IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names  
Home | Advertise on idnforums | Premium Membership

Go Back   IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names > IDN Discussions > New gTLDs

New gTLDs IDN or ascii, use this forum to discuss the new gTLDs

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 6th February 2013, 02:48 PM
squirrel's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,940
iTrader: (11)
Rep Power: 7091
squirrel is a name known to all
squirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to all
Exclamation Comment period on new gTLD Agreement

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-...05feb13-en.htm

It is a golden occasion for us to voice our concern with respect to the contractual discrepancies between existing gTLD contractual obligations and their internationalized TLD proposed contractual obligations as well as all the aliasing issue - essentially points that were raised by RD in the last comment period (https://gtldcomment.icann.org/commen...ntdetails/1477)

Please share ideas for a comment template and let's all post before the Feb 26th deadline.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 6th February 2013, 06:45 PM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4518
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Re: Comment period on new gTLD Agreement

1) These domains can only exist as aliases of existing IDN dot Coms as to prevent user confusion.

2) Because the existing registrants have these righs, Verisign should be restricted in their fees to the reasonable cost of providing the service that they provide. They are not selling any intellectual property as that is already legitimate owned by the existing registrants.

3) ICANN has a duty to ensure that existing registrants are contractually protected.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 6th February 2013, 11:14 PM
DktoInc's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of the Loon
Posts: 1,583
iTrader: (2)
Rep Power: 2179
DktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura about
Re: Comment period on new gTLD Agreement

Questions for the older and the wiser....

why only .com and .net are singled out? should the contract details apply to every one else including the cclds? after all a lot of these new idn tlds are just extension to already existing ascii tlds (.org ,.ws,) and idn.ascii has been available to reg for a long time in the gtld and cctld space.
From what we've seen in the cctld space is that some get aliased to their new idn tld (ex.cn) and others don't, creating 2 separate domains in the cctld space (idn.ascii and idn.idn), example Kazakhstan, Korea...
Now, lets say Icann does what RD suggested for .com .net then they must do this to all tlds that already offer idn.ascii for registration "to protect the rights of existing domain owners and to protect the stability and security of the Internet by ensuring that the creations of these transliterations do no result in future user confusion."
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 7th February 2013, 12:32 AM
yanni's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,220
iTrader: (34)
Rep Power: 1160
yanni is on a distinguished roadyanni is on a distinguished roadyanni is on a distinguished roadyanni is on a distinguished roadyanni is on a distinguished roadyanni is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to yanni Send a message via Skype™ to yanni
Re: Comment period on new gTLD Agreement

The IDN cctlds are not transliterations of existing ASCII cctlds. dot "China" for example, is not the same as dot "CN" so no user confusion there. Anyway, the cctlds are out of the gates already.

This is for com net and org. (The apps for dot "WebSite" have nothing to do with dot WS, which is a cctld anyway).
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 7th February 2013, 12:54 AM
DktoInc's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of the Loon
Posts: 1,583
iTrader: (2)
Rep Power: 2179
DktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura about
Re: Comment period on new gTLD Agreement

Quote:
Originally Posted by yanni View Post
The IDN cctlds are not transliterations of existing ASCII cctlds. dot "China" for example, is not the same as dot "CN" so no user confusion there. Anyway, the cctlds are out of the gates already.
Not transliterations, but they are still extensions of the existing cctld. Anyway China is the one that did it the proper way. As for the others well, no one controlling what they do. If for example .jp is smart enough to alias the idns cctld without ever mentioning it in their future application then good, if not then there will be 2 different domains, everyone who is developing websites on idn.jp currently is out of luck. Further, that will cause user confusion which by the way is not regulated by anyone at this point but the greedy registries.

