GNSO Comments in Response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues [Archive] - IDN Forums

domain_trader

8th February 2008, 08:35 PM

No mention, but if you read between the lines, the GNSO wants to release some IDN gTLD's at the same time the "fast track" IDN ccTLD's come out. NO WAY could they get fresh gTLD's approved in that amount of time, so this means some aliased gTLD's for the emcumbent TLD operators.

In other words, "if the ccTLD's get some aliases and we don't, we're gonna hold our breath until we get what we want".

Well they are fond of using the term "new gTLDs" in the document, so interpret that any way you will. I'm also not sure why new gTLDs would take longer to introduce than ccTLDs, but anyway.

I'll be looking forward to the next stage of this process where hopefully they start openly addressing the issue of aliasing. Then maybe we will get some clarity on all of this. What can you expect from an agency headed by a lawyer?

jacksonm

8th February 2008, 08:40 PM

I'll be looking forward to the next stage of this process where hopefully they start openly addressing the issue of aliasing.

Clearly there are conflicting interests regarding aliasing. They can't just refuse to respond to the number one question the public has without a damned good reason.

.

Drewbert

8th February 2008, 08:53 PM

I'm also not sure why new gTLDs would take longer to introduce than ccTLDs, but anyway.

Because the new gTLD process IS long and drawn out. The "fasttrack" ccTLD is aimed to get around this.

But if you're having trouble reading between the lines, and even once I explain it you still don't get it, not much I can do, really.

What can you expect from an agency headed by a lawyer?

Actually if you looked into the history of PDT, you would see that he's stood up for Joe Blow registrant a number of times in the past. He's more akin to John Berryhill than your average "registrants are all cybersquatters" IP attorney, so be careful casting aspersions in his direction.

Clearly there are conflicting interests regarding aliasing. They can't just refuse to respond to the number one question the public has without a damned good reason.

.

True, but they're not going to admit that reason are they?

Like I said before, what Verisign wants, Verisign usually gets.

And us "speculators" need to lay low and let Verisign do their stuff behind the scenes. The last thing they want is some loudmouth IDN'er standing up in a meeting demanding aliasing because he has a bunch of .com's he wants to turn into gold. That would be a catalyst for disaster.

jacksonm

8th February 2008, 09:08 PM

And us "speculators" need to lay low and let Verisign do their stuff behind the scenes. The last thing they want is some loudmouth IDN'er standing up in a meeting demanding aliasing because he has a bunch of .com's he wants to turn into gold. That would be a catalyst for disaster.

Good advice.

I actually considered going to Delhi until I seen the hotel rates. But they were on an ICANN newsletter - I didn't check them independently. Ah well, Amsterdam seems like a better destination anyway...

.

Drewbert

8th February 2008, 09:46 PM

Ah well, Amsterdam seems like a better destination anyway...

.

Word.

bwhhisc

8th February 2008, 09:51 PM

Look's like they'll be fighting tooth and nail to ensure that none of the IDN ccTLD's become virtual gTLD's like .nu .cc and .ws did. I see a "registrant must reside in the ccTLD's territory" rule being pushed for.

It also looks like the gTLD's will be pushing to get some of their aliases launched in unison with the IDN ccTLD's. That'd be good.
QUOTE
What precedence should be given to ccTLDs in the IDN implementation process?

Proposed GNSO response: There should be no formal precedence given to IDN
ccTLDs over IDN gTLDs or vice versa. In the event that IDN gTLDs are ready
before IDN ccTLDs, the interests of the IDN community should be protected by
liberal use of the objection mechanism proposed in the new gTLD process (see
reference 5 above). Likewise if IDN ccTLDs are ready for deployment before
IDN gTLDs there should be an equivalent objection mechanism available for the
rest of the community. END QUOTE

Rubber Duck

8th February 2008, 10:24 PM

There is no mention of aliasing in the document. They seem to be dealing with the issue of new gTLD registries alongside new ccTLD registries. ICANN are still avoiding the question that we all want answered.

Which fucking document were you reading? 2/10. Go back and do the exercise again!

bwhhisc

8th February 2008, 11:51 PM

A GLIMMER OF HOPE THAT THINGS ARE MOVING ALONG ALBEIT SLOWLY...

QUOTED FROM PAGE 3:
ICANN has been criticized heavily for taking too long to implement IDN TLDs. Those of us familiar with ICANN understand that such criticism is directed at all of us because ICANN is not the legal corporation nor the staff that supports that corporation but rather those that are a part of the bottom-up processes upon which ICANN the corporation is based.

Recognizing this, we all need to assume responsibility for the long delays in implementing IDN TLDs and do everything in our power to expedite the process going forward. Regardless of how much rationalizing we can do to explain why it has taken so long, we are near the point where reasons for further delays are nearly gone. END QUOTE

Giant

9th February 2008, 01:37 AM

... I'm also not sure why new gTLDs would take longer to introduce than ccTLDs, ...

Not sure why? Read more, listen and learn from the pros.

domain_trader

9th February 2008, 07:05 AM

Not sure why? Read more, listen and learn from the pros.

As I said, there is *nothing* that suggests that aliasing by existing gTLDs will be allowed. There is no reading between the lines on this matter. It doesn't rule it out either, but it does introduce a few complications, such as this one:

"An IDN gTLD registry should limit the degree of script mixing and have a
limit for the number of scripts allowed for its domain names."

What does this mean for the ability of Verisign to produce variant strings across languages?

Then we have this statement:

"In all IDN gTLD applications, the applicant should adequately document
its consultations with local language authorities and/or communities."

How long do you think that process will take if Verisign has to consult with every language community before it can introduce a .com variant?

Finally, the document is not encouraging a gTLD to have it strings implemented at the same time as ccTLDs. The matter is this: ICANN simply can't preference one registry over another as a matter of equity. In other words, a gTLD application will be treated with the same attention as a ccTLD application.

Again, I'm not putting a dampener on things, just saying that this particular document does not resolve the issue that everyone is waiting to hear, and actually may raise a few stumbling blocks. If you disagree with that, then I'm happy to have a civil debate that refers to the actual document in question

But everyone is welcome to their own interpretation and opinion, even us non-'pros'. :rolleyes:

jacksonm

9th February 2008, 07:20 AM

Again, I'm not putting a dampener on things, just saying that this particular document does not resolve the issue that everyone is waiting to hear, and actually may raise a few stumbling blocks. If you disagree with that, then I'm happy to have a civil debate that refers to the actual document in question

But everyone is welcome to their own interpretation and opinion, even us non-'pros'. :rolleyes:

You're doing fine, man. I raise the same questions myself. But since Drewbert has given his opinion yesterday, I tend to believe that one. The others, I take with a grain of salt.

Pro, newbie, pancake eater, whatever. A person raising rational discussion has just as much voice right as anyone else in a public forum. Sometimes you need to remind them about this.

.

domain_trader

9th February 2008, 07:34 AM

You're doing fine, man. I raise the same questions myself. But since Drewbert has given his opinion yesterday, I tend to believe that one. The others, I take with a grain of salt.

Pro, newbie, pancake eater, whatever. A person raising rational discussion has just as much voice right as anyone else in a public forum. Sometimes you need to remind them about this.

.

Thanks MJ. A bit of healthy debate keeps everyone honest.

mulligan

9th February 2008, 08:03 AM

Healthy debate is fine but an understanding of the subject matter being debated is essential (Not aimed at you domain_trader just an observation and unrelated to this thread)

Rubber Duck

9th February 2008, 08:13 AM

Yes, a bit like we are starting to take yours with a grain of salt.

Jose exposes an exploit, that is something you make a big fuss about Trust Issues.

Our leader here buggers off for two months without saying what is happening and without giving his loyal Moderator any kind of Admin priveledges, or even an assurance things are OK, and that seem to sit quite comfortably.

What is need around here is a bit of objectivity.

Any you know all pretty much out of time. We will just have to wait and see what next week brings.

You're doing fine, man. I raise the same questions myself. But since Drewbert has given his opinion yesterday, I tend to believe that one. The others, I take with a grain of salt.

Pro, newbie, pancake eater, whatever. A person raising rational discussion has just as much voice right as anyone else in a public forum. Sometimes you need to remind them about this.

.

jacksonm

9th February 2008, 09:04 AM

Jose exposes an exploit, that is something you make a big fuss about Trust Issues.

He made a big mountain out of an incredibly tiny molehill (full of so many preconditions that it was very unlikely to occur) just to get two seconds of fame at the expense of whomever. That is not the way people who are supposed to be in a group/community treat each other. I don't care how much he tries to infect your mind with his paranoia to make you believe that he did "the right thing", it was nothing more than showboating. If I was managing a team of people and one of them behaved like this, he'd be fired on the spot and escorted out the door before you could raise your hand. No, I do not trust him in any way, shape, or form. It was really the final straw with him, not the first.

And patronizing newcomers who try to voice an opinion is not an attribute of a leader, de facto, assumed, or appointed. A lot of people look to you as a leader. If you aren't going to object, then it means that you should probably start to behave like one. A newcomer's voice is just as valid as an oldtimer's.

.

Rubber Duck

9th February 2008, 09:34 AM

Michael, I am not patronising you. I am expecting to show a little more sound judgement. Some of your actions in dealings with me have fallen below the mark, but I don't drag them out here in public.

He made a big mountain out of an incredibly tiny molehill (full of so many preconditions that it was very unlikely to occur) just to get two seconds of fame at the expense of whomever. That is not the way people who are supposed to be in a group/community treat each other. I don't care how much he tries to infect your mind with his paranoia to make you believe that he did "the right thing", it was nothing more than showboating. If I was managing a team of people and one of them behaved like this, he'd be fired on the spot and escorted out the door before you could raise your hand. No, I do not trust him in any way, shape, or form. It was really the final straw with him, not the first.

And patronizing newcomers who try to voice an opinion is not an attribute of a leader, de facto, assumed, or appointed. A lot of people look to you as a leader. If you aren't going to object, then it means that you should probably start to behave like one. A newcomer's voice is just as valid as an oldtimer's.

.

jacksonm

9th February 2008, 09:38 AM

Michael, I am not patronising you. I am expecting to show a little more sound judgement. Some of your actions in dealings with me have fallen below the mark, but I don't drag them out here in public.

I wasn't referring to myself re patronising. Sorry if you misunderstood that. I do not consider myself as a newcomer today.

Regarding the second comment, then I'd be pleased if you'd contact me privately and explain your feelings to me as I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

.

Rubber Duck

9th February 2008, 09:54 AM

Not to worry, if deals don't go through I assume they are dead. However, I generally only respond to those these days that have a track record of negotiating purposefully.

mulligan

9th February 2008, 10:09 AM

Guys .. take this to your PM's and sort out your issues there (Just my opinion)

Rubber Duck

9th February 2008, 10:19 AM

Guys .. take this to your PM's and sort out your issues there (Just my opinion)

I don't have any issues that I need to resolve. But those expressing strong opinions here can expect to have them addressed robustly.

I am still not sure of which Newbie I was patronising. Domain Trader got rebuked for putting forward statements that were not borne out by the facts. And I asked a few of you to go easy on guy that clearly didn't understand the Auction system. You cannot just say his Auction is illegal and then expect to press home for a result. If interjecting there was patronising, then I will do it again!

jacksonm

9th February 2008, 10:28 AM

Not to worry, if deals don't go through I assume they are dead. However, I generally only respond to those these days that have a track record of negotiating purposefully.

Ok, I know what you are referring to now, and it is one deal that I assumed had went invalid due to me not having the cash in the short term, as I told you at the time. Approximately 10 other deals we have had, I completed my end in less than one day.

In fact, that was the first and only time I had ever asked you about one of your domains.

.

Rubber Duck

9th February 2008, 10:36 AM

This is not the issue. The issue is that you have mounted a sustained and utterly pointless attack against a very good friend of mine and you are starting to piss me off with whole load of other stupid arsed comments.

mulligan

9th February 2008, 10:38 AM

I don't have any issues that I need to resolve. But those expressing strong opinions here can expect to have them addressed robustly.

I am still not sure of which Newbie I was patronising. Domain Trader got rebuked for putting forward statements that were not borne out by the facts. And I asked a few of you to go easy on guy that clearly didn't understand the Auction system. You cannot just say his Auction is illegal and then expect to press home for a result. If interjecting there was patronising, then I will do it again!

Different member .. thread has now gone at my request

jacksonm

9th February 2008, 10:53 AM

This is not the issue.

Why did you bring it up then?

