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

Go Back   IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names > Internationalized Domain Names > Internationalized Domain Name News

Internationalized Domain Name News Recent IDN related News

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 15th July 2006, 02:03 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 93
iTrader: (1)
Rep Power: 514
zfreud is an unknown quantity at this point
IDN Issues Report

"Attached is the IDN Issues Report, which will be addressed at the 20 July Council meeting. Please note, in particular, sections E and F -- "Recommendations" and "Proposed Terms of Reference" -- which include changes from the Preliminary IDN Issues Report."

http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-li...8ty0zOouEM.doc

Thoughts?

Last edited by zfreud; 15th July 2006 at 02:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 15th July 2006, 02:45 AM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7,495
iTrader: (65)
Rep Power: 2671
blastfromthepast will become famous soon enoughblastfromthepast will become famous soon enoughblastfromthepast will become famous soon enoughblastfromthepast will become famous soon enoughblastfromthepast will become famous soon enoughblastfromthepast will become famous soon enoughblastfromthepast will become famous soon enoughblastfromthepast will become famous soon enoughblastfromthepast will become famous soon enough
Re: IDN Issues Report

What are the advantages and drawbacks of having a TLD (<.tld>) and its internationalized equivalent (<.idn-tld>) in the same TLD or in two different TLDs?
In particular, is there a policy preference to have domain names under <.tld> and <.idn-tld> resolve to the same website or to different sites?
Ancillary aspects are whether <idn-domain>.<idn-tld> should be the same as <idn-domain>.<tld>, whether the registrant of <domain>.<tld> also should have <domain>.<idn-tld> and similar aspects regarding combinations with <idn-domain>.<tld> and <idn-domain>.<idn-tld>?

Would any or both of the two approaches under consideration for technical tests lead to overall satisfactory results from a policy perspective?

How can any risks for end user confusion best be counteracted?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 15th July 2006, 03:42 AM
Drewbert's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,091
iTrader: (20)
Rep Power: 0
Drewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgy
Re: IDN Issues Report

Typical GNSO stuff.

Issue documents using a proprietary file format instead of an open standard.

Internet citizens that can't afford to buy MS Office need not apply.
__________________
It's all jaded style to me.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 15th July 2006, 03:44 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,806
iTrader: (19)
Rep Power: 677
Giant is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: IDN Issues Report

I think I can help VeriSign to be the big winner with my secret weapon
__________________
@

Dot Com is King. IDN.com will soon be king.
@
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 15th July 2006, 04:41 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,320
iTrader: (2)
Rep Power: 1429
IDNCowboy will become famous soon enoughIDNCowboy will become famous soon enoughIDNCowboy will become famous soon enoughIDNCowboy will become famous soon enoughIDNCowboy will become famous soon enoughIDNCowboy will become famous soon enoughIDNCowboy will become famous soon enough
Send a message via Skype™ to IDNCowboy
Re: IDN Issues Report

Quote:
Originally Posted by blastfromthepast
What are the advantages and drawbacks of having a TLD (<.tld>) and its internationalized equivalent (<.idn-tld>) in the same TLD or in two different TLDs?
In particular, is there a policy preference to have domain names under <.tld> and <.idn-tld> resolve to the same website or to different sites?
Ancillary aspects are whether <idn-domain>.<idn-tld> should be the same as <idn-domain>.<tld>, whether the registrant of <domain>.<tld> also should have <domain>.<idn-tld> and similar aspects regarding combinations with <idn-domain>.<tld> and <idn-domain>.<idn-tld>?

Would any or both of the two approaches under consideration for technical tests lead to overall satisfactory results from a policy perspective?