Quote:
(The apps for dot "WebSite" have nothing to do with dot WS, which is a cctld anyway)
Ok, I C. so even though Verisign is the contract holder for .ws, it is still a cctld and falls under a cctld fast track only.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 7th February 2013, 02:13 AM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4518
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Re: Comment period on new gTLD Agreement

Quote:
Originally Posted by DktoInc View Post
Questions for the older and the wiser....

why only .com and .net are singled out? should the contract details apply to every one else including the cclds? after all a lot of these new idn tlds are just extension to already existing ascii tlds (.org ,.ws,) and idn.ascii has been available to reg for a long time in the gtld and cctld space.
From what we've seen in the cctld space is that some get aliased to their new idn tld (ex.cn) and others don't, creating 2 separate domains in the cctld space (idn.ascii and idn.idn), example Kazakhstan, Korea...
Now, lets say Icann does what RD suggested for .com .net then they must do this to all tlds that already offer idn.ascii for registration "to protect the rights of existing domain owners and to protect the stability and security of the Internet by ensuring that the creations of these transliterations do no result in future user confusion."
iCANN has virtually no control over ccTLDs.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 7th February 2013, 02:30 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The Golden West
Posts: 921
iTrader: (0)
Rep Power: 3251
Avtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the rough
Re: Comment period on new gTLD Agreement

I found this section interesting:

Concurrent with this public comment period on the proposed revisions to the agreement, ICANN will also ask each applicant to submit a TLD-specific Public Interest Commitments Specification. ICANN will communicate directly with applicants regarding the details of submitting Public Interest Commitments Specification. ICANN expects to request applicants to submit their Public Interest Commitments Specifications by 5 March 2013, and ICANN plans to have them all posted for public review by 6 March 2013.

If I understand correctly, this means that on March 6 we will find out whether Verisign and PIR are willing to contractually commit themselves to implement aliasing. The term "public review" is ambiguous; does this mean that we will be given a chance to comment on their commitment, or lack of commitment?

Avtal
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 7th February 2013, 04:02 AM
squirrel's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,940
iTrader: (11)
Rep Power: 7091
squirrel is a name known to all
squirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to all
Re: Comment period on new gTLD Agreement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avtal View Post
I found this section interesting:

Concurrent with this public comment period on the proposed revisions to the agreement, ICANN will also ask each applicant to submit a TLD-specific Public Interest Commitments Specification. ICANN will communicate directly with applicants regarding the details of submitting Public Interest Commitments Specification. ICANN expects to request applicants to submit their Public Interest Commitments Specifications by 5 March 2013, and ICANN plans to have them all posted for public review by 6 March 2013.

If I understand correctly, this means that on March 6 we will find out whether Verisign and PIR are willing to contractually commit themselves to implement aliasing. The term "public review" is ambiguous; does this mean that we will be given a chance to comment on their commitment, or lack of commitment?

Avtal
I don't know Avtal. In any event, we need to make the best out of this opportunity.

Anyone other than David want to post some points we should include in our comments, don't be shy.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 7th February 2013, 12:35 PM
Drewbert's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,091
iTrader: (20)
Rep Power: 0
Drewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgy
Re: Comment period on new gTLD Agreement

Quote:
Originally Posted by DktoInc View Post
Ok, I C. so even though Verisign is the contract holder for .ws, it is still a cctld and falls under a cctld fast track only.
ICANN has no power over ccTLD's as they are considered sovereign property. Apart from those ones that were silly enough to sign contracts with ICANN.
__________________
It's all jaded style to me.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 7th February 2013, 12:38 PM
Drewbert's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,091
iTrader: (20)
Rep Power: 0
Drewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgy
Re: Comment period on new gTLD Agreement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avtal View Post
If I understand correctly, this means that on March 6 we will find out whether Verisign and PIR are willing to contractually commit themselves to implement aliasing. The term "public review" is ambiguous; does this mean that we will be given a chance to comment on their commitment, or lack of commitment?
Yes. Someone realised that the promises in the applications didn't automatically translate into contractual obligations and made enough noise to get the situation changed. Hurrah!
__________________
It's all jaded style to me.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 7th February 2013, 01:39 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The Golden West
Posts: 921
iTrader: (0)
Rep Power: 3251
Avtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the rough
Re: Comment period on new gTLD Agreement

Quote:
Originally Posted by squirrel View Post
Please share ideas for a comment template and let's all post before the Feb 26th deadline.
1) ICANN places a great deal of emphasis on DNS Stability. But failure to alias -> user confusion -> perceived DNS instability.

