Fwd: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs from PAF
- To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Fwd: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs from PAF
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 14:57:23 -0500
- References: <A8DFA57D-FFC1-46D4-9B8B-69C597D8BA19@cisco.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Begin forwarded message:
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 5 februari 2006 14.17.16 EST
To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Cc: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, John Klensin <john-
ietf@xxxxxxx>, Cary Karp <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs
On 5 feb 2006, at 19.33, Avri Doria wrote:
Even the questions that PAF asks are dependent on the current
thinking about the technology and if there was creative work being
on the research and engineering for IDN, we might have different
questions to answer.
(I know my messages are not accepted by the GNSO mailing list
exploder, but please forward if you want to.)
If you start with the questions you want to ask, and some
requirements, I can let you know what the technology say about it.
For example, wether you want (technical) guarantees that the same
registrant have the domain name example.foo and example.<idn-
version-of-foo>. Or is it a requirement that those two domains can
be managed by two different registrants?
As long as that is not resolved, there is simply no way technical
community can help.
Unfortunately, as interesting as the IAB draft is, it doesn't, to
my mind, do much to indicate what work will be done to try and
figure out solutions, maybe even creative solutions, that take the
very real political realities into account.
Can you please list what those "very real politicla realities" are?
If you do, I can make sure the technical community do have a look
at it. This is exactly what I talk about when I ask for what
questions you have and what the answer is.