[council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs

[Cary Karp <ck@nic.museum>]

I am forwarding this on behalf of Patrik, in the belief that he does
not have posting rights directly to this list.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 09:35:22 +0100
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: John Klensin <klensin@xxxxxxx>, owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
   Sophia B <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>, Cary Karp <ck@nic.museum>,
  GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tina Dam <dam@xxxxxxxxx>

I think you have to take a step back and identify what questions have
to be asked, and REALLY try to find questions that are not dependent
of each other. Many of the words Sophia wrote about DNAME really is
not about DNAME but from my point of view other questions.

Some example of questions MIGHT be (I don't claim this is enough):

- If we have .foo today, what is the process of deciding whether .bar
is an ok IDN version of .foo?

- If we have .foo today, who can suggest / decide on creation of .bar
as an IDN version of .foo?

- If we have .foo and .fratz today, and the process decided on via
the above questions say that both .foo and .fratz can get .bar as an
apropriate version of .foo and .fratz, how is this dispute resolved?

- If we have .foo today, and want to
create .barbarbarbarbarbarbarbarbarbarbarbarbarbarb as the IDN
version, and some of the characters in the IDN version is either ">63
characters when stored in DNS" or "include characters we think are
weird, like space, hyphen-versions etc", what is the process of
saying "no" even though the name is sort of ok language wise? Will
there be hard pressure to change the IDN standard *AGAIN* because of
this technical issue?

- If we have .foo today, and create .bar as an IDN version of .foo,
should a.foo and a.bar be belong to the same registrant?

Etc.

    paf