Tina Dam answers: Are existing gTLDs going to be aliased to IDN extensions or not?

[bwhhisc]

Comment by Alias
2008-02-21 11:36:34
Hi, What can you say about aliasing? Are existing gTLDs going to be aliased to IDN extensions or not?

2008-02-21 15:33:13 by Tina Dam:
Hello Alias, this is difficult to answer and might end up being different for the various TLDs. Let me try and see if this explanation helps.

In the policy work related to IDN gTLds it was determined by the community that just because a company is the registry operator for a gTLD today is not the same as saying that it will have pre-rights to all or any translated or transliterated versions of that TLD. However, as part of the process for introduction of new gTLds there is also an objection based process. As such if someone applies for a certain string others can object to it on ground of for example “confusability” with the existing string. So one can imagine a situation where a .tld is tranlated into another language, represented by a corresponding script and applied for in the process. If it is not the same operator then the current operator of .tld could possible make an objection.

Now that said, of course [b]current gTLD operators can also decide right away to apply for a translated string and to operate that as an aliasing to the exisiting one.[/b]

So in other words untill we see applications i cant tell what it will be.

Tina

**she typed offcourse, but I think she meant "of course" so I changed it to those words just before the [b]bold[/b] words.

[sunsei21]

hmm so the ball is in verisigns court?

[rhys]

No comment on the ccTLD policy?

[bwhhisc]

Originally Posted by rhys

No comment on the ccTLD policy?

Rhys, you can ask her that question directly on this thread:

http://blog.icann.org/?p=276#comments

[zfreud]

"Hello this is Verisign"

"Hi, this is IDNForums Aliasing expert, Blastfromthepast. I'd really like you to alias .com and .net"

Verisign: "Well Blast, this was of course the entire point to our sponsoring the DNAME proposal. And as we're sure you are aware, it isn't our decision whether we are allowed to alias .com and .net"

Blast: "Right. But you don't understand. I really know what I am talking about. And I want you to alias .com and .net. So do my fellow IDN Forum members."

Verisign: "Blast, you need to go to Google and search for the following: "DNAME" "gTLD" "ccTLD" "First Grade"

Blast: "First Grade? What's that? Can you alias that too?!"

[touchring]

Touchring: "Yeah, what's First Grade about?"

[bwhhisc]

Originally Posted by zfreud

"Hello this is Verisign"

"Hi, this is IDNForums Aliasing expert, Blastfromthepast. I'd really like you to alias .com and .net"

Verisign: "Well Blast, this was of course the entire point to our sponsoring the DNAME proposal. And as we're sure you are aware, it isn't our decision whether we are allowed to alias .com and .net"

Blast: "Right. But you don't understand. I really know what I am talking about. And I want you to alias .com and .net. So do my fellow IDN Forum members."

Verisign: "Blast, you need to go to Google and search for the following: "DNAME" "gTLD" "ccTLD" "First Grade"

Blast: "First Grade? What's that? Can you alias that too?!"

Where did Blast's post go??
How do you make posts entirely disappear?


************************************
************************************
Back to ICANN Blog...
Next question up on the block...waiting for answer from Tina Dam

Comment by sean
2008-02-21 18:18:23
Tina,

Can you clarify what you mean buy a current gTLD operating a new string as “an aliasing to the existing one”?

Do you mean:

1: The given registry will somehow “alias” the new IDN gTLD to an existing latin TLD so that typing one domain name + gTLD automatically directs to the same location as the other gTLD? My understanding is this solution (whether DNAME or equivalent) would require further ICANN testing, approval, etc.

2: The registry will effectively grant registrants in one gTLD the same domain in the IDN gTLD. In this scenario it would be the registrant who decides whether the domains “alias” or not as they would decide if they should point to the same location. This scenario would not need the approval of anyone.

Comment by sean
2008-02-21 18:25:26
In rereading my comment i realize it might be confusing.

To avoid confusion, and purely as an example:.

let’s say that Verisign applies for and is granted a hanzi equivalent of .com. For arguments sake we’ll call this “.公司”

Are you saying Verisign can then somehow choose to alias these domains so that

existingdomain.com

points to the exact same location as

existingdomain..公司

without any intervening technology? (i.e. DNAME)

or, are you saying Verisign can choose to grant the stakeholder in “exsitingname.com” the domain “existingdomain.公司”. This would effectively alias the domain (assuming the registrant pointed them to the same location) without any new technology, ICANN approval, etc. END QUOTE

[Jay]

All credit to Alias and Sean (whoever they are) for moving this discussion on. Tina's response to Alias' question was very vague, so hopefully she'll clarify some more about this.