The issue is that you have mounted a sustained and utterly pointless attack against a very good friend of mine and you are starting to piss me off with whole load of other stupid arsed comments.

Blind loyalty goes far beyond the limits of rationale and logic, 1+1 will never equal 2 in this case. No further comments, I rest my case.

.

domain_trader

9th February 2008, 11:37 AM

Domain Trader got rebuked for putting forward statements that were not borne out by the facts.

Actually, I think I'm the only one looking at the facts, while everyone else is 'reading between the lines' with their wishful thinking. These issues are complex - ICANN knows it, Verisign know it, which is why the issue of aliasing has not been addressed publically by either. Everything else is just speculation.

RD, you are the one who started this thread with a gripe about "wild unsubstantiated assertions", and then cited the working group's report, which unfortunately supports very little of what you have claimed. You need to follow your own advice my friend.

Giant

9th February 2008, 11:38 AM

... but it does introduce a few complications, such as this one:

"An IDN gTLD registry should limit the degree of script mixing and have a
limit for the number of scripts allowed for its domain names."

What does this mean for the ability of Verisign to produce variant strings across languages?

You have 2 misunderstandings here:

1. You don't quite understand what is a DOMAIN (i.e. gTLD or ccTLD) and its DOMAIN NAMES.

Dot Com is a DOMAIN (or a TLD), and its DOMAIN NAMES are abc.com, loans.com....

2. Dot Com is not an IDN gTLD, it's an ASCII TLD, king of all domains. VeriSign is not applying an IDN gTLD of Dot Com, VeriSign has its own mapping technique to let all languages or scripts users have the convenience to type the extention .com in their scripts without switching the typing mode. The document mentioned here is discussing the procedure of IDN TLD application, NOT mapping techniques.

My advice to you is the same: "Read more, listen and learn from the pros"

One more thing.

IDNForums.com is not exactly a "public" forum, it's a private forum of IDN domain investors. We welcome everyone to join us and we are happy to guide them to take advantage of this golden opportunity to get rich. Of course, some people don't want to see IDNs take off because of certain reasons. If they come and make too many negative comments to poison our spirit, we have our rights to tell them they are not welcome here.

bwhhisc

9th February 2008, 11:50 AM

Actually, I think I'm the only one looking at the facts, while everyone else is 'reading between the lines' with their wishful thinking. These issues are complex - ICANN knows it, Verisign know it, which is why the issue of aliasing has not been addressed publically by either. Everything else is just speculation.
If all the answers were clear Tina Dam, head of the IDN Program for ICANN would have answered them directly when she joined the discussions here at IDNForums. Here is her thread....

http://www.idnforums.com/forums/13914-welcome-tina.html

Then she again dodged answering more questions when the opportunity was there with "I will be out of the office for a little while"...that was like 3 months ago!!! Hmmmmm....now I am wondering if she ran off with Olney!!! :o

http://www.idnforums.com/forums/13990-important-questions-for-tina-dam.html

If they come and make too many negative comments to poison our spirit, we have our rights to tell them they are not welcome here.
I don't see domain_trader in that light. He is just asking logical questions that would come from 99.9% of all domainers that are relatively new to IDNs. I don't think that the "pros" that have been studying the idn rollout for 3, 4, 5, or more years should expect everyone to have the same level of knowledge. It takes a bit to wrap your head around all of the complex issues and politics.

Besides this is a FORUM! Discussion is what we do here and if some of the "pros" don't want to be bothered posting or discussing that is their right. I am just glad to finally see a thread with IDN discussions going on here!!! :)

mulligan

9th February 2008, 12:00 PM

ago!!! Hmmmmm....now I wonder if she ran off with Olney!!! :o

Lol

Giant

9th February 2008, 12:08 PM

I don't see domain_trader in that light. He is just asking logical questions that would come from 99.9% of all domainers that are relatively new IDNs. I don't think that the "pros" that have been studying the idn rollout for 3, 4, 5, or more years should expect everyone to have the same level of knowledge. It takes a bit to wrap your head around all of the complex issues and politics.

Besides this is a FORUM! Discussion is what we do here and if some of the "pros" don't want to be bothered posting or discussing that is their right. I am just glad to finally see a thread with IDN discussions going on here!!! :)

Yes, I don't mean domain_trader.

But for new comers, before they have established themselves as an investor, we expect they are humble when they comment, and don't try to keep arguing with Drewbert and RD when they don't understand the subject matter well enough.

bwhhisc

9th February 2008, 12:20 PM

Yes, I don't mean domain_trader.
Thanks for clearing that up. More good discussion about IDNs is always welcome here.

domain_trader

9th February 2008, 12:23 PM

Sincerely, thank you Giant for an informed response that promises a productive debate on this. And good on you bwhhisc - I know you think I'm off the mark, but that was an honourable statement all the same.

You have 2 misunderstandings here:

1. You don't quite understand what is a DOMAIN (i.e. gTLD or ccTLD) and its DOMAIN NAMES.

Dot Com is a DOMAIN (or a TLD), and its DOMAIN NAMES are abc.com, loans.com....

I do recognise this. The statement is basically saying that a TLD string shouldn't be used with different scripts (before the extension). Not necessarily a problem, if say the Russian version of .com uses only Cyrillic characters. But then what is the relationship of that version to the Cyrillic .coms that we own? Will they be one and the same, will they be separate domains that we have to register, and what will happen to people who have mixed character .coms? These are complex questions - no simple answers. If they are simple, then please tell me why they are simple, and then tell me why ICANN are avoiding the questions let alone the answers.

2. Dot Com is not an IDN gTLD, it's an ASCII TLD, king of all domains. VeriSign is not applying an IDN gTLD of Dot Com, VeriSign has its own mapping technique to let all languages or scripts users have the convenience to type the extention .com in their scripts without switching the typing mode. The document mentioned here is discussing the procedure of IDN TLD application, NOT mapping techniques.

This is my point precisely. The document does not address aliasing, and so does not help us.

My advice to you is the same: "Read more, listen and learn from the pros"

Okay, this is condescending BS. You guys know the technical stuff better than me, I wouldn't pretend otherwise. But you guys are not experts on the politics of these issues, which is what is largely driving ICANN. And being an expert on politics and interpreting documents like these is what pays my bills, so please drop all this superiority crap.

One more thing.

IDNForums.com is not exactly a "public" forum, it's a private forum of IDN domain investors. We welcome everyone to join us and we are happy to guide them to take advantage of this golden opportunity to get rich. Of course, some people don't want to see IDNs take off because of certain reasons. If they come and make too many negative comments to poison our spirit, we have our rights to tell them they are not welcome here.

This is not necessarily directed at you Giant, but let's stick to the facts and have a reasoned debate about all this. If I'm wrong, then argue the case, rather than make 'I've been doing IDNs for a few years longer than you, so listen to the pros' type statements. If you guys are pros, then tell me what I'm not seeing in a reasoned manner.

jacksonm

9th February 2008, 12:26 PM

Yes, I don't mean domain_trader.

But for new comers, before they have established themselves as an investor, we expect they are humble when they comment, and don't try to keep arguing with Drewbert and RD when they don't understand the subject matter well enough.

Who exactly did you mean, then?

If the designers of forum software had intended for pecking order hierarchies to function, they would have built them into the software. Their goal was exactly to prevent this type of behaviour, and it's the key reason why forums are so successful.

.

bwhhisc

9th February 2008, 12:34 PM

If aliasing doesn't happen, then I've wasted my money on Russian and other domains. This is not necessarily directed at you Giant, but let's stick to the facts and have a reasoned debate about all this. If I'm wrong, then argue the case, rather than make 'I've been doing IDNs for a few years longer than you, so listen to the pros' type statements. If you guys are pros, then tell me what I'm not seeing in a reasoned manner..
Why are you of the opinion that idn.com would be a waste of money if they do not map to the foreign langauge equivalent for .com, .net etc?

Giant

9th February 2008, 12:34 PM

Then you comment is spot on.

Just use his comments as an example :-).

Seriously, we know who Drewbert and RD are, we are really grateful to read their comments. If you are not very certain of your own knowledge on the subject, you'd better not to challenge them. When did you see me argue with them on domain names technically?

We should not discourage the pros to speak...

Giant

9th February 2008, 12:35 PM

Double post

domain_trader

9th February 2008, 12:59 PM

Why are you of the opinion that idn.com would be a waste of money if they do not map to the foreign langauge equivalent for .com, .net etc?

I edited that statement out almost immediately (not quick enough to beat your reply button though!). What I meant to say is that I don't think a Russian.com that is not aliased will have the same reach as an aliased extension. Would I buy up large quantities of Cyrillics if I was definite that .com would not be aliased in Cyrillic? Frankly, no. That's just my opinion and my investment rationale, but it is a different debate and probably for a different thread, hence the reason I deleted it. But it is the reason why the issue of aliasing is important to me (and for others here) and why this debate is not about cynics versus the faithful, but about the facts of what is being sorted out about the matter.

I want there to be aliasing, and I am just disappointed that ICANN are avoiding the issue. When RD and co produce a document that overcomes my uncertainty, and convinces me with the facts rather than 'between the lines' innuendo, then I'll be the first one cheering and congratulating 'the pros'.

jacksonm

9th February 2008, 01:02 PM

Why are you of the opinion that idn.com would be a waste of money if they do not map to the foreign langauge equivalent for .com, .net etc?

While aliasing would definitely be good for a handful of scripts, it's really only a defacto requirement for RTL scripts.

Take German, French, Swedish, Finnish, etc. They have no need for extension aliasing. Arabic, on the other hand - definitely needed. However, I will say that this hasn't stopped Arabic natives from sending me unsolicited offers for Arabic IDN.com - and these guys are not associated with this forum, either.

So, who knows....

.

bwhhisc

9th February 2008, 01:22 PM

I edited that statement out almost immediately (not quick enough to beat your reply button though!). What I meant to say is that I don't think a Russian.com that is not aliased will have the same reach as an aliased extension.
I want there to be aliasing, and I am just disappointed that ICANN are avoiding the issue. When RD and co produce a document that overcomes my uncertainty, and convinces me with the facts rather than 'between the lines' innuendo, then I'll be the first one cheering and congratulating 'the pros'.
I hope for alisaing as well...but know that the indexing and algorithm's by google etc. look for great website content, links, etc.
so to own the best keywords in idn.com will always have value. In many languages the City names are blocked by their registry
in the various cctlds. (ie. .jp) so .com or .idn whatever will be the tops for Geo and City idns. The dot com is a recongized worldwide "brand" so will have value any way it happens. To get aliasing whether by DNAME or otherwise would be the
icing on the cake.

Here is the Verisign DNAME proposal published a ways back, but not embraced by the various international registries it appears.
ICANN supports "aliasing", but thats about all they have said. Read the Tina Dam threads here to get her take on this.

http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposal-dname-equivalence-mapping-tld-12dec05.pdf

domain_trader

9th February 2008, 01:37 PM

Thanks bwhhisc. I've seen that document, but it explains the technical aspect quite well.

On the implementation side, this is the last the ICANN working group has said about the matter as far as I know:

http://gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/draft-idn-issue-list-22dec06.htm

"It was made clear during the Sao Paulo meetings that aliasing should be discussed without specific reference to any technical solution used to achieve this functionality. It was likewise highlighted that the aliasing issue was not an IDN issue per se, even if aliasing has raised much interest in the IDN context. It should be noted that, according to the New gTLD recommendations, each application for a new gTLD string would be regarded as applying for a separate TLD. Aliasing would map the whole sub-domain tree to an additional TLD string, which the current operator would have to apply for and gain in possible competition with others. Once that achieved, and provided aliasing is found viable and acceptable, the same domain name record could be reached via the original TLD string as well as via the alias string. This could have advantages in that there would be no need for any additional defensive registrations in the new (alias) string. The user experience could improve in the IDN case if the sub-domain tree is predominantly in an IDN script already, with an ASCII TLD string used as that has been the only option so far. Drawbacks are that the user experience could be adversely affected, or at least include negative surprises, if the new TLD string is in another script than the sub-domains that the user tries to look up, believing that the script would be consistent across the domain. There are also contentions that aliasing of existing TLDs would extend the current operators dominance on the market."

Also:

"Should an existing domain name holder have a priority right for a corresponding domain in another script? This question was put forward in Sao Paulo but not discussed at any depth. A few remarks could be made. First, in general, such a priority would be inconsistent with the current rules where no similar priority is given to a domain name holder wishing to register an identical domain name in another gTLD. In fact, no intellectual property rights at all are bestowed upon a domain name holder merely based on the registered domain name. The case for this could possibly be reviewed in a potential aliasing situation, which would make this a corollary topic to 3 above."

