Re: [ga] Re: Successful Evaluations of .test IDN TLDs

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stephane and all,

  Good and relevant question Staphane.  Don't expect a direct
or relevant answer any time soon if at all...  I personally don't
see a need for IDN's at all, but if they are desired, investment
of capital is ernest in creating IDN's, than there is no good reason
for them not to exist and be avaliable just like any other.

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827



Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 09:51:19AM +0100,
>  GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>  a message of 46 lines which said:
>
> > Therefore, the Automomica test raised no issue regarding the ability
> > of root-severs and iterative mode resolvers to handle IDN TLD
> > queries.
>
> A lot of money wasted for an almost useless result. Did ICANN tested
> anything before introducing ".cat" or ".museum"? For the standard (RFC
> 3490), IDN are, in the DNS, perfectly ordinary domain names and there
> is no reason they behave differently.
>
> One can wonder why ICANN performed these tests. To make believe that
> IDN are a dangerous and questionable thing?