[council] [Fwd: IDN's moving forward]

["Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@reacto.com>]

Roger

Can you tell us what is going on here??
Why is action being suggested just days before the Stockholm meeting?
Can you please delay this a few days until we have had chance to discuss at
Stockholm?
Last I heard Versign was willing to cooperate with the IETF process, - what is
the IETF's position on this - have they choses BQ--******* I had heard an
alternative to BQ wuld be introduced??
The implications for IDN name holders are substantial.... I hope you will give
us the opportunity to discuss...

Best regards

Paul

"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:

> >
> > What survey??
>
> For reference I've archived copies of the original survey and ensuing
> correspondence @ http://www.byte.org/vgrs-idn/versign-idn-survey-052301.pdf
>
> > Did a significant number of registrars participate and give it
> > the green light?
>
> Unknown. The "official" story would indicate this, but there is no
> transparency to the proceedings which conceivably puts VRSN in the position
> to self-determine and self-interpret the results of the survey. From the
> responses that I've received thus far, there is no clear consensus on these
> points which, in my mind, indicates that this merits further discussion and
> *not* immediate action.
>
> > Is this deviating from teh work of the IETF?
>
> Completely. This "test-bed" has been a contentious issue between the IETF
> and VRSN since day one. John Klensin personally spoke out about the issues
> that this test-bed raises at the November ICANN meeting.
>
> > Is this something the NC reps should take up with ICANN??
>
> Quite possibly. See below...
>
> > What course of action would you suggest?
> >
>
> I'm not sure yet. As I mentioned in my original message, this might simply
> be a case where Tucows adopted a minority position and in fact VRSN's
> statements does indeed reflect the wishes of the test-bed registrars. It
> does not however reflect the wishes or consensus position of the DNSO
> Registrars constituency or registrants in general because they were never
> formally consulted in any meaningful way. Most appropriate first steps I
> believe, would be to discover whether or not the survey results are
> representative of the wishes of the registrar community.
>
> -rwr