<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Item 5 IDN [was: Re: [registrars] FW: [council] GNSO Council meeting agenda and dial-in details]
- To: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Item 5 IDN [was: Re: [registrars] FW: [council] GNSO Council meeting agenda and dial-in details]
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 09:43:32 +0200
- Cc: Registrars Constituency and observers <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <1A0AABD464D03F43BC34963252162FB2057962D2@companyweb>
- List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <1A0AABD464D03F43BC34963252162FB2057962D2@companyweb>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421)
Adrian,
I was persuaded to contribute to the IETF's new IDN project, and with
reservations -- a long story going back to the original VGRS RACE (and
before but in an operating systems context) -- so I read the Alvestrand
(bidi), Faltstrom (tables), Hoffman (topics) , Klensin (issues), and
Klensin (protocol) drafts, sent a process note to the IESG and
contributed to the various authors and the IDNA WG directly.
And after not too long a while I found I was unable to identify the
actual requirements, but I had managed to find that requirements I
couldn't identify didn't originate from ICANN. At that point I stopped
contributing to the IETF's IDNA WG.
I recommend, if one cares if "ICANN IDNs" have some value, other than
the value of being capable of being sold by ICANN registries and ICANN
registrars , that it might be useful to determine why requirements other
than those "authored by ICANN" are co-mingled with, and even take
precedence over those "authored by ICANN".
Then again, it may be that whatever the requirements are, no one cares,
and whatever the IETF IDNA WG "hums" on, no one cares, in which case, it
doesn't matter one way or the other. But in the off chance that anyone
cares, could you pass up the foodchain a request to identify the
non-ICANN IDN (in applications) revised requirements, and why any
non-DNS requirement takes precedence over DNS requirements, as these may
delay that happy day when we have IDNs in the root, whether for ccTLDs
or gTLDs.
Cheers,
Eric
Adrian Kinderis wrote:
All,
Please find the agenda for the upcoming GNSO council call.
Let me know if there are any particular issues you wish to discuss
further.
...
Agenda 08 May 2008
Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 8 May 2008
...
Item 5: Update from Edmon Chung on IDNC (10 mins)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|