[ga] Fw: Re: [dnsext] regulatory problem statement (was Re: ... as "the same")

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

-----Forwarded Message-----
>From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Aug 30, 2010 12:43 PM
>To: namedroppers@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [dnsext] regulatory problem statement (was Re: ... as "the same")
>
>Paul and all,
>
>  Sorry Paul but I have to disagree with your contention
>as well ICANN's 'Problem Statement'.  That 'Problem Statement'
>is in effect a political one that does not address the 
>current demand.  IDN's of many variations are coming wheather
>or not ICANN likes it as such decisions are of particular
>national/nations interest.  Therefore syncrinization into
>the name space via a DNS hack is preferrable if not
>necessary. ISO3166 TLD's namespace is and has been out of date
>now from a public demand standpoint for a few years.  Multipul
>IDN TLD name spaces already exist most o which are not syncronized,
>some will perhaps never be, and those that will or wish to be
>will not relinquish their established customer base easily
>or simply based on ICANN's desire.  Same is and has been true
>for other non IDN TLD's for several years now AND was acknowledged
>by DOC/NTIA way back in 2002.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Paul Vixie <vixie@xxxxxxx>
>>Sent: Aug 30, 2010 11:10 AM
>>To: namedroppers@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [dnsext] regulatory problem statement (was Re: ... as "the same")
>>
>>> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:44:34 +0200
>>> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx>
>>> ...
>>> Unless you claim that *every* IDN TLD require synchronization of content
>>> (something that not everyone will agree with) *and* that this
>>> synchronization requires a non-provisioning method to be done, something
>>> that you often repeat but which is not true.
>>
>>ICANN's regulatory regime (such as it is) makes adding "new tld's" difficult.
>>it is very hard to create a new IDN TLD which isn't synchronized to a current
>>one since this would run afoul of competitive issues ("why does CNNIC get so
>>many TLD's and my national name registry get so few?") and also commercial
>>issues ("you're calling that an IDN TLD but it is basically another .COM for
>>a specific language and has no relation to any ISO3166 TLD's namespace.")
>>
>>it is comparatively much easier for ICANN to create synchronized IDN TLD's
>>since they are just new windows into an existing namespace.  provisioning
>>hacks are not a strong enough guaranty that synchronization will occur --
>>ICANN is doing it now just to get things started but they will not do it for
>>the many hundreds/thousands of IDN TLD's yet to come.
>>
>>if everybody here could expand their horizons a bit, stop looking at this as
>>a simple engineering problem where the simplest/cheapest solution is usually
>>the right one, then we'd stop seeing the repeated refuge of "just use a
>>provisioning hack and stop asking for a protocol change".  that will not work
>>since the problem statement is in ICANN's regulatory regime not in the DNS.
>>
>>ICANN has been uncharacteristically clear about this, and yao has explained
>>it several times, and i've explained it at least once.  no provisioning hack
>>of any kind will answer ICANN's problem statement.  please stop proposing it.
>>
>>> Please provide hard facts, not just hand-waving about IDN. We can
>>> deploy IDN (actually, it is already done) without xNAME. 
>>
>>done.  (again.)
>>
>>> Domain synchronization is not an IDN issue. (I would like to have
>>> bortzmeyer.fr and bortzmeyer.org synchronized, even if they are ASCII
>>> names.)
>>
>>sounds as if you'd appreciate SHADOW then.  but, IDN TLD's have regulatory
>>issues that your personal domain does not have, so, the situations are not
>>similar.
>>
>
>Regards,
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 300k members/stakeholders and growing, 
>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
>Phone: 214-244-4827