In short, ICANN see the issue as complex and have a few concerns to sort through. I look forward to the report that clarifies what they intend to do.

jacksonm

9th February 2008, 01:42 PM

There are also contentions that aliasing of existing TLDs would extend the current operators dominance on the market

And you don't think that every other gTLD (and ccTLD) registry isn't fighting tooth and nail to keep Verisign from getting dot com aliases? Haha!

I'm rooting for Verisign, but they've got some ass kicking to do...

.

bwhhisc

9th February 2008, 01:50 PM

And you don't think that every other gTLD (and ccTLD) registry isn't fighting tooth and nail to keep Verisign from getting dot com aliases? Haha!

I'm rooting for Verisign, but they've got some ass kicking to do....

I hope that any future rulings confirm that Verisign's intellectual propety rights and trademarks, etc. are protected based on
earlier ICANN rulings about not allowing other extensions that are "strikingly or confusingly similar" to existing extensions.

Drewbert

9th February 2008, 06:49 PM

Okay, this is condescending BS. You guys know the technical stuff better than me, I wouldn't pretend otherwise. But you guys are not experts on the politics of these issues, which is what is largely driving ICANN. And being an expert on politics and interpreting documents like these is what pays my bills, so please drop all this superiority crap.

You're an expert on politics and interpreting documents, but you don't think that reading between the lines is a necessary skill in these matters?

I tell you what, YOU follow the politics of ICANN for 10 years, then get back to me on that one.

domain_trader

9th February 2008, 07:32 PM

You're an expert on politics and interpreting documents, but you don't think that reading between the lines is a necessary skill in these matters?

Reading between the lines requires objectivity and needs to start with the facts, then you extrapolate from there. Few people here are dealing with the facts, just presenting a bunch of wishful poppycock which is neither grounded in the documents cited nor makes any logical sense. The facts are that the ICANN working group has not reported on a resolution to the issue of aliasing and is still working through some issues with it (read my previous post). I've challenged you to demonstrate otherwise, and you've come up with nothing except BS.

I tell you what, YOU follow the politics of ICANN for 10 years, then get back to me on that one.

Again, another BS statement that falsely constructs yourself as some sort of pseudo-expert. If you can't present any factual evidence for what you say, I suggest you dispense with the grandstanding. This display of elitism from some of the old-timers here is looking desparate and is not in keeping with an open, democratic forum community. You are starting to look like a pompous brigade of half-wits, hardly the 'pros' you keep harping on about.

I'll say it again, I'm looking forward to the report that clarifies what ICANN intends to do about aliasing. If you think that document RD produced clarifies anything significant about the issue, and you can explain to me how precisely, then I'm willing to discuss the issue. Otherwise, be like the others and drop this thread, because you are starting to look like an idiot.

Rubber Duck

9th February 2008, 07:38 PM

You can't even read the fact when they are presented to you!

camarro

9th February 2008, 07:47 PM

relax domain trader, all of us will have to wait and see, pros or not.

bwhhisc

9th February 2008, 07:51 PM

The facts are that the ICANN working group has not reported on a resolution to the issue of aliasing and is still working through some issues with it (read my previous post). I've challenged you to demonstrate otherwise, and you've come up with nothing except BS.
Earlier posts thru ICANN indicated that each idn.idn registrar will make its own recommendations to best serve its own language
and those recommendations will then have to be approved by the governing boards under ICANN. Below is some text from Tina Dam, head of the IDN program about the various committees and decision making process. Rolling out IDN.IDN is going to be a slow it seems, so hopefully idn.com can get some traction.

TINA DAM post...

"If/how you would translate an existing gTLD into an IDN TLD, and if so, would the operator be the current registry operator or a new entity are all policy questions. These policy decisions are not made by ICANN staff but are being dealt with by the GNSO (with some assistance from the GAC, ccNSO and ALC that all are working on IDN policy questions).

The GNSO is the Generic Names Supporting Organization that is tasked under the ICANN Bylaws to generate policy recommendations for the gTLDs. More information can be found at http://gnso.icann.org (please let me know if you need more details about the work of ICANN’s supporting organizations and advisory committees).

(similarly there is a ccTLD Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and a Government Advisory Committee (GAC) working on the policies on the cTLD front).

IF it is decided that the exisiting operator of .TLD should operate some version of ".IDN-TLD" then there is the question of how that is done. Aliasing, which would mean that <domain.TLD> and <domain.IDN-TLD> goes to the same registrant - or some other way with sunrise rules, or first-come-first serve -- is all open questions as well.

I understand the concern and interest from those who have registered <IDN-domain.TLD>, but unfortunately I am not able to help with much guidance yet. We have to wait and see what the policy decisions are going to be." END OF TINA DAM QUOTE

MORE TINA DAM about Verisign, DNAME, and Aliasing

Question: Verisign put forth the proposal for DNAME. Can you tell us the pros and cons of DNAME implementation from your perspective?

This is a longer topic. It is not so much about DNAME, but about aliasing. From a personal opinion this has to do with either promoting competition or securing IP rights. It is also one of the issues under policy discussions. In the IDN Program at ICANN I have a placeholder for analysing potential methods for providing aliasing but this is not yet initiated. END COMMENT BY TINA DAM.

MORE TINA DAM ON ALIASING:

"Let me try to make this clear. ICANN staff does not make policy decisions. whether or not <domain.tld> and <domain.IDN-TLD> will be aliased, go to the same registrant etc, is a policy question. See some of the above posts and you will see a status about the policy development work.

However, I am working on making IDN TLDs a reality. That is what the testing at http://idn.icann.org is all about. We want to make sure that the technology is stable enough to move to production (which will enable registrations) under IDN TLDs."

jacksonm

9th February 2008, 08:58 PM

Again, another BS statement that falsely constructs yourself as some sort of pseudo-expert.

Calling a spade a spade is fine, but....

Actually, quite a lot of people here have taken a holier-than-though approach and it also pisses me off to no end, but I can honestly say that I have never read Drewbert that way.

.

domain_trader

9th February 2008, 09:29 PM

Calling a spade a spade is fine, but....

Actually, quite a lot of people here have taken a holier-than-though approach and it also pisses me off to no end, but I can honestly say that I have never read Drewbert that way.

.

Well my apologies to Drewbert if I'm implicating him in with some of the others here. To be honest I've heard so much BS from some of the old hands that I can't distinguish it any more. So much elitist crap and someone should smack them down for it.

If people want to have a productive discussion over something that is good. But if people want to start taking a holier-than-thou attitude then they can go and get fucked.

Rubber Duck

9th February 2008, 10:14 PM

You guys make me laugh.

The only thing that matter here is whether you end up holding the right cards when the dealing stops.

So you think I am holding a hand of crap fine. It really matters little to me what you think. It also matters little to me what you are holding.

What I do know is that if you don't get dealt in now, the only way in later is to buy your way in with big bucks. You can try to talk you way in all you like, but it just doesn't cut any ice.

Take the Russian situation. OK, we cannot be sure that .com will be aliased to the cyrillic .kom, but what we do know, is you haven't got a cat in hells chance of picking up many dot RF, and in the very unlikely event that .kom were given to a Russian registrar the chances are you would not have a cat in hells chance of picking those up either.

What I can tell you that you didn't know is that one of the highest price ever paid for an IDN was for a Russian dot Com. There you go. I know that to be true. Most of you won't even have guessed at it. It all very well searching for facts, but you are in the fog of war at the moment. Sitting in the dug out waiting for the smoke to clear, however, is not going to win you the battle.

Fka200

9th February 2008, 10:51 PM

There's a lot that's being unsaid. That's all I have to say about this.

mdw

9th February 2008, 11:33 PM

No mention, but if you read between the lines, the GNSO wants to release some IDN gTLD's at the same time the "fast track" IDN ccTLD's come out. NO WAY could they get fresh gTLD's approved in that amount of time, so this means some aliased gTLD's for the emcumbent TLD operators.
Purely your opinion based on reading the doc and applying your considerable background knowledge -- thanks Drewbert for posting that! Personally this is what I seek here on IDNF; you don't find valuable insight like this elsewhere. Even if this turns out to be wrong, it is still great to have the benefit of reading it and deciding for ourselves.

And yeah, it's true some of the "old hands" are no sharper or more knowledgeable than some of the new guys. And yes, some of the oldtimers who were in the right place at the right time are a bit smug about it. That's just the way life works. But think twice before dismissing this kind of speculation as rubbish.

jacksonm

9th February 2008, 11:57 PM

Purely your opinion based on reading the doc and applying your considerable background knowledge -- thanks Drewbert for posting that! Personally this is what I seek here on IDNF; you don't find valuable insight like this elsewhere. Even if this turns out to be wrong, it is still great to have the benefit of reading it and deciding for ourselves.

Agreed.

.

tee1

10th February 2008, 12:30 AM

I for one appreciate Drewbert posting his views/opinions on such matters. I believe he calls it like he sees it, much appreciated. :)

tee1

domain_trader

10th February 2008, 03:29 AM

And yeah, it's true some of the "old hands" are no sharper or more knowledgeable than some of the new guys. And yes, some of the oldtimers who were in the right place at the right time are a bit smug about it. That's just the way life works. But think twice before dismissing this kind of speculation as rubbish.

As long as we are clear that is what it is - speculation. What has happened here is that this view has been presented as 'expert' commentary, with any other perspective dismissed out of hand (no rational dialogue) with the mere statement, 'be quiet and listen to the pros'. That is a joke.

This whole thread was started after a newbie in another thread was basically told that aliasing was virtually a certainty.
http://www.idnforums.com/forums/16404-has-idn-flopped-3.html?highlight=aliasing

People (including myself) are making key financial decisions based on these sorts of rationales, but we make them based on our best judgements, not on a false sense of the facts. I made the point in that thread that it was just speculation, then RD had his usual rant and produced a document (in this thread) that somehow was meant to shut people up with the 'facts'. Lo and behold, there were no *facts* on the matter of aliasing to speak of.

People have a responsibility to tell it how it is, particularly to new IDNers. Opinion ('expert' or otherwise) should not parade as fact. New IDNers should be given the same opportunity to make their own informed judgements rather than be misled, particularly by people who have been in the game a long time. I don't normally get involved in these sorts of situations, but someone has to look after newbies if the 'pros' are failing them.

My apologies again to Drewbert. I think he innocently walked into something here that he was not aware of.

jacksonm

10th February 2008, 06:55 AM

People have a responsibility to tell it how it is, particularly to new IDNers.

Hahaha! There are those who will deliberately mislead you ever step of the way. This is a competitive game.

.

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 09:34 AM

bwhhisc

10th February 2008, 09:48 AM

Following up on earlier discussion. This was the ICANN draft that protects Verisign's right to .net and .com unless you interpret it differently. Basically it states that no other new extension can be "strikingly or confusingly similar" to any existing gTLD.

QUOTE:
4.1.6. Limit Confusingly Similar Strings:

Agreement that measures be taken to ensure that an IDN gTLD string with variants (see 4.1.4 and 4.1.5 above) be treated in analogy with current practice for IDN SLD labels, i.e. strings that only differ from an IDN gTLD string by variants (see above) are not available for registration by others. Note: This is equivalent in effect to the provisions against confusingly similar strings foreseen in the New gTLD recommendations.

ADDING THIS TO THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS THREAD...

Specifically that ICANN wants to fast track some idn.ccTLDs and gTLDs, (and Drewberts mention that it would take years to create all new gTLDs), the best guess is that .com, .net, etc. may get aliased to their various transliterations in the early going of the IDN rollout.

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 10:13 AM

alpha

10th February 2008, 10:48 AM

People have a responsibility to tell it how it is, particularly to new IDNers...

do they?

you know what they say about free advice don't you - you get what you pay for.

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 10:56 AM

do they?

you know what they say about free advice don't you - you get what you pay for.

After being accused of trying to deceive people my inclination is to tell them nothing.

It no longer serves my purposes to promote IDN. Time frames are now to short to make any significant difference.

Let them work it out for themselves.

domain_trader

10th February 2008, 11:08 AM

Domain_trader. My advise to you is to wait a couple of years and then make an informed investment based on all the facts in front of you at that time. You may not make much money but you will be very comfortable in your decision, and that is what seemed important to you.

From my perspective, I have tried where parallels allow to shadow the ASCII two game. The big winners there got in early. They bought when others were losing faith. They borrowed heavily and the they went out on limb. They had no bloody facts and neither do we. When we do I will be quite happy to offer you some mediocre names at six figure at throw.