[jacksonm]

Originally Posted by Jay

All credit to Alias and Sean (whoever they are) for moving this discussion on. Tina's response to Alias' question was very vague, so hopefully she'll clarify some more about this.

Alias raises hand.

.

[touchring]

Tina's response is already very clear, there will be no aliasing from ICANN. If verisign wants to alias, and give free domains to .com holders, it's their own biz. But mind you, ICANN fee still has to be paid!!

Bottomline -> no free aliasing.

[jacksonm]

Originally Posted by touchring

Tina's response is already very clear, there will be no aliasing from ICANN. If verisign wants to alias, and give free domains to .com holders, it's their own biz. But mind you, ICANN fee still has to be paid!!

Bottomline -> no free aliasing.

This is exactly what I said a week or so ago and was insinuated to be an idiot!!!

.

[touchring]

Originally Posted by jacksonm

This is exactly what I said a week or so ago and was insinuated to be an idiot!!!

.

Come on. What do you expect sellers to say?

Everything is within our expectations. No free lunch.

[yanni]

What's the ICANN fee? 60 cents?

[ala101]

Originally Posted by yanni

What's the ICANN fee? 60 cents?

ICANN fee is 20 cents per domain name year.

[yanni]

Originally Posted by ala101

ICANN fee is 20 cents per domain name year.

We're safe, then

[261275]

"current gTLD operators can also decide right away to apply for a translated string and to operate that as an aliasing to the existing one."

What are the possible oppositions to that?
Since it is verisign's proposal for dname, now that the above was said, what is holding verisign to do just that?

[Rubber Duck]

Originally Posted by touchring

Tina's response is already very clear, there will be no aliasing from ICANN. If verisign wants to alias, and give free domains to .com holders, it's their own biz. But mind you, ICANN fee still has to be paid!!

Bottomline -> no free aliasing.

Where has this been said?

Are you just making this up as you go along?

Originally Posted by jacksonm

This is exactly what I said a week or so ago and was insinuated to be an idiot!!!

.

And you still are an idiot because you are just basing your assumptions on Touchrings ramblings.

Aliasing within the root cannot be done a case by case basis. That would have to be done within the backend at the Registry.

If it is done this way then sometimes aliases would work and sometimes they wouldn't. This would effectively break the root in a bigger way than anything that IDN might have been conjectured to do so far, even by its most unhinged critics! The big difference of course would have to be that this particular piece of DNS vandalism would have to be sanctioned by the ICANN Board.

Frankly, I would get more sense out of Homer Simpson!

[jacksonm]

Sorry, I just ate a huge pizza for lunch. I can't take any of your bait :-)

.

[zfreud]

RE: "If verisign wants to alias, and give free domains to .com holders"

yes, but this is NOT aliasing by registry. This is simply granting new TLDs to existing verisign clients who can then choose, or not, to point their domains to the same location. Meaning this would allow for client side aliasing, or CNAME. Which is obviously already an established protocol.

True aliasing, whether via DNAME or some other method, requires support in a zone’s authoritative server. Any solution like that will need to march through the ICANN swamp.

This is why I keep saying: new space idn TLDs are a foregone conclusion at this stage.

Which leaves a pretty messy IP landscape ahead. I think it is also open to debate whether Verisign opts to grant existing IDN.com stakeholders the equivalent domain in whatever foreign script. There are arguments from a profit perspective for and against doing that. And we all know that when it comes to Verisign, profit will be what drives the decision making process.

But if they do give exsiting IDN.com stakeholders access to the equivalent IDN.IDNcom what do you think the odds are that Verisign would give those new TLDs away for free? If you say zero, you're getting warm.

[Rubber Duck]

Come on. If we are going to attempt to discuss this we need to get a few facts straight and tighten up on our terminology.

First.

Verisign cannot and won't allocate TLDs to anyone. Only ICANN can do that.

The other thing that occurs to me is that whilst the C Name protocol obviously exists in the Registry Servers, whether or not they have the authority to use it in this way must be covered by their Registry Agreement with ICANN. I think this would have to go through the ICANN swamp, and as yet they have not even got their boots wet.

Also if this was their master plan, why bother putting forward the DNAME proposal. Just doesn't make sense!