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

["Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>]

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

Yes


"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."

Right, and as the NC representing a variety of interests, the fact that one
group IETF is unanimous is not in and of itself particularly relevant to me.

-----Original Message-----
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 11:42 AM
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.




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.
> > 
> > 
>