ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] FW: [nc-idn] DRAFT MOTION proposal, version 2.




Caroline wrote:
> 
> "=> Caroline, the resolution has been corrected upon Guillermo request
>     to speak about all TLD space. "
> 
> Then we should eliminate the specific reference to Verisign and have one
> resolution applying to all TLD space.

==> Would you be happy if only item (b) remains in the resolution ?

> 
> "The IETF experts I contacted are unanimous: they recommend to understand
> the issues (not only technical, but the others like the dispute policy);
> they recommend to _wait_ the base specs of the IDN WG co"
> 
> Then the IETF should send a resolution to ICANN on its behalf if it has not
> already done so.
> 
==> We are Domain Names SO, responsible for Domain Names aspects, 
    therefore this International Domain Names fall into our purview.

    The IETF has expressed to ICANN their concerns, but as it is a 
    Domain Names issue, we have a duty to address International 
    Domain Names.

Elisabeth

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 5:27 PM
> To: CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com; Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr;
> council@dnso.org
> Cc: nc-idn@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [council] FW: [nc-idn] DRAFT MOTION proposal, version 2.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Elisabeth, I am forwarding some of my inquiries to you (provided by
> > Guillermo, the IPC's Task Force representative) with your initial
> responses
> > for everyone's' consideration.
> > 
> > If Verisign is going to be singled out in the resolution, we should also
> > single out the ccTLDs that have already adopted an IDN system that we
> > believe is harmful.
> 
> ==> Caroline, the resolution has been corrected upon Guillermo request
>     to speak about all TLD space. 
> 
>     The resolution calls for everybody responsibility, its purpose
>     is to preserve the interoperability and stability of Internet.
> 
>     The IETF experts I contacted are unanimous: they recommend to
>     understand the issues (not only technical, but the others 
>     like the dispute policy); they recommend to _wait_ the base specs 
>     of the IDN WG completed and published, before accepting IDN
>     registrations.
> 
>     We are in the very difficult situation, requesting for
>     coordination between groups from various countries and languages
>     and which have very strong cultural interests. 
>     Until now everybody were accepting to cooperate, and it is 
>     the most precious equilibrum to be preserved.
> 
>     Elisabeth
>     --
> 
>     NB1. To the best of my knowledge noone of big European countries 
>     started to deploy an IDN testbed, even those where the language 
>     pressure is very strong. The good question is why.
> 
>     NB2. I recommend to read all 16 items of help on IDN at
>     http://www.netsol.com/en_US/help/international-domains.jhtml
>     but especially:
>     How long until my domain name works?
>     Why can't I find my name in the WHOIS database?
>     Is e-mail available using non-English language characters? 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Also you indicate that "but the prefix used by this encoding is still to
> be
> > determined, and will be at the end of IETF works."  How hard is it for the
> > testbed like Verisign to change the prefix in the event the one they adopt
> > is different than the one chosen by IETF?
> > 
> > > 
> > > A few extra queries from our group:
> > 
> > Why does the resolution only apply to Verisign and not to the cc's?  If
> the
> > latter are offering active non-ASCII domain names, isn't that just as
> > harmful?  
> > >
> > > We would like to see a cite to the twelve things that IETF identified
> and
> > > which ones they have accomplished, i.e.:
> > > 
> > > "Whereas only an important but insufficient element in the encoding
> scheme
> > > has been published to date by the IETF and that element only as a draft"
> > > Which is this element. This
> > > element should be specifically mentioned.
> > 
> > ==> The chosen encoding scheme is AMC-ACE-Z, but the prefix used by this
> >     encoding is still to be determined, and will be at the end of IETF
> >     works.
> >     From maths: you need to be able to implement a two-ways function
> >     between multilingual representation and ASCII, therefore you need
> >     to have all possibilities available. Either you do so under a
> dedicated
> >     new SLD (and the same accross all TLD - impossible), or you reserve 
> >     a prefix to be added at the start of ASCII writing of multilingual
> name.
> >     For example, in RACE testbed this prefix was "bq--", and then for
> maths
> >     validity it was forbidden by rule to register under dot com/org/net
> >     any name starting with "bq--".
> >     The prefix for AMC-ACE-Z is NOT yet determined.
> > > 
> > > "Whereas there cannot be an open competition at an application level
> > without
> > > all the IDN specifications completed and published"  Why not?  Some
> ccTLDs
> > > are already providing IDNs.  
> > 
> > ==> It is the same scheme as VeriSign. No application working on global
> >     level. 
> >     Each existing testbed application must assume some encoding
> >     - they are therefore working localy but not globaly.
> > 
> >     Assume you want to use ML names under .nu, and ML names under
> >     .com - you will need to have two dedicated customised browsers, 
> >     because the one for .nu will not decode .com and the opposite.
> > 
> >     You can have multiple people sharing the SAME ASCII-encoded name.
> >     It will end up with ASCII-encoded A2B7SD9.nu and A2B7SD9.com
> >     refering to two different names, one in Scandinavian, one in Greek.
> > 
> > > 
> > > "Whereas it is critical to understand how the whois accessible databases
> > for
> > > IDN would function for gTLD and ccTLD alike"  While we agree with this
> > > statement, are you saying that Verisign or IETF do not know at this
> time?
> > > Have we asked them?
> > 
> > ==> I am absolutely sure that IETF and VeriSign know about it. 
> >     The Universal Whois project, which is at the stage of gathering
> >     specifications, will certainly give more understanding, and
> >     hopefully a free software for whois, freely distributed to all 
> >     Registries and Registrars, and encouraging them to use it.
> >     If not we will read garbage when interrogating with whois tools
> >     the ML names from Registrars all over the world.
> > 
> > > 
> > > "Whereas the International Treaty Organizations, WIPO and ITU, are
> > planning
> > > a joint Symposium on Multilingual Domain Names in Geneva,December 6 and
> 7,
> > > 2001"  Great, but what does it have to do with rolling out IDNs??  What
> is
> > > on the agenda that makes sense for us to wait for?
> > > 
> > 
> > ==> WIPO appreciate that IDN issues are complicated and wants to provide
> >     forum for education on conflicts.
> > 
> > 
> 


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>