View Single Post
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 16th March 2006, 10:37 PM
Clotho's Avatar
Clotho Clotho is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 765
iTrader: (20)
Rep Power: 1458
Clotho will become famous soon enoughClotho will become famous soon enoughClotho will become famous soon enoughClotho will become famous soon enoughClotho will become famous soon enoughClotho will become famous soon enoughClotho will become famous soon enough
Re: ICANN Announces Timeline for Development of a Project for the Technical Test of Inter

> Incorrect!* Verisign may OPERATE the root servers, but they cannot just go bunging in DNAME mappings in there. ICANN/DOC have management rights. Verisign might want to suggest the mappings that it wants to provide for com/net/bz/tv etc, but ultimately ICANN/DOC gets to say which ones go in.

I wasn't suggesting that Verisign would apply their own DNAME mapping overtop of any NS solution if implemented. What I was suggesting is that they would be in a position to provide the owners of existing IDN.com names with names in the .IDN equivalent of .com

Say for example that the NS proposal is adopted and a new domain extension .コム is created in the root. (a form of .com in Japanese). Do you think with all the talk about trademarks at ICANN that anyone but Verisign would be allowed to operate such an extension? It would be Verisign's extension and under the NS proposal it would operate separately from IDN.com. Since Verisign operates this extension it would be within their power to provide all the existing owners of Japanese IDN.com with the same domains in IDN.コム. Why would they do this? To avoid confusion on a number of levels. If Japanese IDN.com doesn't resolve to the same site as IDN.コム the .com brand is diluted and users will lose faith in it. There is nothing that says that they have to do it but I believe it would be in their own best interests to do so.

Obviously when you explore the NS concept it quickly becomes a quagmire of confusing extensions and their relationship to existing ones. This would not be good for the Internet. Clarity and Consistency are required for the Internet to function as a useful tool.

Last edited by Clotho; 16th March 2006 at 10:41 PM..
Reply With Quote