Re: [ga] Internationalized Domain Names deployed

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

On 21:56 20/06/03, Stephane Bortzmeyer said:
>On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 11:54:28AM -0700,
>  George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com> wrote
>  a message of 30 lines which said:
>
> > See the announcement at:
> > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20jun03.htm
>[Not relevant for ".fr" but I digress...]

Thank you for telling that. But may be will you want to tell us why?

> > I expect a backlash, once the IP community and Business,
> > Constituencies amongst others, begin to see the abuses.
>
>IPR people are not the only stakeholders we need to take into
>account.

This is absolutely true. And IDN will help a lot. But if we
limit ourselves to them, it will be worst that nothing. If they
are accepted as a workng transition they will help. The
WTO General Agreement on Services together with notions
sich as the public naming service and the consequences of
a human right to an e-name must also be considered. End
of 2004 for one and end of 2005 for the other leave some a
good time window to uncover a consensus on the matter.

>Many other people are quite eager to see the actual
>deployment of IDN, specially outside of Great Britain's former
>colonies.

One another mailing list we just coined "CrofoCola"!
(Crown's former Colonies language). IDNs are a solution
for CrofoCola countries (not only for CoN [Commonwealth
of Nations] since now other countries may join) to respect
their own laws and to respond to the needs of their
own citizens.

IDNs do address the US need to support languages and
citizen names which are legally accepted such as Spanish
and French ones. As such ".us" could be a very good test
bench for a rather simple (accents and tilde) experimentation
of some magnitude.

Only MDN (multilingual) can address the multinational
governance demand for ML.ML domaine names. The
presented Guidelines are a way to disengage ICANN
and to transfer the reponsbility of the complexity or even
of the impossiblities inherited from IETF to gTLD and
ccTLD Managers qualified of "experts": "engineers"
passed the problem to "politics", who are passing it to
"experts".

But eventually only "users" VDN (vernacular domain
names [vernacular means someone/trade comonly used
language]) will stay with us. And we still have work
ahead. Internetting was about technologies and networks.
Started interconnecting computers. Should also be
eventually internetting human people.

You know IDNs designers are very clear about the fact
they took into consideration ICANN, Registry and
Registrars problems, not registrant's needs. These needs
are described as far too remote from their engineering
competences. This position was identified very early at
the WG-IDN and contradicts with its hopefull charter.
IMHO the WG-IDN was right, but this shows the limits
of the current ICANN/IAB/IETF system when extra-Legacy
problems are to be addressed. The ERC in establishing
a liaison with "engineers" at BoD level is probably a step
in the good direction.

As one of the "experts" (belonging to AFNIC) who shared
in the "engineers" IETF team, you are most probably one
of those whose advices are the most interesting for us all.
You also have the language. Please go ahead!

> > Be afraid, be very afraid....
>Be happy we have at last the opportunity to use your
>own alphabet.

True. But one will not remove from my mind that this
might seme form of "CrofoCola e-colonization" if I
cannot use my own alphabet in my own namespace
with my own semantic: "net" or "biz" have no meaning
in French

I welcome Legacy's enlarging from ASCII to Unicode.
However I think they did not planned well and made
two key mistakes (which will have to be corrected)). But
the real need is to find a consensual universal way
to support e-networks names consistently with the
multinational multilingual real world of the other
networks.

Thank you for your inputs.
jfc
    

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