Re: [ga-roots] Some Comments on Multilingual Domains (MLDs)

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Thank you Stefan!

Excellent points.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alternate Chair, GA" <patrick@corliss.net>
To: "Stefan Probst" <stefan.probst@opticom.v-nam.net>
Cc: "[ga-roots]" <ga-roots@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 11:02 AM
Subject: [ga-roots] Some Comments on Multilingual Domains (MLDs)


> Re-Posted from the ORSC Domain Policy List.
>
> From: Stefan Probst <stefan.probst@opticom.v-nam.net>
> To: idn-survey@icann.org
> Cc: ISTF Discussion List <istf-participants@lyris.isoc.org>,
>       ORSC Domain Policy <domain-policy@open-rsc.org>
> Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:54:07 +0700
> Subject: Some comments to MLDs
>
> Dear ICANN Working Group on Internationalized Domain Names,
>
> I am sorry for answering to your questions a bit late - hopefully not too
> late.  I came across them only by chance. A small post e.g. to the ISTF
list
> had surely raised some more comments.
>
> Allow me to post some thoughts:
>
> 1. Naming
> I wonder, why you call this "Internationalized Domains". Is a domain in an
> American Indian's script an "international domain", or rather a
> "multilingual domain" (MLD)?
>
> 2. Verisign's "Testbed"
> Versign started its "testbed" with mixed appreciation of its usefulness.
> ISOC discouraged it, but Verisign went ahead, and by indicting that they
> would transfer testbed registrations later without additional charge to
the
> live gTLD zones, they put registrars into a difficult situation: comply
> with ISOC's requests and wait with MLD registrations, or accept MLD
> registration in order not to loose customers.
>
> Registrants on the other side, as much as they might have wanted to honour
> ISOC's request, had to register their rightful names in the testbed, in
> order to be sure, not to loose out, once MLDs are accepted in the live
> gTLDs, i.e. existing testbed registrations would be transfered to the live
> zones.
>
> For everybody it has to look, like Verisign is dictating the conditions,
> not ICANN.
>
> 3. Verisign and NSI
> Verisign had published a time table when they would accept registrations
> for which script. UNICODE was after a while scheduled for 5th of April. At
> that time, the Network Solution webpage for testbed registrations was way
> outdated. I think it said UNICODE registrations would be available by
early
> March, i.e. the page was done early February and had not been updated
until
> 5th of April. The page was in a language, which didn't suggest, that NSI
> was waiting for Verisign, but they themselves would be ready with their
> setup until the given times. Without further explanation, Verisign then
> delayed UNICODE for the 19th of April. On that date the page on NSI
changed
> and they accepted registrations.
>
> One cannot help but wonder, whether Verisign delayed the process, because
> NSI was not yet ready, and to start earlier had meant much lost revenue
for
> NSI (other registrars were ready already).
>
> I am aware, that this is a vague suspicion, but in case it would be true,
> who could proof it?
>
> 4. Register.com
> Register.com was one of the few registrars, which accepted
> "pre-registrations" for UNICODE domains, even before the 5th of April,
> claiming, that they would try to register them, as soon as possible.
>
> On 19th - and even until the 23rd of April, none of the Register.com's
> pre-registered domains showed up in whois, and it was even possible to
> register them with NSI (again).
>
> Some days later, Register.com informed registrants, that their domains had
> been accepted and charged for it. However, until today, those domains show
> up in whois only as "registered by Register.com", but don't show the
> registrant (whereas the NSI registrations do). This leaves registrants
> neither a chance to check "first come, first serve" principles, nor to
> fight cybersquatting at an early stage.
>
> 5. Client Applications
> As far as I know, none of the current client applets (to do the foreign
> script to *ACE conversion) supports UNICODE.
>
> Customers in "UNICODE countries" therefore cannot participate in
Verisign's
> "Phase 3.2" (current) and "Phase 3.3" (which should start soon). A
> "testbed" where the testing cannot be done is rather useless.
>
> 6. Blocking of MLDs
> I didn't find any policy stated, what would happen to domains, which are
> directly registered in their *ACE form, before "official" registrations
(or
> the transfer of testbed domains into the live zones) will occur.
>
> 7. Ease of use of Whois.
> To check whois info on MLDs (in the testbed) is right now a cumbersome
> multistep-procedure: transform the MLD version via an online tool into its
> RACE version, then copy and past this RACE version into a whois form on
> some other websites.
>
> There need to be tools to make this easier for non-techies.
>
> 8. Open Source
> I strongly suggest to adopt only technology where, and to "go live" when
> required tools (like those applets below) are available under an Open
> Source License, so that they can be easily adapted to local languages and
> to different computing platforms.
>
> 9. MLDs and "alternative TLDs".
> During the introduction of the MLDs, every Internet user who wishes to
> access those MLD domains has to install a small applet to do the
conversion
> to a DNS compatible *ACE string. This will make it very easy for companies
> like New.net to offer those applets with "double functionality": new MLDs
> and at the same time a new root (e.g. the New.net root). Looking at the
> latest published numbers from New.net, it seems to me, that ICANN is on
the
> best way to loose the battle.
>
> If it obviously cannot win on its own (anymore), then it might make the
> most sense to look for allies, and the group around the ORSC/Superroot
> seems to me the best option. By peering the ICANN root with their root,
> there would be immediately lots of new TLDs available for everybody on the
> Net (whithout the need for plug-ins), and New.net with their conflicting
> TLDs had to fight against lots of TLD holders. The ORSC looks like very
> reasonable, has obviously the most "historical legitimacy", and seems to
be
> willing to co-operate with ICANN.
>
>
> So far a few thoughts to the subject from my side.
>
> Sincerely,
> Stefan Probst,
>
> ISTF, ISSG.
>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html