please ;-)

Rubber Duck · #20 (**permalink**) 2nd November 2007, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IDNCowboy

As you have said in the past...

Sources please ;-)

I think the term he used was guestimate.

It is, however, quite clear that the policy won't be fully in place until June, so it seems reasonable to allow another 6 months or so after that for gTLD Aliases which are being fast tracked through the system.

I am not really that hung up about it. Only Arabic, Farsi and Urdu in my portfolio desperately need this, and these market are still really only beginning to develop.

The cash cows are Russian and Japanese probably. These markets should work perfectly adequate with IDN.com.