RD, you got in at a very different time. If I got in when there were some reasonable terms still available in Chinese, Russian, etc, I may have made a similar choice to yours, aliasing or no aliasing. Fast forward to now, with second-rate terms in those languages to fresh reg, and prime terms on the secondary market not going cheap (if going at all), then when you add in the uncertainty over aliasing, it is bold move indeed to go all out for non-Latins at this point.

My own strategy has been to go for a balance between Latins and non-Latins and to wait for further news on aliasing (which will hopefully be soon) before I change that balance. That is the smartest option for my situation IMO and I'm happy with it.

What is the smartest option for others? That depends on their situation and their willingness to take risks. But you need to recognise that the options are different for people getting into the game now. The main thing is that anyone entering this game today makes an informed decision based on what is known, what is not known, and what risks they are prepared to take given those unknowns.

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 11:14 AM

Most of the old school ASCII crowd are just slowly getting their head around IDN. Some are cautiously moving into Latins with a few accents, but fundamentally they cannot get their heads around domains in other scripts no matter how hard they might try. That much is clear and that is why we are now where we are. Fortunately, none of this makes any difference in the Real World.

jacksonm

10th February 2008, 12:13 PM

My own strategy has been to go for a balance between Latins and non-Latins and to wait for further news on aliasing (which will hopefully be soon) before I change that balance. That is the smartest option for my situation IMO and I'm happy with it.

I started off with Japanese and Chinese, moved into Arabic and some other stuff. Q4 2007 I started buying up my first latins and they now compose roughly 35% of my portfolio. The latins are the only ones that make any amount of money worth mentioning.

The dream if getting a billion one cent clicks from China quite a nice dream.

.

domain_trader

10th February 2008, 01:13 PM

Verisign are playing a very shrewd game of chess here.

Drewbert is correct. It would take months if not years for a brand new registry to set up, get approval and be in business. Verisign can do it in weeks.

Perhaps, but this whole argument rests on three assumptions.
1. ICANN are looking to ensure a simultaneous rollout of ccTLDs and gTLDs in IDN (not just an equitable application process as outlined in the GNSO document)
2. Verisign can only do this if aliasing of its existing extensions is allowed.
3. ICANN see aliasing as unproblematic and consistent with ensuring a level playing field

At present, we can't support these assumptions based on the GNSO documentation produced so far (either in the lines or between the lines). ICANN are very clever not to give anything away. We will all just have to wait to see how this plays out.

bwhhisc

10th February 2008, 02:28 PM

Perhaps, but this whole argument rests on three assumptions.
1. ICANN are looking to ensure a simultaneous rollout of ccTLDs and gTLDs in IDN (not just an equitable application process as outlined in the GNSO document)
2. Verisign can only do this if aliasing of its existing extensions is allowed.
3. ICANN see aliasing as unproblematic and consistent with ensuring a level playing field

At present, we can't support these assumptions based on the GNSO documentation produced so far (either in the lines or between the lines). ICANN are very clever not to give anything away. We will all just have to wait to see how this plays out.
One other quote that raised my eyebrows a bit was when Tina Dam mentioned the words "promoting competition" in the paragraph below. There are obviously some discussion behind the closed doors of the impact that .com aliased to idn.idn (com) will have on the other idn.cctlds.

QUESTION TO TINA DAM- Can you tell us the pros and cons of DNAME implementation from your perspective?

ANSWER: This is a longer topic. It is not so much about DNAME, but about aliasing. From a personal opinion this has to do with either promoting competition or securing IP rights. It is also one of the issues under policy discussions. In the IDN Program at ICANN I have a placeholder for analysing potential methods for providing aliasing but this is not yet initiated. END COMMENT BY TINA DAM.

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 03:05 PM

Whatever.

I see the roll out of browser support which is happening on Tuesday as being much more significant than anything ICANN might do. The biggest thing they can do for us is raise awareness generally.

At the moment I am just enjoying my healthy growth in non-Latin type in, and am expecting much more of the same. You can worry yourself to death over this one. Frankly, I don't give a shit. But just don't ask me sell you anything, because frankly I have better things to do with my time.

Perhaps, but this whole argument rests on three assumptions.
1. ICANN are looking to ensure a simultaneous rollout of ccTLDs and gTLDs in IDN (not just an equitable application process as outlined in the GNSO document)
2. Verisign can only do this if aliasing of its existing extensions is allowed.
3. ICANN see aliasing as unproblematic and consistent with ensuring a level playing field

At present, we can't support these assumptions based on the GNSO documentation produced so far (either in the lines or between the lines). ICANN are very clever not to give anything away. We will all just have to wait to see how this plays out.

domain_trader

10th February 2008, 03:22 PM

One other quote that raised my eyebrows a bit was when Tina Dam mentioned the words "promoting competition" in the paragraph below. There are obviously some discussion behind the closed doors of the impact that .com aliased to idn.idn (com) will have on the other idn.cctlds.

QUESTION TO TINA DAM- Can you tell us the pros and cons of DNAME implementation from your perspective?

ANSWER: This is a longer topic. It is not so much about DNAME, but about aliasing. From a personal opinion this has to do with either promoting competition or securing IP rights. It is also one of the issues under policy discussions. In the IDN Program at ICANN I have a placeholder for analysing potential methods for providing aliasing but this is not yet initiated. END COMMENT BY TINA DAM.

This is similar to the statement from the GNSO report from Dec 2006 that I quoted earlier which states: "There are also contentions that aliasing of existing TLDs would extend the current operators dominance on the market."

ICANN are treading carefully here to look fair-minded - it guides everything they think and do. If ICANN feel that aliasing gives Verisign an unfair advantage in local markets, then they will be wary of the flack they will receive from others. Everything ICANN does from here on has to be open, fair and transparent, or it will be the end of ICANN. The suggestions that I hear around here that ICANN are doing special backyard deals with Verisign need to be dispensed with once and for all.

The saving grace for aliasing is if Verisign can make the case that it won't give them an unfair advantage in local markets. They can do this in a number of ways:

1. proposing to remain silent in the lead up to implementation, thereby allowing the ccTLDs greater marketing exposure (in which case, you probably won't hear much from Verisign until closer to release time)

2. proposing to delay implementation of aliasing until ccTLD has got a headstart

3. simply making the argument that ccTLDs have their own advantages by virtue of country-specific appeal (the precedence of .de will help them in this regard).

If the GNSO deem that Verisign won't have an unfair advantage, then there is no reason why they should oppose aliasing in principle.

But the other issue here that Tina Dam raises is IP. This is what I have been saying all along - the fact that ICANN has deemed equivalent IDN extensions of gTLDs off-limits does not automatically give Verisign the right to run with them. Verisign's intellectual property rights over equivalent extensions still needs to be established legally. In putting them off-limits, ICANN are simply ensuring that they don't get themselves into a nightmare litigation situation later on, and they also resolve problems surrounding user confusion over extensions in the interim.

So there is still work to be done by ICANN in sorting these issues out both at the policy level, the technical level and also the legal level. Given the fact that Tina Dam admits that she has not yet initiated the technical investigation, this implies that the policy issues have not yet been sorted, despite what has been suggested around here.

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 03:25 PM

When are you going to wake up to the fact that Verisign basically run the GNSO?

jacksonm

10th February 2008, 03:48 PM

When are you going to wake up to the fact that Verisign basically run the GNSO?

I have heard this assertion before. Do you have a list of names of the Verisign employees who are board members of GNSO, along with their job titles at Verisign?

This would be pretty significant information, at least for me.

.

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 03:56 PM

Well do you remember the little man that made such an arse out of himself over the reservation of ccTLD strings. That was Chuck Gomes. He is a Verisign Employee who is virtually full time at ICANN. http://icannwiki.org/Chuck_Gomes

GNSO is basically a club of the existing gTLD registries. Even those members that are not Verisign have interests aligned with those of Verisign. Afilias and Neustar are represented also. Who else is there Dot Name?

I have heard this assertion before. Do you have a list of names of the Verisign employees who are board members of GNSO, along with their job titles at Verisign?

Full details fo the GNSO council are given here:

http://gnso.icann.org/council/members.shtml

This would be pretty significant information, at least for me.

.

domain_trader

10th February 2008, 04:05 PM

I have heard this assertion before. Do you have a list of names of the Verisign employees who are board members of GNSO, along with their job titles at Verisign?

This would be pretty significant information, at least for me.

.

Here is the list:

http://gnso.icann.org/council/members.shtml

Chuck Gomes is one of three gTLD representatives on a 24 person board. If this constitutes the GNSO being run by Verisign, well...

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 04:15 PM

Here is the list:

http://gnso.icann.org/council/members.shtml

Chuck Gomes is one of three gTLD representatives on a 24 person board. If this constitutes the GNSO being run by Verisign, well...

Look, you'll just have to watch this play out like the rest of us.

It is like a lottery in the sense that if you aren't holding any tickets you don't stand to win anything.

I really don't care what you think or what you believe. It won't have any impact on the outcome. I have no interest in convincing you of anything. Read what you like. Believe what you like. Wait as long as you like. Whinge like fuck when it is all over for all I care. It really does matter to me or most of the established members here.

If you really want to know what people think, watch what they do.

555

10th February 2008, 04:20 PM

domain_trader

10th February 2008, 04:30 PM

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 04:34 PM

In order to understand this, and where the problem is exactly,
Please add any scenarios i did not include, and indicate your preferences in order.

- Nothing happens. idn.com is left as is.
- Aliasing via whatever technical method is implemented. Current owners are awarded the aliased domain 'version'
- Aliasing via whatever technical method is implemented. Current owners have 1st rights to theyr'e already registered domains and they need to pay for them.
- Aliasing via whatever technical method is implemented. Current owners have no rights to the domains and this will able me to own שניידר.com and someone else will own שניידר.קום

The first is not an option due to the Right to Left problem. Go for this and they might as well just disband.

Second it most likely.

If Aliasing is done at DNS, Options Three and Four don't work anyway.

What is theoretically possible is that other registeries will be set up with Confusingly Similar extensions, but I think that is probably unlikely in view of what has already been laid out the New gTLD policy document, but convincing some on this forum of this opinion would probably involve beating them around the head with a brick, so it is probably just easier to let them think what the hell they like.

555

10th February 2008, 04:36 PM

Then the ONLY scenario that is a real problem you understand is the least realistic.
And IMHO its not 15% but impossible.

2 things show me that.

1. Verisign will not in anyway allow this VERY CONFUSING situation.
2. The $ amt and number of lawsuits icann and they're mother will get over anything that reminds that even.

So honestly now i really don't understand what you are thinking about so much? every day you think you have less to think of.
And i am not a seller.

- Nothing happens. idn.com is left as is.
30% likelihood

- Aliasing via whatever technical method is implemented. Current owners are awarded the aliased domain 'version'
5% likelihood

- Aliasing via whatever technical method is implemented. Current owners have 1st rights to theyr'e already registered domains and they need to pay for them.
50% likelihood

- Aliasing via whatever technical method is implemented. Current owners have no rights to the domains and this will able me to own שניידר.com and someone else will own שניידר.קום
15% likelihood

Just my opinion (subject to change)

domain_trader

10th February 2008, 04:40 PM

The first is not an option due to the Right to Left problem. Go for this and they might as well just disband.

Second it most likely.

If Aliasing is done at DNS, Options Three and Four don't work anyway.

What is theoretically possible is that other registeries will be set up with Confusingly Similar extensions, but I think that is probably unlikely in view of what has already been laid out the New gTLD policy document, but convincing some on this forum of this opinion would probably involve beating them around the head with a brick, so it is probably just easier to let them think what the hell they like.

I think this option will raise issues with equity. People will be critical of IDNers getting a free ride?

But this is mostly a technical issue now and its out of my area. Can you explain to me why option 3 is not feasible?

Also, 261275, is that last option even aliasing? I don't understand it.

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 05:08 PM

I think this option will raise issues with equity. People will be critical of IDNers getting a free ride?

But this is mostly a technical issue now and its out of my area. Can you explain to me why option 3 is not feasible?

Also, 261275, is that last option even aliasing? I don't understand it.

The fact that you need this explaining just underlines how little you have understood about anything.

