ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] RE: [gtld-council] The focus of GNSO Council involvement in IDN

  • To: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] RE: [gtld-council] The focus of GNSO Council involvement in IDN
  • From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:26:46 +1000
  • Cc: "Tina Dam" <tina.dam@xxxxxxxxx>, "Pat Kane" <pkane@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Ram Mohan" <rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcZQAuDYTvK67aO4TCaBA/UoRqwtcgBQhyQQ
  • Thread-topic: [gtld-council] The focus of GNSO Council involvement in IDN

Hello Cary,

I support the technical trial.

The more options available to an existing or new TLD operator the better
for now.
(note that you can achieve a similar result as DNAMES with NS records at
the provisioning layer - ie a single registry database can populate two
zonefiles).

Likewise from a policy point of view - now is the time to identify some
options and issues.
In general we should not restrict options unless there is an security or
stability issue with implementing a particular option.   

In contrast we could begin to create some initial policies that allows
us to move forward with the initial introduction of IDNs where some of
the choices are initially limited, much as we did with the initial
introduction of new gTLDs.



Regards,
Bruce Tonkin





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>