IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names  
Home | Advertise on idnforums | Premium Membership

Go Back   IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names > IDN Discussions > General Discussion

General Discussion Feel free to talk about anything and everything in this board.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 28th March 2007, 01:31 PM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4511
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
ccTLDs need DNAMES?

>>VINT CERF:

There is also a question of how many of these iccTLDs should be permitted per country or per authority. Obviously, if you -- if all the languages of the country already are covered by the existing ccTLD that's registered using Roman characters, some people might argue well, then you don't need another one. Others might argue, I have people who speak other languages in my country. I have people in the rest of the world who want to refer to things in my country and they want country codes that are expressible in other character sets so we haven't resolved that and it needs to be sorted out.

http://icann.org/meetings/lisbon/tra...rs-27mar07.htm
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 28th March 2007, 01:42 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,838
iTrader: (43)
Rep Power: 1595
markits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enough
Re: ccTLDs need DNAMES?

we haven't resolved that and it needs to be sorted out.
But when?

The .公司, 中国 and .网络 are already resolvable in China. Further delay of icann will make Chinese say bye bye to idn.com and net.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 28th March 2007, 01:47 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,838
iTrader: (43)
Rep Power: 1595
markits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enough
Re: ccTLDs need DNAMES?

So many meetings, so many talks, but so little progress. These icann guys really need to pay a visit to China to learn from the Chinese on how to deal with new development.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 28th March 2007, 01:51 PM
Prodigy's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 683
iTrader: (8)
Rep Power: 553
Prodigy is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: ccTLDs need DNAMES?

Quote:
Originally Posted by markits
So many meetings, so many talks, but so little progress. These icann guys really need to pay a visit to China to learn from the Chinese on how to deal with new development.
Regarding ICANN, I wouldnt hold my breath if I were you =)
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 28th March 2007, 02:05 PM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4511
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Re: ccTLDs need DNAMES?

Quote:
Originally Posted by markits
So many meetings, so many talks, but so little progress. These icann guys really need to pay a visit to China to learn from the Chinese on how to deal with new development.
The problem is that they are trying to take everyones views into consideration. That is a problem that Chinese have manage to circumvent.

Democracy is a time consuming process.

The other problem that ICANN has is that they are not sure what the Americans will let them decide!
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 28th March 2007, 02:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,838
iTrader: (43)
Rep Power: 1595
markits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enoughmarkits will become famous soon enough
Re: ccTLDs need DNAMES?

If they need to take everyones views, go start the action, take everyone's opinion, and make the decision. I have heard them talking about this long time ago and yet still no answers.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 28th March 2007, 02:30 PM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4511
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Re: ccTLDs need DNAMES?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubber Duck
The problem is that they are trying to take everyones views into consideration. That is a problem that Chinese have manage to circumvent.

Democracy is a time consuming process.

The other problem that ICANN has is that they are not sure what the Americans will let them decide!
To emphasis this point:

http://icann.org/meetings/lisbon/tra...rs-27mar07.htm

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Yes, I agree. We, in fact, discussed that at some length yesterday and very nearly came to blows.

[ Laughter ]

That's true, sadly. But, yes, we are aware of the difficulties and we are trying to work our way through it.

If I can move on to something else.

Paul, have you gone through your list? Okay.

There is an awareness in the community at least among some people that the U.S. government has expressed not publicly but has nonetheless expressed the intention that it would be the sole signor of the root for purposes of DNSsec. Some of us are aware of an existence of a report that effectively advises them on how they might do that, should they decide to do that.

You will not be surprised to hear that that does not sit very well with members --

>>VINT CERF: I'm shocked.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Yes, exactly. With members of the ccTLD community and I just wanted to raise it and say that perhaps the time has come for us to start -- us being all of us not just the CCs to start working out a mechanism by which the very least we have a repository for the keys for the top levels and the root itself maybe can be subsumed into that particular repository.

>>VINT CERF: First of all, I'm a strong proponent of DNSsec, I think that no matter what you do, we do have to sign the -- otherwise, none of this is very effective, and third, I'm not necessarily convinced by the paper that was distributed that the only options for signing the root zone are contained in that paper.

To be fair to the people who produced the paper, they were asked to produce that paper and they were given a set of constraints, and the constraints are reflected in the choices that are shown in that paper for signing the root zone file. I would find it very useful if the ccNSO, as a community, were to express either concerns about the proposal or alternatives that they thought would be fully -- or even more acceptable. I think that your voices should be heard.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I agree with what he said.

[Laughter]

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I don't know if there are any government people in the room, but do we know whether the government -- the GAC are aware of this particular --

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I think this is the first communication we have received today of members of the community being aware of that -- of that document. I haven't heard anything from other -- from governments. But that document, I should -- that document was distributed amongst some set of technical people for review and it doesn't surprise me that it's begun to percolate more widely, but --

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: The expression is "leak" I think rather than "percolate." "Percolate" implies it's bubbled to the top [inaudible] in fact it's sunk down to the level of the ccNSO.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: But anyway, the -- this is probably the first time today we've heard from members of the community this concern in any institutionalized sense. We'll see how it goes during the week but I wouldn't be surprised if the cc's have a perspective, then their governments themselves might have a perspective following behind that.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Can I just then raise the point that I think that there are two -- there are two things. One may have an effect on the other. The first is the signing of the root. The second is the fact as vicinity has quite rightly said, we need to sign the TLD anyway, irrespective of anything else, so --

>> [inaudible].

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Yes, I'm sorry. I apologize. We need to sign -- the root needs to be signed but in any event -- ignoring that for now, we need to sign the TLDs, as I understand it. So if we can manage to come up with some sort of mechanism that enables the -- the TLDs to be signed, then it may be that that has an effect on the decision-making process in respect to the -- to the root. Does that make any sense at all?

>>VINT CERF: Yes. There is a line of reasoning which says that getting the TLDs signed or getting lower-level parts of the DNS signed will be swimming uphill if there is an anticipation that in the end, the root zone will be signed by, you know, this method, one of the methods that has been proposed, and that will somehow create an inhibition to even begin signing anything.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 01:22 AM.

Site Sponsors
Your ad here
buy t-shirt
מחיר הזהב

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Copyright idnforums.com 2005

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54