Domain Wire Mag talks about IDN TLD

[dotworx]

IDN is getting more attention...

CENTR: About .IDN

https://www.centr.org/main/domainwire/3656-CTR.html

[555]

So the recommendation is to move forward with DNAME, Great.
then it points to the below saying the doc has a different point of view of DNAME and points a few issues with it...ending in: hopefully work underway can address these issues.


Anyone understands what problems they refer to based on the document?
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4185.txt

[bwhhisc]

QUOTE:
From the users’ perspective, the TLD namespace needs
to be unified: the Latin-only TLD and the corresponding
IDN TLD(s) must point to the same namespace.
We believe that a namespace equivalence technique,
such as using DNAME RRs (or registry-driven
namespace equivalence), should the way to move
forward; any other way would lead to namespace
fragmentation and to confusion within the users
community. END QUOTE

Conclusion
IDNs still have some way to go before they can be fully
deployed in a usable and convenient way. With some
scripts, IDNs under Latin-only TLDs do not really solve
a problem, and, at times, might be very confusing.
Fundamental decisions, yet to be taken, will determine
to what extent IDNs will improve accessibility and
outreach, or create fragmentation of the Internet and
confusion amongst users.
Will IDNs become the new generation of domain
names? Only time will tell. Will they be helpful
and usable to users of all scripts and languages? The
approach taken for placing IDNs in the root will play a
considerable part in determining that. END QUOTE

Once again, no acknowledgement about idn.com working within DNS system today. Arghhhhhhhhhh....

[555]

what worries me more is why 2 israeli guys wrote this part and i own domains like download .com in hebrew...

[idnowner]

In their footnotes (bottom of page 11), they refer to IDN.com as "Hybrid Names"...

5 Efforts have been made to find ways to make it easier to users to type such names, like auto completion of the TLD etc. Registration of Hybrid Names is fully supported today under some TLDs, e.g, .com, .pl etc.

[dave_5]

The only way they could resolve the problem is to have .IDN. In the examples they are using .il

[IDNCowboy]

Originally Posted by idnowner

In their footnotes (bottom of page 11), they refer to IDN.com as "Hybrid Names"...

They are hybrid names

half english half another language
.com being in english.

[idnowner]

Originally Posted by IDNCowboy

They are hybrid names

half english half another language
.com being in english.

That is correct, but I've seen few references as such.

One thing I'm curious about is - if the final solution will be that IDN.com will be DNAME'd or otherwise aliased to IDN.IDN, will you be able to register IDN.com and get the IDN.IDN automatically, or will you be forced only to register the IDN.IDN and IDN.com will default to IDN.IDN.

[seamo]

Originally Posted by idnowner

...will you be forced only to register the IDN.IDN and IDN.com will default to IDN.IDN.

What a frikkin nightmare...

[dave_5]

Originally Posted by 261275

what worries me more is why 2 israeli guys wrote this part and i own domains like download .com in hebrew...

.IDN in the root
These days, ICANN is testing the operational impact of
IDNs in the root zone (a.k.a IDN.IDN or .IDN). Assuming
no unexpected surprises, these tests proving successful
would indicate that IDNs can be inserted into the root
zone.
Having an IDN TLD will allow domain names that are
“purely” IDN, meaning, the entire name can be made of
the same non-Latin script.
How will this affect each of the script categories defined
above? Well, plainly put, it will solve (or improve on)
most of the problems we described. IDNs in Latin-based
scripts are seemingly already in pretty good shape even
prior to .IDN. For the Non-Latin LTR scripts, it will
eliminate the need for Hybrid names, and thus help to
better achieve the main objective of IDN.
But for Right-To-Left scripts, it will be a real revolution.
It will enable the creation of unidirectional RTL domain
names, which will eliminate most of the ambiguities
and usability issues described above. Essentially, it will
make RTL IDNs usable10.

Conclusion: . IDN is necessary!

[thefabfive]

One thing I'm curious about is - if the final solution will be that IDN.com will be DNAME'd or otherwise aliased to IDN.IDN, will you be able to register IDN.com and get the IDN.IDN automatically, or will you be forced only to register the IDN.IDN and IDN.com will default to IDN.IDN.

Hopefully, either one... like registering [Unicode].com or [Punycode].com ends up with the same domain.

[Rubber Duck]

What a train crash of a debate. No wonder you lot cannot agree, you are talking about different things. DNAME is simply a computer protocol. What you do with it depends on whose computers you are talking about!

[sarcle]

Originally Posted by idnowner

That is correct, but I've seen few references as such.

One thing I'm curious about is - if the final solution will be that IDN.com will be DNAME'd or otherwise aliased to IDN.IDN, will you be able to register IDN.com and get the IDN.IDN automatically, or will you be forced only to register the IDN.IDN and IDN.com will default to IDN.IDN.

This is the question and will be the question that haunts us until it's announced. Whenever the Fuck that will be. If ever in the next year or two.

Personally, I see ".com" as a trademark in and of itself that Verisign has control of. So anyone else is using it no matter what language lets say russian with ".kom" is in violation of trademark laws. Of course I'm not a lawyer and I certainly don't "know it all" as I've stated. But allowing latin idns to continue with .com and then switching it up for non-latin terms (Japanese, Russian, Chinese, et cetera) would be discrimination of sorts that would be open to all kinds of lawsuits I would think.

But maybe I've had one to many shots.

Adam

[touchring]

Originally Posted by sarcle

So anyone else is using it no matter what language lets say russian with ".kom" is in violation of trademark laws.

Adam

Some here said (can't remember who!) that any idngtld that confuses with .com or .net or any of the existing gtld will not be allowed?? :o

[Rubber Duck]

Read the ICANN document.

Nobody other than Verisign is going to get .kom.

[sarcle]

Originally Posted by Rubber Duck

Read the ICANN document.

Nobody other than Verisign is going to get .kom.

I have no doubt about who is going to get control of what. I guess I don't understand why there is still so much fence riding.