Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs from PAF
- To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs from PAF
- From: Sophia B <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 14:15:57 -0800
- Cc: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, paf@xxxxxxxxx, John Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=fmk6d7fO9WNjAZzqWCWLfoYUK5eRmdIXOdEaHuUFBa5MRk6BsR2G4ODbIh4VNKow0BxRz6101nVyntdkWIyFpt/frlDutHuKfYmmdvXrQZaR3a/mwzBVn+THJrJTWtefRrGlYUiWOvD5ORA1jZcuTGukwsuSdV3pqlBLiY1r4Wo=
- In-reply-to: <4CE61EC5-FA89-489E-873C-A826CEC7A3BA@acm.org>
- References: <A8DFA57D-FFC1-46D4-9B8B-69C597D8BA19@cisco.com> <D33DF65C-5F68-4B92-B10E-C5493DD1C60F@acm.org> <4CE61EC5-FA89-489E-873C-A826CEC7A3BA@acm.org>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Point well taken..I just responded to your previous comment on this point.
On 05/02/06, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I agree that it would be a useful objective for the GNSO Council to
> coordinate the explanation of the political issues and the requirements.
> I do, however, continue to think that this should not be done in
> isolation by the council as it needs to take into account a larger
> context. I also do not believe that it should be done in a technical
> vacuum, but should be done together with the technical experts, from
> both the IAB, IETF and elsewhere.
> On 5 feb 2006, at 14.57, Avri Doria wrote:
> > 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> 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.
> >> Patrik