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

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

Andy and all,

  From where we sit, no there doesn't seem to be any legitimate
technical reason to delay IDN even though the technical implementation
method I disagree with for reasons I have already expounded upon.

  However multiple types of IDN implimentations will be deployed,
whether of not they are "ICANN Approved", China will see to
that at a minimum.  The Internet is not US centric, nor ICANN
centric, never has been, which is something the US and ICANN
must realize independently, yet fully.

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

Andy Gardner wrote:

> Well, the technical stuff been given the green light, so since ICANN
> is a technical coordination body there can't be anything else standing
> in the way of the launch of IDN ccTLD's, surely?
>
> On Feb 1, 2008, at 3:28 AM, 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?
> >