RE: Item 5 IDN [was: Re: [registrars] FW: [council] GNSO Council meeting agenda and dial-in details]

["Adrian Kinderis" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Eric.


Adrian Kinderis
Managing Director
AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
Level 8, 10 Queens Road
Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
Email: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com

The information contained in this communication is intended for the
named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain
legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an
intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action
in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error,
please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, 8 May 2008 5:44 PM
To: Adrian Kinderis
Cc: Registrars Constituency and observers
Subject: Item 5 IDN [was: Re: [registrars] FW: [council] GNSO Council
meeting agenda and dial-in details]

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)
>
>
>