For Option 3 (- Aliasing via whatever technical method is implemented. Current owners have 1st rights to theyr'e already registered domains and they need to pay for them.) to work aliasing could not happen at the DNS as such Aliasing would have a global effect across the entire registry. It would have to be done at the Registry where they would have an up to date list of who had paid and who had not for each and every alias, and the mapping would have to be carried out on a case by case basis. Verisign have never even proposed this and even if they had the capability to do this I am bloody sure the other registries have not. Furthermore, there has been no technical evaluation of any registry based aliasing or any policy development in this area. If this is the way things are going, then ICANN would need to put the whole IDN.IDN project on hold for another 3 years at least whilst they try to work out if this could be done and if so, how could they control it?

jacksonm

10th February 2008, 05:10 PM

The last option is when verisign would be awarded idn extensions which mean dot com, but on new namespaces. Verisign could then choose to give them to the idn.com owner OR sell them as they wish.

.

555

10th February 2008, 05:13 PM

The last option is when verisign would be awarded idn extensions which mean dot com, but on new namespaces. Verisign could then choose to give them to the idn.com owner OR sell them as they wish.

.

I Feel this also is not an option.
How many people would invest any real money when you KNOW there is a brother from another mother just waiting for you to start putting money in his pocket.

jacksonm

10th February 2008, 05:14 PM

I Feel this also is not an option.
How many people would invest any real money when you KNOW there is a brother from another mother just waiting for you to start putting money in his pocket.

I agree. I was just explaining it a little more clearly.

.

mulligan

10th February 2008, 05:17 PM

when you KNOW there is a brother from another mother just waiting for you to start putting money in his pocket.

Lol .. well put :)

555

10th February 2008, 05:23 PM

I agree. I was just explaining it a little more clearly.

.

YOU MUST LISTEN TO THE PROS. :)

Bottom line and im out of this...say no one knows nothing about nothing...
With all 'risks' involved...i feel this is about the best investment opportunity since english only .com days.
And i think we can agree english only .com is the best opportunity in last 1283 years appx, which makes domains in other languages seem too good to be true to some.

History repeats, just lake sure you closed any possible 'holes' and diversify your portfolio. I think we can agree no one knows what lane will take 1st place.

jacksonm

10th February 2008, 05:25 PM

Nothing happens. idn.com is left as is.
25% likelihood

- Aliasing via whatever technical method is implemented. Current owners are awarded the aliased domain 'version'
5% likelihood

- Aliasing via whatever technical method is implemented. Current owners have 1st rights to theyr'e already registered domains and they need to pay for them.
70% likelihood

- Aliasing via whatever technical method is implemented. Current owners have no rights to the domains and this will able me to own שניידר.com and someone else will own שניידר.קום
0% likelihood

Just my opinion (subject to change)

,

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 05:25 PM

The last option is when verisign would be awarded idn extensions which mean dot com, but on new namespaces. Verisign could then choose to give them to the idn.com owner OR sell them as they wish.

.

Except is highly unlikely they would be allowed to operate Confusingly Similar, as a separate registry. It is highly likely that they would be granted this only on a contractual understanding that it must be aliased.

Ok, Mr Jackson, please explain how Option 3 actually works in practice?

Nothing happens. idn.com is left as is.
25% likelihood

- Aliasing via whatever technical method is implemented. Current owners are awarded the aliased domain 'version'
5% likelihood

- Aliasing via whatever technical method is implemented. Current owners have 1st rights to theyr'e already registered domains and they need to pay for them.
70% likelihood

- Aliasing via whatever technical method is implemented. Current owners have no rights to the domains and this will able me to own שניידר.com and someone else will own שניידר.קום
0% likelihood

Just my opinion (subject to change)

,

domain_trader

10th February 2008, 05:30 PM

The fact that you need this explaining just underlines how little you have understood about anything.

BS statement. You are onto technical issues now. I've already admitted that I know little about this area, just as you should admit you understand little about the policy area or organisational politics (or for that matter comprehending policy documents). But that would require some self-understanding and honesty.

For Option 3 ...

Okay, thanks for explaining. I'll read up some more about it and think some more about the technical issues. I don't question your technical knowledge RD. All respect to you there.

So honestly now i really don't understand what you are thinking about so much?

I think I have been misunderstood all along here. As I said, I'm not a cynic. The only point I've been making is that we need to be honest that we are taking a punt here and not to mislead others about the facts as they stand. For me, the punt is better than 50/50, which is why I'm doing some more expansion into non-Latins recently. I'll wait to I hear the report from the GNSO on aliasing before I commit substantially more funds to this, but I'm happy to wait. There is no stress on my side.

There is some risk involved, and so newbies should not be misled into thinking there is not. It's not a big deal, it's just that some people got on their high horse early and then went bananas telling others (namely me) to listen to the pros like demented idiots. It's people's fucked up personalities around here that turns these things into a wad of drivel. Otherwise this whole thread could have been sorted out in a few posts.

jacksonm

10th February 2008, 05:39 PM

Ok, Mr Jackson, please explain how Option 3 actually works in practice?

Sure.

- Aliasing via whatever technical method is implemented. Current owners have 1st rights to theyr'e already registered domains and they need to pay for them.
70% likelihood

Verisign is awarded and delegated new namespaces for tens of extensions which equal dot com in various languages, and they create empty zonefiles in their DNS for all the new namespaces. Verisign extends the registrar API (small modification to the registrar's interface to the registry) so that a domain owner can choose the aliases he wants to pay for. After he pays, the command is sent to the registry to add NS records to each of the zone files that the person just paid for.

Unbelievably simple, this is aliasing from within Verisign. The difference is that they don't let anybody else buy the aliases if the dot com owner doesn't want them.

.

555

10th February 2008, 05:39 PM

I'll wait to I hear the report from the GNSO on aliasing before I commit substantially more funds to this, but I'm happy to wait. There is no stress on my side.

I don't understand how you think, but what else is new.

1. Report has bad news (not sure what bad news are as the vast majority understands and calculated in they're risks that idn.com will remain idn.com - Prices wont go down because of that.
2. Report remains same , no new info added - Prices wont go down because of that.
3. Report confirms aliasing. - You will need ALOT x 10 more money to buy anything tier1

I just don't understand the business logic, forget domains.

The only point that I have been making is that there is some risk involved, and so newbies should not be misled into thinking there is not.

And newbies buying COMPLETE JUNK .noOneHeardOfExt have no risk?
They have no risk, they lost the money when they hit submit. on godaddy probably.

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 05:41 PM

BS statement. You are onto technical issues now. I've already admitted that I know little about this area, just as you should admit you understand little about the policy area or organisational politics (or for that matter comprehending policy documents). But that would require some self-understanding and honesty.

It about time people understood that the Policy Development is subservient to the technical. You just cannot develop policy that extends into the technically impossible. As for Jackson, he should know better than this. 70% likely for something that is not even remotely credible. Give me a break!

jacksonm

10th February 2008, 05:44 PM

I don't question your technical knowledge RD. All respect to you there.

RD does not understand DNS in practice.

.

555

10th February 2008, 05:44 PM

Also, domainTrader...

The only person here that REALLY knows technical shit you sent to fuck off somewhere.
Not that fucking is bad for you.
But fucking with no regged idn's is dangerous, As you can then come back and understand it is you who is fucked.

jacksonm

10th February 2008, 05:45 PM

As for Jackson, he should know better than this. 70% likely for something that is not even remotely credible. Give me a break!

Please carefully consider my above explanation.

.

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 05:46 PM

Sure.

Verisign is awarded and delegated new namespaces for tens of extensions which equal dot com in various languages, and they create empty zonefiles in their DNS for all the new namespaces. Verisign extends the registrar API (small modification to the registrar's interface to the registry) so that a domain owner can choose the aliases he wants to pay for. After he pays, the command is sent to the registry to add NS records to each of the zone files that the person just paid for.

Unbelievably simple, this is aliasing from within Verisign. The difference is that they don't let anybody else buy the aliases if the dot com owner doesn't want them.

.

Bull Shit! This is Aliasing outside the DNS. There is no Policy being developed at ICANN to cover this. There is no technical evaluation of how this could affect the stability of the DNS and what is more there have been no proposal from Verisign or indeed any other registry to be allowed to do this. You are living in fucking La La Land.

mulligan

10th February 2008, 05:51 PM

jacksonm

10th February 2008, 05:52 PM

Bull Shit! This is Aliasing outside the DNS. There is no Policy being developed at ICANN to cover this. There is no technical evaluation of how this could affect the stability of the DNS and what is more there have been no proposal from Verisign or indeed any other registry to be allowed to do this. You are living in fucking La La Land.

If they own multiple extensions, they can do whatever they please inside of those extensions with regard to aliasing.

This is not outside of DNS at all.

Now, I take the time to explain a perfectly feasible solution to you and you take the chance to cuss and swear, etc. Mighty nice.

.

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 05:53 PM

Enough already guys .. peace, calm and serenity will prolong your life (Or so I've heard .. :) .. don't let this stuff stress you too much .. leave the technacalities to those who will ultimately make the decision (Eventually) and know you have made the right choice

What is going on here is a bit like going into a Italian Restaurant and ordering a Vindaloo!

555

10th February 2008, 05:55 PM

What is going on here is a bit like going into a Italian Restaurant and ordering a Vindaloo!

I'll pass.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Vindalho.jpg/300px-Vindalho.jpg

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 05:55 PM

If they own multiple extensions, they can do whatever they please inside of those extensions with regard to aliasing.

This is not outside of DNS at all.

Now, I take the time to explain a perfectly feasible solution to you and you take the chance to cuss and swear, etc. Mighty nice.

.

Yes, it is. Aliasing inside the DNS involves pointing one extension to another. This is done for every enquiry with the alias in the URL. What you are suggesting is case by case. Ask Drewbert, he knows how the DNS works. It doesn't fucking work like that! Mr Computer Expert.

If they own multiple extensions, they can do whatever they please inside of those extensions with regard to aliasing.

This is not outside of DNS at all.

Now, I take the time to explain a perfectly feasible solution to you and you take the chance to cuss and swear, etc. Mighty nice.

.

Cuz you are talking bollocks, and I am sure you must know better than that!

jacksonm

10th February 2008, 05:59 PM

Yes, it is. Aliasing inside the DNS involves pointing one extension to another. This is done for every enquiry with the alias in the URL. What you are suggesting is case by case. Ask Drewbert, he knows how the DNS works. It doesn't fucking work like that! Mr Computer Expert.

RD, I can set up a DNS server on my network tonight that will do exactly as I described. I can build the interface to add NS records to the other zone files in pretty short order as well. You are well out of your league with that last comment.

Now, I will forgive you and you should go and take your medicine. I am out of here to do something productive.

.

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 06:01 PM

RD, I can set up a DNS server on my network tonight that will do exactly as I described. I can build the interface to add NS records to the other zone files in pretty short order as well. You are well out of your league with that last comment.

Now, I will forgive you and you should go and take your medicine. I am out of here to do something productive.

.

Your are talking out of your arse!

domain_trader

10th February 2008, 06:07 PM

I don't understand how you think, but what else is new.

Ditto.

1. Report has bad news (not sure what bad news are as the vast majority understands and calculated in they're risks that idn.com will remain idn.com - Prices wont go down because of that.

Are you kidding? What value will there be on a .com if it is knocked out by a ccTLD in native extension? I'm not saying it will be worthless, but I'd be investing in the ccTLDs (if allowed) or the Latins. That is common sense.

2. Report remains same , no new info added - Prices wont go down because of that.

As above. If the ccTLD strings are out and no one has a clue about what will happen to aliasing, that is not a good scenario.

3. Report confirms aliasing. - You will need ALOT x 10 more money to buy anything tier1

And can I now? Are you putting your tier 1s up for sale at 10x less the expected market price? Thought not.

And newbies buying COMPLETE JUNK .noOneHeardOfExt have no risk?
They have no risk, they lost the money when they hit submit. on godaddy probably.

Yep, you seemed to have lost the plot. That it is a risk is what I've been saying all along, when you so-called pros have been suggesting that aliasing is in the bag. You haven't been reading have you?

Also, domainTrader...

The only person here that REALLY knows technical shit you sent to fuck off somewhere.
Not that fucking is bad for you.
But fucking with no regged idn's is dangerous, As you can then come back and understand it is you who is fucked.

That was meant for the elitist pricks around here, which apparently includes you. The person you are talking about got caught in a bit of friendly fire.

Old man I think it is nap time.

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 06:11 PM

Seamo, I think it about time we took a closer look at this Spam Bot.

bwhhisc

10th February 2008, 06:11 PM

Enough already guys .. peace, calm and serenity will prolong your life (Or so I've heard .. :) .. don't let this stuff stress you too much .. leave the technacalities to those who will ultimately make the decision (Eventually! Do it already !) and know you have made the right choice

C'mon Mulligan. We finally get some good, brash, in your face IDN talk going on.
Seems things are finally getting back to "normal" around here. :)

domain_trader

10th February 2008, 06:18 PM

Seamo, I think it about time we took a closer look at this Spam Bot.