How can any risks for end user confusion best be counteracted?
More $ ends up in their pockets if they seperate idn.ascii and idn.idn :P even tho idn.idn is logical

However we all know idn.idn will soon be live. We can all be relieved once they resolve for our portfolios.
__________________
$995/mo drop lists available.. will be hand delivered by a playboy bunny
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 15th July 2006, 04:55 AM
Edwin's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 966
iTrader: (6)
Rep Power: 897
Edwin is on a distinguished roadEdwin is on a distinguished roadEdwin is on a distinguished roadEdwin is on a distinguished roadEdwin is on a distinguished roadEdwin is on a distinguished road
Re: IDN Issues Report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbert
Typical GNSO stuff.

Issue documents using a proprietary file format instead of an open standard.

Internet citizens that can't afford to buy MS Office need not apply.
Microsoft offers a free Word viewer, and Open Office/Star Office support the format, so it's not as dire a picture as you paint.
__________________
JapaneseDomains.com - cheap .jp registrations, English interface, no local presence needed. Alphabet and IDN names. Hefty bulk discounts.
Please don't PM me for appraisals or translations, thanks.
All sales threads over 1 week old are no longer valid, period!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 15th July 2006, 05:08 AM
Drewbert's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,091
iTrader: (20)
Rep Power: 0
Drewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgy
Re: IDN Issues Report

That's not the point. They're an organisation that is SUPPOSED to be 100% open and that means using open formats.

All the lazy arse at the GNSO need to do is select "Save as Text" or "Save as RTF" when they create the document.

It's not rocket science.
__________________
It's all jaded style to me.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 15th July 2006, 08:21 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,806
iTrader: (19)
Rep Power: 677
Giant is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: IDN Issues Report

I see a bit change of attitude between what were said 2 weeks ago at the workshops and this Issues Report.

-2 weeks ago: Both DNAME and NS-records are not feasible, very difficult. Let's use IDN.ascii for now and delay IDN.IDN for further studies.

-This report: Let's discuss all issues assuming both DNAME and NS-records will be adopted.

Since technical problem is trivial but attitude is important, I guess both DNAME and NS-records will be used. IDN.com will go with DNAME.

Not enough data to do any judgment at this time, this is just my guess
__________________
@

Dot Com is King. IDN.com will soon be king.
@
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 15th July 2006, 10:57 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 93
iTrader: (1)
Rep Power: 514
zfreud is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: IDN Issues Report

What I take from this report is that key members of ICANN are supporting a solution where they first internationalize the ccTLDs, which is easier politically, while putting off the internationalizing of gTLDs (regardless of whether this is via DName or NSpace). For example the report makes explicit reference to developing an IDN table for ccTLD, but no such mention for gTLDs.

"Consistent with the discussions in the GNSO Working Group, it is recommended that a process be developed to create or identify some form of table of IDN based country code equivalents to support IDN-ccTLDs"

I think the key issue as far as gTLDs go is whether ICANN will consider DNamed equivalent gTLDs an allocation of a new IDN TLD...which if they do, would be a serious setback for existing gTLDs as this would mean going through the New gTLD PDP process...

I am less sure how to interpret this sentence:

"The General Counsel notes that care will need to be taken to ensure that any PDP on IDNs stays narrowly focused on discrete gTLD policy questions in line with the limited intended ambit of the policy development process as set forth in the ICANN Bylaws <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA>, and does not become over-broad and begin to encompass more questions than can be successfully answered in one policy development process."

My guess is that it is an attempt to remove some of the more histrionic arguments against DNaming existing TLDs...meaning some seem to view the DNaming of .com as some kind of digital colonialism. I think it is pretty easy to argue the reverse. I mean, if you were a chinese blogger who was critical of your government, would you rather have a .com website or a .cn?!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 15th July 2006, 11:32 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: 4502
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: IDN Issues Report

There is a clear issue over NS in terms of gTLDs as this would need US Government approval of additional extensions as each one requires new extension to be created in the root. DNAME obviates this problem. For ccTLDs the issues are less complex and some new extension are likely to be created, but probably not more than a dozen or so. The technical people are not at all happy about the idea of creating hundreds of new extension in the root. DNAME comfortably skips around all these problems.

