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

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

Rafik,

Do you also accept the amendment as friendly?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 12:57 PM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: ck@nic.museum
> Subject: FW: Re: [REGYCON] FW: [council] Motion from IDNG
> 
> 
> 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