Re: [ga] gTLD Registry Release

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

 You know full well why Mr. Nueman is no longer on the GA list forum
Danny.  He was brought to task to frequently regarding his companies
business practices and his less than honest responses to those many
and varied incidences.

  In this light, it strikes me as I am sure others, the remarks you
kindly
copied to this forum from Mr. Nueman should by reasonable people
be believed on face value give the source...

Danny Younger wrote:

>
> Jeff sent me a copy as he is no longer on the GA list for some reason.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Paul and Vint,
>
> The gTLD Registry Constituency notes with extreme concern the recent
>
> discussion of the potential of IDN for malicious abuse. We have
> prepared
>
> a statement about measures that the gTLD registries are undertaking
> both
>
> to clarify the situation, and substantially reduce the risk for
>
> deceptive IDN registration. We would be grateful if ICANN posted this
>
> statement on its Web site at the earliest possible moment.
>
> The IDN registries look forward to acting together with ICANN to
> revise
>
> the IDN Guidelines in light of the present concerns and on the basis
> of
>
> the broader experience that we have gained since IDN became available.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marie Zitkova
>
> Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The gTLD Registry Constituency provides a forum for the
>
> consideration of the shared concerns of the generic top-level domain
>
> registries. It is a member of ICANN's Generic Names Supporting
>
> Organization and is represented on the GNSO Council. The following
>
> statement is an expanded version of a resolution unanimously adopted
>
> at the Constituency's meeting on 16 February 2005. It addresses
>
> immediate operational and policy aspects of the registries that
>
> currently accept the registration of internationalized domain names
>
> (IDN) -- .biz, .com, info, .museum, .net, .org, -- and will apply to
>
> the other member registries as they commence this service.
>
> The ICANN Guidelines for the Implementation of Internationalized
>
> Domain Names state that "as the deployment of IDNs proceeds, ICANN
>
> and the IDN registries will review these Guidelines at regular
>
> intervals, and revise them as necessary based on experience."
>
> Issues requiring consideration in such revision are illustrated by
>
> the recent attention that has been called to the opportunity for
>
> malicious exploitation of graphic similarity between characters at
>
> different Unicode code points. Although the underlying concern was
>
> recognized early in the process of IDN development, it has now
>
> manifested itself in a manner to which the gTLD Registry
>
> Constituency wishes to respond immediately, pending more deliberate
>
> action toward the preparation of newer versions of the Guidelines.
>
> The acute concern is with the visual operlap between the Cyrillic
>
> and Latin alphabets. To avert the risk for confusion, the inclusion
>
> in the same label of letters in the Unicode Cyrillic code chart [1]
>
> and the Latin-based code charts [2] will be blocked for all relevant
>
> languages. The digits 0-9 and the hyphen sign may, however, appear
>
> in all labels containing Cyrillic or Latin letters. Individual
>
> registries may subsequently adopt more detailed policies for dealing
>
> with requests for names with justifiable and secure cross-script
>
> components in these code point ranges.
>
> Registration requests submitted without a value assigned to the
>
> language tag will only be accepted for non-IDN registration which,
>
> by definition, is restricted to the LDH character table [3]. We
>
> recognize the requirement in the ICANN Guidelines for establishing
>
> language-based IDN policies but deem it inappropriate to use English
>
> (or any other language) as a baseline designator for the LDH
>
> repertoire. We anticipate need for English language IDN
>
> registration, and do not wish to constrain the ability of registries
>
> to adopt explicit English language inclusion tables on a peer
>
> footing with any other language they may wish to support. Until a
>
> registry has implemented such a table for English, it will use the
>
> LDH character table as a default for registration requests submitted
>
> with EN or ENG as the language tag value.
>
> For languages that use the LDH characters and for which a registry
>
> does not have explicit inclusion tables, the LDH table may be used
>
> as a default table for registration requests tagged with those
>
> languages, pending fully developed inclusion tables becoming
>
> available during the course of dialogue between the registries and
>
> their reference groups in the respective language communities. The
>
> decision to apply the LDH default to a given language will be made
>
> in consideration of the requirements applying to the other scripts
>
> that might appear in the full inclusion table, such as the
>
> restrictions on bidirectional strings imposed by the IDNA standard.
>
> These measures will be implemented in the shortest possible time.
>
> Further means are being developed for flagging and blocking
>
> deliberate homographic confusion that they will not reduce. The
>
> registries are reviewing the IDN Guidelines in detail and suggest
>
> that their formal revision be initiated together with ICANN without
>
> delay. Establishing a more nuanced policy basis appears particularly
>
> urgent, extending the language-based approach to include script- and
>
> locale-based policies, as well. This is exemplified by the need for
>
> making "LDH" available as a language tag value.
>
> The gTLD Registry Constituency notes that CENTR, an organisation
>
> representing a large number of ccTLDs, has issued a similar
>
> statement, encouraging its registries to adopt appropriate
>
> policies for their user communities that weigh in the resulting
>
> security impact. We congratulate the efforts of the ccTLDs in the
>
> development and maintenance of local policies extending the range of
>
> languages on the Internet, and their ongoing efforts to
>
> internationalize the DNS.
>
> 1. code points in the ranges 0430..045F, and the small letters in
>
> 048B..04F9
>
> 2. 0061..007A, the small letters in the ranges 00E0..0233,
>
> 0250..02AF, and 1E00..1EFF
>
> 3. LDH = "letter/digit/hyphen", with characters restricted to the
>
> 26-letter Latin alphabet <A-Z a-z>, the digits <0-9>, and the hyphen
>
> <->.
>
> 4. Link to full CENTR statement:
>
> http://www.centr.org/docs/2005/02/homographs.html
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 11:49 AM
> To: Neuman, Jeff
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: gTLD Constituency Release
>
>
> Dear Jeff,
>
> On Bret's blog the CENTR Statement on IDN Homograph Attacks has been
> posted.  In footnote 3 there is a reference to the ICANN gTLD
> Constituency Release, 23 February 2005.  Could I trouble you to send a
> copy to the GA list?
>
> Thanks,
> Danny
>
>
>
> _

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"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.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827