When it comes to transferring gTLDs into other languages and scripts, it has to be recognised that Nation States do not have claims over languages and scripts any more than US owns the English language. The very idea that dot Com will be cloned in other languages is absurd in the extreme. If every situation were like Japan, it might be different but most languages sprawl around the globle with no regard to National Boundaries. Often it is not even meaningful to talk about language, as often people effectively share languages but write them in completely different ways.

If for some bizarre reason Verisign is not allowed to represent dot com in other scripts, the arguments over who subsequently usurps those rights will rage for decades, if not centuries. The only problem as I see it is that ICANN do actually have people that are sufficiently deranged as to want to contemplate this course of action.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zfreud
What I take from this report is that key members of ICANN are supporting a solution where they first internationalize the ccTLDs, which is easier politically, while putting off the internationalizing of gTLDs (regardless of whether this is via DName or NSpace). For example the report makes explicit reference to developing an IDN table for ccTLD, but no such mention for gTLDs.

"Consistent with the discussions in the GNSO Working Group, it is recommended that a process be developed to create or identify some form of table of IDN based country code equivalents to support IDN-ccTLDs"

I think the key issue as far as gTLDs go is whether ICANN will consider DNamed equivalent gTLDs an allocation of a new IDN TLD...which if they do, would be a serious setback for existing gTLDs as this would mean going through the New gTLD PDP process...

I am less sure how to interpret this sentence:

"The General Counsel notes that care will need to be taken to ensure that any PDP on IDNs stays narrowly focused on discrete gTLD policy questions in line with the limited intended ambit of the policy development process as set forth in the ICANN Bylaws <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA>, and does not become over-broad and begin to encompass more questions than can be successfully answered in one policy development process."

My guess is that it is an attempt to remove some of the more histrionic arguments against DNaming existing TLDs...meaning some seem to view the DNaming of .com as some kind of digital colonialism. I think it is pretty easy to argue the reverse. I mean, if you were a chinese blogger who was critical of your government, would you rather have a .com website or a .cn?!
__________________
All offers to sell are void.

Last edited by Rubber Duck; 16th July 2006 at 12:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 15th July 2006, 11:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,320
iTrader: (2)
Rep Power: 1429
IDNCowboy will become famous soon enoughIDNCowboy will become famous soon enoughIDNCowboy will become famous soon enoughIDNCowboy will become famous soon enoughIDNCowboy will become famous soon enoughIDNCowboy will become famous soon enoughIDNCowboy will become famous soon enough
Send a message via Skype™ to IDNCowboy
Re: IDN Issues Report

China and Japan want it....

If ICANN makes this not happen it will just be another reason to break away from the Net.

ICANN needs to put their foot where their mouth is.
__________________
$995/mo drop lists available.. will be hand delivered by a playboy bunny
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 15th July 2006, 11:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,806
iTrader: (19)
Rep Power: 677
Giant is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: IDN Issues Report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubber Duck
When it comes to transferring gTLDs into other languages and scripts, it has to be recognised that Nation States do not have claims over languages and scripts any more than US owns the English language. The very idea that dot Com will be cloned in other languages is absurd in the extreme. If every situation were like Japan, it might be different but most languages sprawl around the globle with no regard to National Boundaries. Often it is not even meaningful to talk about language, as often people effectively share languages but right them in completely different ways.

If for some bizarre reason Verisign is not allowed to represent dot com in other scripts, the arguments over who subsequently usurps those rights will rage for decades, if not centuries. The only problem as I see it is that ICANN do actually have people that are sufficiently deranged as to want to contemplate this course of action.
I think it's very shortsighted for governments to say they own the languages. For instance, Chinese language has been around for a few thousand years, not only Chinese but also some foreigners throughout the centuries have contributed to the Chinese language and characters. Many governments or dynasties have come and gone, but Chinese language and characters are still here.
__________________
@

Dot Com is King. IDN.com will soon be king.
@
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 15th July 2006, 11:57 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: 4502
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: IDN Issues Report

I really do not see the problem here.