Seamo is an Aussie, so he can see through your pompous BS. Don't look to the moderator to save your sorry arse.

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 06:22 PM

Seamo is an Aussie, so he can see through your pompous BS. Don't look to the moderator to save your sorry arse.

Look both you and Jackson have stumped up your best opinions and been found gravely wanting. The only sorry arse around here are you pair. Come back when you can string a couple of coherent thoughts together between you. Try and do it sometime before the London Olympics if at all possible!

bwhhisc

10th February 2008, 06:25 PM

paging Drewbert....

domain_trader

10th February 2008, 06:25 PM

Try and do it sometime before the London Olympics if at all possible!

Hwahaha. Oh man that is so funny. Is that some sort of British humour?

alpha

10th February 2008, 06:28 PM

Hwahaha. Oh man that is so funny. Is that some sort of British humour?

almost as funny as "..and boldly claims that he will one day solve the mysteries of life and the universe"

that is you right?

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 06:31 PM

paging Drewbert....

Drewbert will confirm that there is no way that ICANN are going to be aliasing individual domains within their root zone, when they don't even have a list in the first place. They can alias extensions, but they haven't even been doing that to date. There is no way that Verisign is going to give sanction to this kind of aliasing within the forseeable future, even if the dumb ass policy crowd think it is a good idea. From a DNS stability perspective this is a whole new can of worms that has not even been opened yet.

mulligan

10th February 2008, 06:32 PM

paging Drewbert....

Also paged .. no answer .. think he threw the phone into the sea off the Bahamas somewhere?? ... :p

domain_trader

10th February 2008, 06:33 PM

almost as funny as "..and boldly claims that he will one day solve the mysteries of life and the universe"

that is you right?

Yeah, but tongue in cheek Alpha. I gave up long ago of figuring anything meaningful out. Everything is just opinions. This thread is the perfect example.

Drewbert

10th February 2008, 06:33 PM

Everything ICANN does from here on has to be open, fair and transparent, or it will be the end of ICANN. The suggestions that I hear around here that ICANN are doing special backyard deals with Verisign need to be dispensed with once and for all.

A ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Bugger. I wet myself.

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 06:35 PM

Yeah, but tongue in cheek Alpha. I gave up long ago of figuring anything meaningful out. Everything is just opinions. This thread is the perfect example.

That much is clear and is about the only sensible thing you have said on this forum.

alpha

10th February 2008, 06:35 PM

Yeah, but tongue in cheek Alpha. I gave up long ago of figuring anything meaningful out. Everything is just opinions. This thread is the perfect example.

the reason i posted that d_t is that everyone has an opinion, and can voice it, even if it's as off the wall as yours.

i don't see people round here pinning you to the ground and have you explain that statement.. which is kind of what you're doing.

bwhhisc

10th February 2008, 06:35 PM

Drewbert will confirm that there is no way that ICANN are going to be aliasing individual domains within their root zone, when they don't even have a list in the first place. They can alias extensions, but they haven't even been doing that to date. There is no way that Verisign is going to get sanction to this kind of aliasing within the forseeable future, even if the dumb ass policy crowd think it is a good idea. From a DNS stability perspective this is a whole new can of worms that has not even been opened yet.

I had just noticed Drew has just logged on....so that was just kind of a welcome hello.

555

10th February 2008, 06:38 PM

I am Michael the 3rd.

i have been only trying to help. believe it or not i dont give a fuck.
Best of luck pumpkin.

What would you pay for a domain EVERYONE here will agree is TOP TOP domain?

Drewbert

10th February 2008, 06:55 PM

Verisign is awarded and delegated new namespaces for tens of extensions which equal dot com in various languages, and they create empty zonefiles in their DNS for all the new namespaces. Verisign extends the registrar API (small modification to the registrar's interface to the registry) so that a domain owner can choose the aliases he wants to pay for. After he pays, the command is sent to the registry to add NS records to each of the zone files that the person just paid for.

Unbelievably simple, this is aliasing from within Verisign. The difference is that they don't let anybody else buy the aliases if the dot com owner doesn't want them.
.

Wooh. Now THERE'S a dog that will hunt.

Extra revenue for Verisign without the threat of litigation from their current IDN customers.

Plus there's a few other tricks they could do at the same time:

1. An option to convert your example.TLD to example.idnTLD for a one time payment, with the old example.TLD domain locked so no one else can reg it.

2. An option to convert from 1 variant to another for a one time payment. (long time overdue)

I like the cut of your jib, m'lad.

RD, DNS is simply a protocol, and it's tied to a back end database. All sorts of fun stuff can be done with it - blacklists, hidden data, etc.

This is usually done at the registrant level, but there's nothing stopping Registries doing funky stuff in their back-end databases. DNAME was suggested early on because it provided blanket aliasing at the TLD level without the need for database mirroring or manipulation. If the aliasing is moved over to the back-end it becomes optional on a case-by-case basis. We can see this being done already with some Registries automatically providing Registrants with all variants whenever they reg one variant - and the more frustrating variant blocking model employed by Verisign.

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 07:03 PM

Wooh. Now THERE'S a dog that will hunt.

Extra revenue for Verisign without the threat of litigation from their current IDN customers.

Plus there's a few other tricks they could do at the same time:

1. An option to convert your example.TLD to example.idnTLD for a one time payment, with the old example.TLD domain locked so no one else can reg it.

2. An option to convert from 1 variant to another for a one time payment. (long time overdue)

I like the cut of your jib, m'lad.

RD, DNS is simply a protocol, and it's tied to a back end database. All sorts of fun stuff can be done with it - blacklists, hidden data, etc.

This is usually done at the registrant level, but there's nothing stopping Registries doing funky stuff in their back-end databases. DNAME was suggested early on because it provided blanket aliasing at the TLD level without the need for database mirroring or manipulation. If the aliasing is moved over to the back-end it becomes optional on a case-by-case basis. We can see this being done already with some Registries automatically providing Registrants with all variants whenever they reg one variant - and the more frustrating variant blocking model employed by Verisign.

Agreed, but they are not even sanctioning DNAME at the moment. The only sanctioned way of aliasing at the moment is in the Root Zone. The back-end database aliasing is controlled at registry level and that is quite feasible, but it is not sanctioned, and there is no policy in development that would enable that to be sanctioned from what I can see, and ICANN would throw a dizzy fit if anyone attempted to do it without their permission.

Drewbert

10th February 2008, 07:14 PM

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 07:17 PM

It IS sanctioned.

How else do you explain the .biz registry tying different variants together?

And you think ICANN could stop Verisign tying .com and .net names together on a case-by-case basis if they wanted?

That is at the second level. The second level falls within the remit of the registry. We are talking about the Top Level. That is something quite different.

domain_trader

10th February 2008, 07:20 PM

the reason i posted that d_t is that everyone has an opinion, and can voice it, even if it's as off the wall as yours.

i don't see people round here pinning you to the ground and have you explain that statement.. which is kind of what you're doing.

Well you've taken that from a university website. I never said that here. But I did't mind explaining it since you mentioned it - no worries at all. Whatever statements I make you can query me about them, and if they're a bunch of hogwash then I should know better.

And I think you've got it around the wrong way. I voiced an opinion on a document, then was cut down by RD and Co who spouted a lot of opinions as facts and arrogantly said I shouldn't question the 'pros'. When I picked them up on it, they started getting all edgy and insulting and it degenerated from there. If you don't believe me, just read over this thread from the start!

I'm used to civil discussions that problem-solves issues, but you need to get rid of the elitist BS or it can't happen. There's too much of that going on around here. People boasting about how big-time they are, how long they've been IDNing etc, as though other people's views aren't important. For all they know, Viet IDNs could take off and I could be the most successful IDNer here! Unlikely, but possible. I wonder how big-time these people are when they line them up with the Snows, who don't even bother coming here? So it's all relative, and people should put their egos aside and discuss the issues properly. If not, well they know what they can all do.

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 07:28 PM

Are we just one of your research projects into marginalized/unorthodox leisure groups?

mulligan

10th February 2008, 07:31 PM

For all they know, Viet IDNs could take off and I could be the most successful IDNer here! This is right and you may have the last laugh .. time will tell

Unlikely, but possible. I wonder how big-time these people are when they line them up with the Snows, who don't even bother coming here? How do you know they're not here?

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 07:36 PM

Yes, he might do well with the Vietnamese ones, but he cannot get away with that jibe about the Snows who are into the same categories of domains as the rest us. If he is sniping at us, by implication he is sniping at them as well.

Frankly, I guess it is my fault. All those jibes about the Wacko of Wako and now Dubya has sent around one of his religious nutters to haunt me. He'll have me talking to God before we are finished here!

domain_trader

10th February 2008, 07:40 PM

Are we just one of your research projects into marginalized/unorthodox leisure groups?

Some of you would qualify as a fringe cult, so it could be. I might nominate you as the cult leader in that scenario.

But this is investment purposes only. I'm an anthropologist by training and know the importance of linguistic diversity, so I understand the need for IDNs. I'm also looking for some extra income to pay off my house and support my family, so I'm hoping to get a decent return on this one day.

By the way, I have absolute respect for the Snows. What are you insinuating?

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 07:44 PM

Some of you would qualify as a fringe cult, so it could be. I might nominate you as the cult leader in that scenario.

But this is investment purposes only. I'm an anthropologist by training and know the importance of linguistic diversity, so I understand the need for IDNs. I'm also looking for some extra income to pay off my house and support my family, so I'm hoping to get a decent return on this one day.

By the way, I have absolute respect for the Snows. What are you insinuating?

The Snows are into Non-Latin IDN big time. Trash our investments and reputations basically you are just saying they are as misguided as we are. You just can't have it always.

If you are an investor, then you are way too early. Investors are into ROI of 10-20% per annum. You won't find that here.

alpha

10th February 2008, 07:44 PM

By the way, I have absolute respect for the Snows. What are you insinuating?

d_t, i think what RD is getting at is that people like the snows and TDC and all the other mass horders of IDN's obviously believe enough of all this speculative aliasing stuff else they wouldn't have gone out and regged in the many thousands.

The only difference is these guys don't post here.

So actually your issue then must be people that frequent a forum, and speak out loud their thoughts, that probably match the same reason these horders regged in the first place? i don't get it.. :confused:

edit: and if you take TDC as an example, I don't believe i've ever seen a latin reg by them.

jacksonm

10th February 2008, 07:48 PM

The Snows are into Non-Latin IDN big time.

Wrong, they are into everything. Latins just don't have as many possibilities to begin with as non-Latins do. I have found their name on many prime latins across 15 languages. And those are just the names that I've bothered to whois.

They've got dot biz, dot info, dot you name it in almost any language you can imagine.

.

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 07:50 PM

Wrong, they are into everything. Latins just don't have as many possibilities to begin with as non-Latins do. I have found their name on many prime latins across 15 languages. And those are just the names that I've bothered to whois.

.

You obviously have a problem with interpreting logical arguments.

I did not say that they did not have Latin Domains. I am sure they do.

domain_trader

10th February 2008, 07:53 PM

d_t, i think what RD is getting at is that people like the snows and TDC and all the other mass horders of IDN's obviously believe enough of all this speculative aliasing stuff else they wouldn't have gone out and regged in the many thousands.

They only difference is these guys don't post here.

So actually your issue then must be people that frequent a forum? i don't get it.. :confused:

edit: and if you take TDC as an example, I don't believe i've ever seen a latin reg by them.

I don't have an issue with the Snows, with people who register non-Latins or people who frequent this forum. Where is all this coming from? I frequent this forum, I register non-Latins and if it was 2003/04 I'd be registering up every prime IDN in sight like the Snows as well.

What I have an issue is with people pretending they are big time and putting everyone else down. Pure and simple - no confusion. I think I've made that point a few times now.

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 07:56 PM

I don't have an issue with the Snows, with people who register non-Latins or people who frequent this forum. Where is all this coming from? I frequent this forum, I register non-Latins and if it was 2003/04 I'd be registering up every prime IDN in sight like the Snows as well.

What I have an issue is with people pretending they are big time and putting everyone else down. Pure and simple - no confusion. I think I've made that point a few times now.

You would already have been 3 years late, if you wanted to compete with the Snows.