2) Verisign has made many public commitments to aliasing, but didn't make any commitments in its application. The current process should be used to hold Verisign to all its previous commitments, not just the ones in its application.

Avtal
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 9th February 2013, 10:25 PM
DktoInc's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of the Loon
Posts: 1,583
iTrader: (2)
Rep Power: 2179
DktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura aboutDktoInc has a spectacular aura about
Re: Comment period on new gTLD Agreement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbert View Post
ICANN has no power over ccTLD's as they are considered sovereign property. Apart from those ones that were silly enough to sign contracts with ICANN.
http://www.icann.org/en/about/participate/what
Quote:
There is an important exception to this in the form of “country code top-level domains” (ccTLDs) such as .de for Germany or .uk for the United Kingdom. There are over 250 ccTLDs, some of which have a contract with ICANN; others of which have signed working agreements with ICANN; and some of which have yet to enter any formal agreement with ICANN.
ok is this what you mean?

then how to find out who signed those contracts with Icann, did .JP sign it as well? what are they really selling idn.jp or ascii(xn--).jp? will they then blame it on the modern browsers for converting it into native scripts?

It has been done before with .kz and .uz who already in breach of their contracts with Icann.
For those who signed those contracts and working agreements, is Icann entitled to some kind of control over what goes on there? if so, then what RD said :
3) ICANN has a duty to ensure that existing registrants are contractually protected.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 9th February 2013, 10:28 PM
Drewbert's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,091
iTrader: (20)
Rep Power: 0
Drewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgy
Re: Comment period on new gTLD Agreement

Quote:
Originally Posted by DktoInc View Post
3) ICANN has a duty to ensure that existing registrants are contractually protected.
Ahhh. See there's the problem. ICANN doesn't really feel it need to deal with anyone it hasn't signed a contract with.

That's why the UDRP is so messy in parts - ICANN never signed any contracts with the UDRP providers!
__________________
It's all jaded style to me.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 19th February 2013, 11:55 AM
Drewbert's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,091
iTrader: (20)
Rep Power: 0
Drewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgy
Re: Comment period on new gTLD Agreement

http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applica...specs-pic-faqs
__________________
It's all jaded style to me.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 19th February 2013, 02:43 PM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4518
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Re: Comment period on new gTLD Agreement

looks like somebody is trying to draw a line under the protected vested interests previously enjoyed.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 19th February 2013, 04:10 PM
clipper's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Office
Posts: 1,003
iTrader: (26)
Rep Power: 3120
clipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the rough
Re: Comment period on new gTLD Agreement

Quote:
What happens if an applicant fails to submit a PIC Specification by the 05 March 2013?

The applicant will still be expected to enter into a registry agreement with a Specification 11 that includes only section 1.
Window dressing. Waste of legal fees.
__________________
;-)
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 20th February 2013, 06:00 PM
squirrel's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,940
iTrader: (11)
Rep Power: 7091
squirrel is a name known to all
squirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to all
Re: Comment period on new gTLD Agreement

Thoughts on this please :

Quote:
Considering that:
- DNS stability and security are of paramount importance to ICANN and the new gTLD program;
- Following these principles, no delegated new gTLD should cause user confusion;
- There are serious concerns that applied for strings which are internationalized versions of existing gTLDs (hereinafter "Strings") may cause such confusion if identitcal second level domains do not resolve to the same address in the two namespaces. (or simply registered to two different entities ?)
- To remedy this, some of the registries of the applied for Strings have discussed technical solutions to mitigate user confusion hereinafter referred to as "Aliasing".
- Details of Aliasing have not been published in any of the publicly available Strings application.
- Yet the issue of user confusion concerns the broad internet community.
- Particularly, existing gTLD second level IDNs registrants have not had the opportunity to comment on Aliasing.

