FW: Re: [REGYCON] FW: [council] Motion from IDNG

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On behalf of the RySG and in particular Cary Karp, I would like to propose a 
friendly amendment to the Motion Edmon made for the IDNG drafting team.

Edmon - Will you accept this as a friendly amendment?

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning [mailto:REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM] On 
Behalf Of Cary Karp
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:05 AM
To: REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM
Subject: Re: [REGYCON] FW: [council] Motion from IDNG

> Here is a motion submitted by Edmon to the Council list from the IDNG WG.
> Action on this motion is scheduled for 20 May.

The passage,

"... it is possible that an applicant could apply for both a
Letter-Digit-Hyphen (LDH) gTLD in ASCII and a corresponding
Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) gTLD that could be deemed to be
similar ..."

contains a significant error. Labels that conform to the host name rule
are normally referred to as LDH labels. TLD labels do not designate
hosts and are subject to the further restriction of being alphabetic
only; they are not LDH, they are L, but that abbreviation is not used.

Since A-labels (the form of an IDN that is actually entered into the
DNS) contain both hyphens and digits, they are not currently legal TLD
labels. This is regulated in RFC 1123, which is currently being revised
to permit A-labels in the root zone. The revision is very carefully
worded to restrict permissible A-labels to those that decode to
non-ASCII strings which are equivalent to "L-only" in the previous frame
of reference. The notions of D and H are deliberately not being
internationalized in this process.

Here's the relevant draft:

        http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-liman-tld-names-02.txt

I therefore suggest something along the lines of,

"... it is possible that an applicant could apply for both a gTLD with a
conventional ASCII label and a corresponding internationalized gTLD (IDN
gTLD) that could be deemed to be similar ..."

/Cary