Moreover, you would have had to have had extraordinary technical and linguistic knowledge to register what they did, when they did. Even if you knew about IDN at that time you could not have competed with them.

mulligan

10th February 2008, 07:58 PM

What I have an issue is with people pretending they are big time and putting everyone else down. Pure and simple - no confusion. I think I've made that point a few times now.

Be like a duck .. water off the back etc .. :)

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 08:03 PM

What I have an issue is with people pretending they are big time and putting everyone else down. Pure and simple - no confusion. I think I've made that point a few times now.

Who said anything about pretending? I am BIG time!

jacksonm

10th February 2008, 08:05 PM

You obviously have a problem with interpreting logical arguments.

I did not say that they did not have Latin Domains. I am sure they do.

Are you drunk, honestly? Because if so, then it might give you some excuse to be in the massive hole you that have dug yourself down into.

Be a man and apologize to people when you see the sun tomorrow.

.

domain_trader

10th February 2008, 08:08 PM

You would already have been 3 years late, if you wanted to compete with the Snows.

Moreover, you would have had to have had extraordinary technical and linguistic knowledge to register what they did, when they did. Even if you knew about IDN at that time you could not have competed with them.

Yeah, as if you know me.

Well I know their Viet regs very well, some of them aren't as old as you think they are. Also, they missed a few key ones, but they still have close to the best - if not the best - Viet portfolio by virtue of having first pickings. I would assume that this is the case across most of the major languages. But IDN is just part of their portfolio.

Rubber Duck

10th February 2008, 08:10 PM

Are you drunk, honestly? Because if so, then it might give you some excuse to be in the massive hole you that have dug yourself down into.

Be a man and apologize to people when you see the sun tomorrow.

.

Not at all. And it is time you admitted you were talking bollocks and apologised.

Back End Aliasing at the Registry is technical possibility but it not even on the Radar Screen. 70% likelihood. Don't make me laugh!

Yeah, as if you know me.

Well I know their Viet regs very well, some of them aren't as old as you think they are. Also, they missed a few key ones, but they still have close to the best - if not the best - Viet portfolio by virtue of having first pickings. I would assume that this is the case across most of the major languages. But IDN is just part of their portfolio.

Some of the languages were registered later because they could not register Unicode that had not been formulated. As soon as it was in place they raided the store cupboard. That was one slick operation.

tee1

10th February 2008, 08:19 PM

Yeah, as if you know me.

Well I know their Viet regs very well, some of them aren't as old as you think they are. Also, they missed a few key ones, but they still have close to the best - if not the best - Viet portfolio by virtue of having first pickings. I would assume that this is the case across most of the major languages. But IDN is just part of their portfolio.

some of the ones they have regged with the last couple of years I believe are drops. maybe hotel/travel (Viet) something along those lines, can't remember right off, but I know I checked feb/march of 06 for the terms and they weren't avail, they have them regged summer of 06.

The snows have great terms in almost all langauges, except bengali I think. But I wouldn't bet against them there. :o

tee1

domain_trader

10th February 2008, 08:22 PM

Some of the languages were registered later because they could not register Unicode that had not been formulated. As soon as it was in place they raided the store cupboard. That was one slick operation.

For the Viets Laura Snow spread her purchases from 2001-2006. She did it in a number of stages, picking up just a few key terms in the first round, then a few more each time. It looks like she was incrementally working down a key word list. If I had information about their other language purchases, I suspect we'd see a pattern.

zfreud

10th February 2008, 11:14 PM

I come to this thread pretty late in the game but here are my thoughts...

If you look at the entire ecosystem, there are proponents for and against DNAME as a solution. The drawback to DNAME in it's current format is that it basically maps an entire tree structure for a gTLD to an alias for that gTLD. There are NOT any new registrations. That is, of course, the entire point. This brings with it the unintended consequence of instantly mixing scripts between the top level and subsequent labels. A registration that appears in Arabic.Hebrew (in right to left of course) or in Simple Chinese.Traditional Chinese, while technically feasible, have political and emotional weight that have helped stall this proposal within ICANN. That, and the obvious war going on between the ccTLD operators and gTLD (read verisign). Of course Drewbert is correct about Verisign's historical ability to strong arm policy at ICANN. That said, I think it is pretty clear a new dawn has arrived. And it's a red dawn. CNNIC is now to a large extent driving IDN policy.

On another note, ICANN has made clear that from a policy perspective EVERY ALIAS would have to go through the same process as an application for a new TLD.

For these reasons, I personally think aliasing is not going to happen.

What will likely happen is that in countries like China, which is already registering "aliased" (in quotes mind you) versions of their TLD, they'll simply launch the new "official" IDN ccTLD when it is granted, and grant all existing idn.cn domain owners the same domain in the new "official" idn tld. And I suspect, over time, they will phase out idn.cn entirely.

Verisign, on the other hand, will be one of the first to market with IDN gTLDs in major scripts like hanzi. They will follow CNNIC's example and not allow mixing of scripts for these new TLDs. However, as a profit driven corporation, they will give no priority to current IDN.com owners and will enjoy the landrush revenue these new IDN gTLDs create. Anyone who believes that current idn.com owners have some kind of IP right to a foreign language IDN TLD because they own the roman .com version has not read Verisign's registration agreement very carefully. Good luck trying to hold them accountable for anything relating to your registration.

Bottom line? as speculation, i believe IDN.com's are one of the better investments out there. the premium domains will be worth quite a bit of money. they will never enjoy, however, the direct navigation that roman.com enjoyed in its heyday which has already past. the TLD space is becoming more and more fractured. at the end of the day, however, businesses need great intuitive domain names and will be willing to pay for them. as has been pointed out many times, .com remains the only global sign saying "this is an internet address"

blastfromthepast

11th February 2008, 01:27 AM

What will likely happen is that in countries like China, which is already registering "aliased" (in quotes mind you) versions of their TLD, they'll simply launch the new "official" IDN ccTLD when it is granted, and grant all existing idn.cn domain owners the same domain in the new "official" idn tld. And I suspect, over time, they will phase out idn.cn entirely.

And this is where you get it wrong. CCNIC has already been promised explicitly by ICANN that its IDN.IDN aliasing scheme, which currently works within China, will be accomodated. This has been stated repeatedly.

zfreud

11th February 2008, 02:39 AM

Blast, not sure why you think I get it wrong? of course CNNIC will be accommodated. After all, they are driving the whole process.

Will CNNIC be granted an ICANN sanctioned ccTLD, .中国? Of course. Will this automatically alias to .cn? I doubt it.

Will CNNIC grant all IDN.cn registrants the equivalent IDN.中国? Almost certainly, as this is what they claim to offer already. Though of course we all know what they are currently offering is really .中国.cn...

Meaning, CNNIC will do the next best thing to aliasing. It will be up to the actual registrant to point both domains to the same site. And, as I noted, I suspect CNNIC will phase out IDN.cn alltogether over time.

Aliasing makes sense in a non-political world. In a world where power exists, aliasing is a pipe dream.

touchring

11th February 2008, 02:51 AM

For these reasons, I personally think aliasing is not going to happen.

I think it might not happen at least in the medium term (next 3-4 years), never happen - well, we'll never know! ;)

What will likely happen is that in countries like China, which is already registering "aliased" (in quotes mind you) versions of their TLD, they'll simply launch the new "official" IDN ccTLD when it is granted, and grant all existing idn.cn domain owners the same domain in the new "official" idn tld. And I suspect, over time, they will phase out idn.cn entirely.

Their IDN ccTLD already works within most of China.

IDNcctld -> cctld.

grant all existing idn.cn domain owners the same domain in the new "official" idn tld. And I suspect, over time, they will phase out idn.cn entirely.

idn.cn domain owners will not be granted the "official" idn tld or dot gongsi as many here call it. idn.cn is distinct from the "official" idn tld. When you register for a cnnic idn domain, you can select .cn (comes with idn .cn) OR idn tld, these 2 are distinct and require separate registration fees.

If you registered .cn, you do not get the idn tld - sorry! :)

Verisign, on the other hand, will be one of the first to market with IDN gTLDs in major scripts like hanzi. They will follow CNNIC's example and not allow mixing of scripts for these new TLDs. However, as a profit driven corporation, they will give no priority to current IDN.com owners and will enjoy the landrush revenue these new IDN gTLDs create. Anyone who believes that current idn.com owners have some kind of IP right to a foreign language IDN TLD because they own the roman .com version has not read Verisign's registration agreement very carefully. Good luck trying to hold them accountable for anything relating to your registration.

Yes, i believe so as well, but they must also sort out the confusingly similar to .com or .net issue. That leaves few viable options on the table.

zfreud

11th February 2008, 03:02 AM

OK. I think I'm not being clear and I apologize.

I fully understand that CNNIC is currently offering a browser/ISP solution to map .中国 to .cn inside China. However, CNNIC recognizes this is not a viable solution for a slew of reasons I'm not going into.

My point is that when CNNIC is officially granted .中国 as one of the first ICANN sanctioned IDN ccTLDs, they are not going to be able to alias it to .cn. For a truckload of reasons. What they will be able to do, however, is effectively alias it by allowing all past registrants of an IDN.cn a free equivalent domain in the new .中国 tld.

So if you own, for example, 笨鸭.cn you'll get 笨鸭.中国 for free. But they will be effectively two different domains. Obviously the owner would likely point to the same site, but they wouldn't have to...whereas with aliasing they would.

make sense?!

"When you register for a cnnic idn domain, you can select .cn (comes with idn .cn) OR idn tld, these 2 are distinct and require separate registration fees."

Well that's news to me. I own hundreds of IDN.cn domains. All of which, when you check CNNIC's whois, are also mapped to .中国

In fact, I challenge you to show me an IDN.cn registration that does not also show .中国

just visit: http://ewhois.cnnic.net.cn/

and send me the IDN.cn that isn't also at the same time IDN.中国

just occurred to me the confusion probably revolves around ascii.cn registrations.

ascii.cn does not automatically get a .中国

IDN.cn does automatically get .中国

i knew we'd get to ten pages on this!

touchring

11th February 2008, 03:18 AM

i'm separating idn ctld and idn tld.

idn cltd:
笨鸭.cn = 笨鸭.中国

idn tld:
笨鸭.公司

Ascii.cn:
sillyduck.cn

zfreud

11th February 2008, 03:29 AM

ok...i think I understand.

idn cltd:
笨鸭.cn = 笨鸭.中国

This I agree with. .cn will equal the ICANN sanctioned cTLD .中国. But equal will not be via aliasing. it will be via CNNIC granting idn.cn stakeholders free equivalent "official" .中国

idn tld:
笨鸭.公司

This is idn gTLD. And it aint happening anytime soon. Remember, CNNIC has been selling .公司 for some time...but it is really .公司.cn. So what will happen is .公司 will become .公司.中国...like .com.au or .co.uk

Ascii.cn:
sillyduck.cn

yep. anyone with ascii.cn will remain a silly duck

zfreud

11th February 2008, 03:58 AM

another thing I might not have been very articulate about:

Currently CNNIC is offering an ISP/browser plug in to map .中国 to .cn

But, as we all know, this is really mapping .中国 to .中国.cn

Why? because .中国 is not recognized as a ccTLD.

What I am saying is that ICANN will officially create a .中国 domain. However, it will NOT map to .cn. It will be a stand alone ccTLD. It will also not be officially related to the CNNIC ".中国.cn" solution.

However, CNNIC will effectively "map" the two, because they will offer all stakeholder in the .中国(.cn) domains equivalents in the ICANN sanctioned .中国 domain.

ok?

blastfromthepast

11th February 2008, 04:18 AM

I'm sorry, you are wrong.

zfreud

11th February 2008, 04:32 AM

I'm sorry, I am right.

Rubber Duck

11th February 2008, 04:58 AM

Rubbish, if this was Verisign's intention, why would they have promoted the DNAME solution in the first place. Furthermore, it has been made clear that the DNAME solution is held up on technical grounds rather than political ones. Indeed, if you study the situation you will see that the ccTLD operators have been pretty much boxed into a corner. It is the GNSO not the ssNSO that are in the driving seat. China will get .中国 without doubt and it will be aliased to .CN. However, because it will not be a separate registry, it is unlikely that dot CN could actually be phased out, as you put it.

I come to this thread pretty late in the game but here are my thoughts...

