ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] Repeat copy of draft response for this morning's meeting

  • To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Repeat copy of draft response for this morning's meeting
  • From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxrodenbaugh@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 20:04:05 -0800
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:Content-Language; b=alK8mVHG3qqm+V9O8mCrEeHTfx0VVhlrTRYZJLMZg2Iauht2D5nt7ZauO3Eu4yyfoo6CKbSd/1a9kxDTdpNRcU47acs6d/0gKlq8e+lt4NlZsGSP+tc9VO7+CL38UM4+T3tNRJ1fht9AFzthtidmLQDPIUZWWDO4s3c8wHrt46U= ;
  • In-reply-to: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070225989D@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070225989D@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AchrlARZZDOJSLYFRA+PXnnzQqZBVwAA4yKQ

I have reviewed the draft several times through its evolution, and am in
agreement with almost all of the excellent statements of our common
positions.  Kudos to the drafting team.  


I have one area of significant concern that I would ask to consider
'tightening up' - wrt to script mixing.


4.1.9.a  Seems to me that a registry indeed could enforce a rule that
prohibits script mixing across all levels, under penalty of DNS suspension
and eventually cancellation in the event of violation.  This may sound
draconian, but I also see little if any potential legitimate use of mixed
scripts across labels in an IDN TLD.  I would appreciate others' views on
that perception.  I do see such widespread legitimate use in existing ASCII
TLDs where IDNs have been introduced at the second and higher levels.  If we
would not 'require' that scripts not be mixed across levels, we should at
least 'strongly suggest' that it not be allowed unless justified per 4.1.9.c
(as I would edit it per below).  


4.1.9.b  Strong agreement with first sentence, but then we seem to leave
much room for exceptions.  I would prohibit it altogether, but at least
there should be a strong showing of 'need' to mix scripts within the
registry-controlled label.  There also should be community involvement wrt
to the 'clear procedures' we suggest must be implemented to avoid spoofing
and user confusion.  Perhaps a joint working group should form to recommend
or require best practices in this regard.  I would volunteer for such a


4.1.9.c  Can we clarify that the 'special case' we mean in part 1 is only
the situation in part 2; in other words, combine these parts and delete the
phrase 'when justified' from part 1?


I will not attend the sessions today, but ask you to consider these





From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 7:21 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] Repeat copy of draft response for this morning's meeting


Here is the version of the document we will be using this morning.  This is
the same one I sent out a couple of weeks ago.


Chuck Gomes


"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and
destroy/delete the original transmission." 


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