For these reasons, I propose that all applicants of strings which are internationalized versions of existing gTLDs be required to divulge their Aliasing plans or lack thereof as well as their plans to handle existing second level IDNs, where applicable, as part of their Public Interest Commitments.


Moreover, because Aliasing, if implemented, confers a character of near indivisibility between identical second level domains in aliased namespaces, I propose that strings which are internationalized versions of existing gTLDs be subject to the same consumer protection oriented contractual obligations as their existing gTLD counterpart, notably in terms of pricing.
Let's give ourselves 1 or 2 more days to draft some stuff and then we should all post our comment en masse

Also : Do not hesitate to prepare a draft comment in a language other than english. Jose you should do something in Portuguese. IDNer, Seesaw in Chinese. Guru & TD in Thai etc.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 21st February 2013, 06:31 AM
clipper's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Office
Posts: 1,003
iTrader: (26)
Rep Power: 3120
clipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the rough
Re: Comment period on new gTLD Agreement

Quote:
Originally Posted by squirrel View Post
Thoughts on this please :
We may be shooting ourselves in the foot here. If ICANN takes comments seriously, it may delay the very gTLDs we are hoping for while ushering through the hundred or so other IDNgTLDs that are competing with com/net/org. Worst case scenario is widespread adoption of .みんな and .онлайн.

That said, I like it. I think it's worth spelling it out, though:
- The current number of IDNs registered in .net .com and .org (who has these numbers?) would emphasize the considerable existing presence of functioning developed IDNs;
- The existing user base of said IDNs, which would be materially harmed and confused by separating the IDN gTLD from its ASCII counterpart; the end result of such confusion would likely lead to abandonment of IDNs altogether by end users.
- How will the registry protect current users of IDN websites to ensure that the existing ASCII gTLDs are not confused with the new gTLDs?

I think its risky to mention the costs involved:
- It exposes a domainer bias: ICANN is not claiming to protect domainers, but "the public." The focus needs to be on users of sites rather than domain name owners. The minute I read that you want costs restricted I know you're a domainer, which calls into question the entire argument. For better or worse, domainers have a bad name.
__________________
;-)

Last edited by clipper; 21st February 2013 at 06:37 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 21st February 2013, 07:05 AM
clipper's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Office
Posts: 1,003
iTrader: (26)
Rep Power: 3120
clipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the rough
Re: Comment period on new gTLD Agreement

Regarding the pricing issue, I think ICANN prefers to stay out of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by squirrel View Post
Moreover, because Aliasing, if implemented, confers a character of near indivisibility between identical second level domains in aliased namespaces, I propose that strings which are internationalized versions of existing gTLDs be subject to the same consumer protection oriented contractual obligations as their existing gTLD counterpart, notably in terms of pricing.
I don't think ICANN really has the jurisdiction here. As I understand it, the pricing issue was due to pressure by the US Department of Commerce:

Quote:
3. Registry services pricing: Both the current .com registry agreement and the proposed renewal agreement permit Verisign to increase the price it charges registrars for domain names registrations four times during the six-year term with each increase being no greater than 7%. This provision was substantially negotiated between Verisign on the one hand, and the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Commerce, on the other.
Source (emphasis added)

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think our best course of action with ICANN (if any) is ensuring aliasing or at least limiting new gTLD registrations to those existing holders of identical second-level strings.

Pricing issues are going to have to come from elsewhere, likely market pressure.
__________________
;-)
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 21st February 2013, 09:38 AM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4518
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Re: Comment period on new gTLD Agreement

Clipper is right. Screwing the Chinese is not a viable business model.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 05:49 AM.

Site Sponsors
Your ad here
buy t-shirt
מחיר הזהב

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Copyright idnforums.com 2005

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54