If you look at the entire ecosystem, there are proponents for and against DNAME as a solution. The drawback to DNAME in it's current format is that it basically maps an entire tree structure for a gTLD to an alias for that gTLD. There are NOT any new registrations. That is, of course, the entire point. This brings with it the unintended consequence of instantly mixing scripts between the top level and subsequent labels. A registration that appears in Arabic.Hebrew (in right to left of course) or in Simple Chinese.Traditional Chinese, while technically feasible, have political and emotional weight that have helped stall this proposal within ICANN. That, and the obvious war going on between the ccTLD operators and gTLD (read verisign). Of course Drewbert is correct about Verisign's historical ability to strong arm policy at ICANN. That said, I think it is pretty clear a new dawn has arrived. And it's a red dawn. CNNIC is now to a large extent driving IDN policy.

On another note, ICANN has made clear that from a policy perspective EVERY ALIAS would have to go through the same process as an application for a new TLD.

For these reasons, I personally think aliasing is not going to happen.

What will likely happen is that in countries like China, which is already registering "aliased" (in quotes mind you) versions of their TLD, they'll simply launch the new "official" IDN ccTLD when it is granted, and grant all existing idn.cn domain owners the same domain in the new "official" idn tld. And I suspect, over time, they will phase out idn.cn entirely.

Verisign, on the other hand, will be one of the first to market with IDN gTLDs in major scripts like hanzi. They will follow CNNIC's example and not allow mixing of scripts for these new TLDs. However, as a profit driven corporation, they will give no priority to current IDN.com owners and will enjoy the landrush revenue these new IDN gTLDs create. Anyone who believes that current idn.com owners have some kind of IP right to a foreign language IDN TLD because they own the roman .com version has not read Verisign's registration agreement very carefully. Good luck trying to hold them accountable for anything relating to your registration.

Bottom line? as speculation, i believe IDN.com's are one of the better investments out there. the premium domains will be worth quite a bit of money. they will never enjoy, however, the direct navigation that roman.com enjoyed in its heyday which has already past. the TLD space is becoming more and more fractured. at the end of the day, however, businesses need great intuitive domain names and will be willing to pay for them. as has been pointed out many times, .com remains the only global sign saying "this is an internet address"

blastfromthepast

11th February 2008, 05:01 AM

zfreud, stop posting fantasy about how .cn works right now.

Rubber Duck

11th February 2008, 05:02 AM

Rubber Duck

11th February 2008, 05:04 AM

i'm separating idn ctld and idn tld.

idn cltd:
笨鸭.cn = 笨鸭.中国

idn tld:
笨鸭.公司

Ascii.cn:
sillyduck.cn

Dream on!

Blast. This is precisely the case. It is you who is talking nonsense here.

zfreud

11th February 2008, 10:05 AM

RE: "Rubbish, if this was Verisign's intention, why would they have promoted the DNAME solution in the first place. Furthermore, it has been made clear that the DNAME solution is held up on technical grounds rather than political ones. Indeed, if you study the situation you will see that the ccTLD operators have been pretty much boxed into a corner. It is the GNSO not the ssNSO that are in the driving seat. China will get .中国 without doubt and it will be aliased to .CN. However, because it will not be a separate registry, it is unlikely that dot CN could actually be phased out, as you put it."

Duck, I'm not sure I'm making myself clear. Of course DNAME was promoted by Verisign and of course their intention was to alias .com. And yes, the technical community, with some reservations, seems to think it would work. But the bottom line is that the time line is clearly going to mean that ccTLDs will launch before any aliasing solution is agreed to. Testing DNAME or any other alisasing solution isn't even on the calendar or agenda.

.中国 will arrive late 2008 early 2009 and will not be aliased to anything. Doesn't need to be from China's standpoint.

And i never said .cn would be phased out. I said IDN.cn might be phased out in favor of all new idn registrations being .中国. If every IDN.cn owner is given the equivalent domain in .中国, CNNIC could let idn.cn registrations expire. not saying they will do that but there is some logic to it.

Rubber Duck

11th February 2008, 10:59 AM

I think you will find that there will be two distinct options for all New gTLD applications, Aliased or Not-Aliased. Obviously, if you are talking Not-Aliased then a New Registry has to be approved and that will require extensive background and financial strength checks to be carried out. If the Aliased option is chosen, then the new extension can just be thrown live into the Root Zone but it will be irrevirsably linked to the original TLD for which it is an Alias. This can all be done in the Root Zone without the requirement for DNAMES.

RE: "Rubbish, if this was Verisign's intention, why would they have promoted the DNAME solution in the first place. Furthermore, it has been made clear that the DNAME solution is held up on technical grounds rather than political ones. Indeed, if you study the situation you will see that the ccTLD operators have been pretty much boxed into a corner. It is the GNSO not the ssNSO that are in the driving seat. China will get .中国 without doubt and it will be aliased to .CN. However, because it will not be a separate registry, it is unlikely that dot CN could actually be phased out, as you put it."

Duck, I'm not sure I'm making myself clear. Of course DNAME was promoted by Verisign and of course their intention was to alias .com. And yes, the technical community, with some reservations, seems to think it would work. But the bottom line is that the time line is clearly going to mean that ccTLDs will launch before any aliasing solution is agreed to. Testing DNAME or any other alisasing solution isn't even on the calendar or agenda.

.中国 will arrive late 2008 early 2009 and will not be aliased to anything. Doesn't need to be from China's standpoint.

And i never said .cn would be phased out. I said IDN.cn might be phased out in favor of all new idn registrations being .中国. If every IDN.cn owner is given the equivalent domain in .中国, CNNIC could let idn.cn registrations expire. not saying they will do that but there is some logic to it.

touchring

11th February 2008, 11:56 AM

let's stop arguing, how about a change in topic - do modern humans got neanthethal genes? :p

zfreud

11th February 2008, 12:18 PM

Duck,

RE "I think you will find that there will be two distinct options for all New gTLD applications, Aliased or Not-Aliased."

Agreed. I was talking about the fast track ccTLDs which look like they will be implemented before any agreed upon aliasing method. That necessitates newspace TLDs and sets a precedent that I think will favor New Space.

RE: "Obviously, if you are talking Not-Aliased then a New Registry has to be approved and that will require extensive background and financial strength checks to be carried out. If the Aliased option is chosen, then the new extension can just be thrown live into the Root Zone but it will be irrevirsably linked to the original TLD for which it is an Alias. This can all be done in the Root Zone without the requirement for DNAMES.""

Of course new extensions that are meant to alias preexisting extension are irreversibly linked. I don't understand what you mean by aliasing can be done in the Root Zone without the requirement for DNAME. I mean, sure that's true. It could be some other requirement. Bottom line is there is no agreed upon technical standard for doing this and we all know at what pace ICANN moves.

Again, my previous examples were specific to the .cn domains. China has created a unique situation by forcing ICANN's hand and I continue to believe ccTLDs will be inserted as new space.

Blastfromthepast,

Regarding your PM, "Read up on how aliasing works right now in .cn before posting stuff about how it will work in the future." You're a little lost clearly. As Duck pointed out to you earlier in this thread, you seem to be clueless as to how .cn and aliasing work. Take some time to study my previous posts and learn something. Or better yet, try to actually tell us all how aliasing works differently than what I said?

Rubber Duck

11th February 2008, 12:25 PM

Previous discussions at ICANN Workshop clearly indicated that Aliasing within the Root Zone was not a complex matter. I don't think this requires any lenghty approval procedure. I think it is just a question of setting a few tags, but Drew would probably know more. I think it will be made clear which ones will be doing which once we have a list of the proposed insertions. Unless they give us such a list soon it is going to be increasingly difficult to figure out what the hell they are talking about.

zfreud

11th February 2008, 01:00 PM

ten pages...we can do it...

zfreud

11th February 2008, 01:05 PM

RE: "Previous discussions at ICANN Workshop clearly indicated that Aliasing within the Root Zone was not a complex matter. I don't think this requires any lengthy approval procedure."

I agree that aliasing is technically not a huge hurdle. I don't agree that it won't require a lengthy approval procedure. This is ICANN. Just look at the ridiculous test bed for IDN TLDs...

I suppose there could be a scenario where gNSO successfully holds up new space records until aliasing is tested...but I don't think ICANN has the will or the ability to go up against China right now. And like I keep saying, China could care less whether their ccTLD is aliased or not.

Rubber Duck

11th February 2008, 01:30 PM

Well as far as I am aware there is nothing in train policywise for this, which suggests that either policy is not needed or that it is going to take an awful long time. Even DNAME appears to be being progressed behind the scenes.

Incidentally, the latest update to the DNAME Redirection draft is dated 5th Feb 2008. No idea what they have been fiddling with this time.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-09

RE: "Previous discussions at ICANN Workshop clearly indicated that Aliasing within the Root Zone was not a complex matter. I don't think this requires any lengthy approval procedure."

I agree that aliasing is technically not a huge hurdle. I don't agree that it won't require a lengthy approval procedure. This is ICANN. Just look at the ridiculous test bed for IDN TLDs...

I suppose there could be a scenario where gNSO successfully holds up new space records until aliasing is tested...but I don't think ICANN has the will or the ability to go up against China right now. And like I keep saying, China could care less whether their ccTLD is aliased or not.

zfreud

11th February 2008, 01:42 PM

interesting that it is still being worked on. perhaps a good sign.

they'd be smart to get some CNNIC affiliated researchers involved.

zfreud

11th February 2008, 02:45 PM

did anyone listen in on this:

IDN Workshop: Progress on the Fast-Track Process for Intro. of a Limited Number of IDN ccTLDs

http://delhi.icann.org/node/60

or know where a transcript is?

Rubber Duck

11th February 2008, 03:33 PM

did anyone listen in on this:

IDN Workshop: Progress on the Fast-Track Process for Intro. of a Limited Number of IDN ccTLDs

http://delhi.icann.org/node/60

or know where a transcript is?

Transcripts usually take a while to appear and as they have redesigned the site again, they might take a bit of finding but normally there is a link in the program somewhere.

Giant

11th February 2008, 04:29 PM

interesting that it is still being worked on. perhaps a good sign.

VeriSign is perfecting it, and they'll probably announce their mapping option after some IDN ccTLDs are created. VeriSign owns all the best cards right now.

Rubber Duck

11th February 2008, 05:14 PM

VeriSign is perfecting it, and they'll probably announce their mapping option after some IDN ccTLDs are created. VeriSign owns all the best cards right now.

That is because Verisign pays the bills. Does anybody give a monkeys what the CEOs of dot name or dot travel think?

555

4th September 2008, 11:16 PM

Reality check, something changed since this thread was last active?

bwhhisc

5th September 2008, 11:54 AM

Reality check, something changed since this thread was last active?

Far as I can see ICANN continues to move along at a snails pace. Behind the scenes, looks like Verisign continues to get ready for IDNs.

VeriSign to Extend SSL Security to Web Sites With Internationalized Domain Names

Seven of every 10 people in the world don't speak English, but that isn't keeping them from using the Internet. Now, domain name registrants and Web site operators not only can reach users in their own language -- they can also protect their sites with Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) Certificates from VeriSign, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRSN), the trusted provider of Internet infrastructure services for the networked world.

VeriSign today announced that its SSL Certificates will now support Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs). IDNs display Web site addresses in local language characters, such as Sinitic characters used in China, Kanji symbols from Japan, and Cyrillic characters in Russia.

The move will bring the VeriSign Secured® Seal -- the world's most recognized trust mark -- to potentially millions more Web sites worldwide. Now, businesses with established brand recognition in non-Latin based scripts and languages can show visitors that their site is secured using industry leading SSL technology. For more information about SSL Certificates for Internationalized Domain Names, visit www.verisign.com/ssl-idn

VeriSign® SSL Certificates enable an essential function for online businesses: secure information exchange. IDNs have been often regarded as a potential phishing tool because of the similarity of some foreign characters to Roman characters. VeriSign SSL Certificates can help protect both site visitors and site owners, by assuring visitors that the site they are visiting is the authentic site they meant to visit. By improving security to build trust with consumers, site owners can boost their visitor-to-sales conversions and lower their incidents of abandoned shopping carts.

"Internationalized domain names are gaining traction with the introduction of IDN-enabled browsers like Internet Explorer 7 and Firefox," said Michael Lin, vice president of SSL product management at VeriSign. "Providing the latest security protection is a key step toward achieving a globally interconnected Internet that serves linguistically diverse populations. For its part in this effort, VeriSign is pleased to extend the protection of VeriSign SSL Certificates to sites using IDNs."

VeriSign is the most respected and trusted SSL authority on the Web. More than 95 percent of the Fortune 500 -- and the world's 40 largest banks -- rely on SSL Certificates sold by VeriSign (including VeriSign's subsidiaries, affiliates and resellers) to meet their security needs. For more information on VeriSign SSL protection, visit: http://www.verisign.com/ssl/index.html