There are a number of gTLD registeries, and if some Chinese or Japanese organisation wants to start another gTLD then that is fine. This should not, however, preclude Verisign extending a Global Registery to extend globally. That is what the "g" stand for n'est pas? The concept that a gTLD is going to be constrained to a single script is absurd in the extreme and just goes to show the shallowness of the intellect of many involved in this process.

Verisign should be allowed to reasonably propose translations of dot com. Others will do the same for their gTLDs. If others want start other gTLDs that mean Retail, Shop, Industy, Media, Chat, Electronics, or whatever, that is fine. If Verisign is not allow to Alias into other scripts then it means that their licence to run a gTLD is effectively being revoked, and the consequences will mean endless litigation. If ICANN will back down when it has a good case, what is going to be the outcome when it has no legal or moral justification whatsoever?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff
China and Japan want it....

If ICANN makes this not happen it will just be another reason to break away from the Net.

ICANN needs to put their foot where their mouth is.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 17th July 2006, 05:32 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 93
iTrader: (1)
Rep Power: 514
zfreud is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: IDN Issues Report

Actually the g stands for generic. Which doesn't change the validity of the Duck's argument, but I just thought I'd point that out.

http://www.iana.org/gtld/gtld.htm
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 17th July 2006, 05:41 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: 4502
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: IDN Issues Report

Yes, you are correct. And somehow I must have known that all along.

I don't personally see ICANN putting the mockers on the Dot Com registry, as it get a good little earner out of all of these, which is now set for considerable expansion. I guess it gets SFA out of the ccTLDs. No doubt ICANNs toast will come down with the buttered side up, whatever the logic behind the arguments.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 17th July 2006, 06:14 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,806
iTrader: (19)
Rep Power: 677
Giant is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: IDN Issues Report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubber Duck
Yes, you are correct. And somehow I must have known that all along.

I don't personally see ICANN putting the mockers on the Dot Com registry, as it get a good little earner out of all of these, which is now set for considerable expansion. I guess it gets SFA out of the ccTLDs. No doubt ICANNs toast will come down with the buttered side up, whatever the logic behind the arguments.
Don't worry, the truth will come out. IDN.com will be the big winner.

NS-records is for IDN.ccTLDs, and it won't be ready in a year. NS will have nothing to do with .com, and .com will have its own magic.
__________________
@

Dot Com is King. IDN.com will soon be king.
@
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 17th July 2006, 06:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,320
iTrader: (2)
Rep Power: 1429
IDNCowboy will become famous soon enoughIDNCowboy will become famous soon enoughIDNCowboy will become famous soon enoughIDNCowboy will become famous soon enoughIDNCowboy will become famous soon enoughIDNCowboy will become famous soon enoughIDNCowboy will become famous soon enough
Send a message via Skype™ to IDNCowboy
Re: IDN Issues Report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giant
Don't worry, the truth will come out. IDN.com will be the big winner.

NS-records is for IDN.ccTLDs, and it won't be ready in a year. NS will have nothing to do with .com, and .com will have its own magic.
Alot of the search results in japan show .jp based domains so I don't think they are gonna become extinct anytime soon. I think both will fare well at the end.
__________________
$995/mo drop lists available.. will be hand delivered by a playboy bunny
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 17th July 2006, 06:31 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: 4502
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: IDN Issues Report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff
Alot of the search results in japan show .jp based domains so I don't think they are gonna become extinct anytime soon. I think both will fare well at the end.
I tend to agree with that. The established ccTLDs are not going to go South overnight unless they F*CK UP big time. Although, that is a distinct possibility with dot RU. On the other hand I think dot Com will carry its advantage, as long as ICANN doesn't screw up big time, which unfortunately it certainly equipped to do so. Some how though, I don't think Verisign will let them get away with it.
__________________
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 02:46 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