Probable answers on IDN ccTLD issues (ccNSO IDN Working Group 28th March)

[mulligan]

http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon...ta-28mar07.pdf

[domainguru]

wow - finally a document that we can all actually read and mostly understand. I need a stiff drink.

[thefabfive]

Interesting reading.

In the particular case of Japan - with the Japanese internet community firmly implanted in .jp would the registry decide to introduce a completely new IDN ccTLD and NOT map it to .jp? Acceptance and subsequent usage of these new IDN ccTLD (without mapping) by the corresponding users is not a certainty IMO.

[markits]

It looks like they are introducing a completely new idn.cctld, which is nonsense I believe. They aren't talking about dname for cctld here.

[bramiozo]

It don't see firm hints as to what mechanism they'll be using, all I read is that cctld's can come up with an appropriate icctld which is then verified, how it is implemented remains a mystery, at least there is a hint; they don't mention overlap with the existing ascii tld and there's no mention on rights of ownership on current .cctld's, this indicates to me that mapping will be applied.

[thefabfive]

I read it as the option of mapping will be left to the ccTLD operators.

If the ccTLDs choose not to map it will definitely create an uphill battle for the new IDN ccTLD. Supplanting the existing and recognizable ccTLD would be a difficult task indeed.

[Rubber Duck]

Originally Posted by domainguru

wow - finally a document that we can all actually read and mostly understand. I need a stiff drink.

This meeting did not go to plan, so if this is a presentation prepared before the meeting, then interpret with care.

[Drewbert]

Let's just rmember that ccTLD's are sovereign, so they can do what they damn well please as far as mapping or seperate is concerned.

[Rubber Duck]

Originally Posted by Drewbert

Let's just rmember that ccTLD's are sovereign, so they can do what they damn well please as far as mapping or seperate is concerned.

Well only to a certain extent. They have their ccTLD in the Root and those that are not signed up to the new ICANN contract can do what they damn well please beneath that. Those that have signed up presumably have more restraints. And more seem to be signing each week.

They do not have automatic rights iccTLD in the Root Zone in addition to what they have already. The conditions under which these might be granted have yet to be decided.

[Drewbert]

What I'm saying is once they've got their iccTLD string, it's up to them to decide whether they DNAME it, or mirror it, or go for a completely seperate new database.

[Rubber Duck]

Originally Posted by Drewbert

What I'm saying is once they've got their iccTLD string, it's up to them to decide whether they DNAME it, or mirror it, or go for a completely seperate new database.

Yes, on the presumption that the issuance of that string does not come with a whole load of extra terms and conditions.

And technically cannot the Mirroring or non-Mirroring only be effected within equipment under ICANN control?