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 18th October 2006, 09:50 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 93
iTrader: (1)
Rep Power: 519
zfreud is an unknown quantity at this point
Exclamation DNAME falling out of favor?

The GNSO is to large measure the gate keeper for gTLD and IDN policy. This document appears to me to signal a strong move away from DNAME. These terms of reference are clearly signaling that existing registrars will not have the benefit of anything like a streamlined approach to aliasing existing gTLDs. Moreover, as currently structured, these terms of reference would seem to insent any existing registrars to apply for new space IDN TLDs, as they can then reap a whole new round of idn registrations...?

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Revised Draft ToR for GNSO IDN Policy Development Activities
12 October 2006

Preamble

The following terms of reference are focused on GNSO activities and therefore address gTLD considerations. Following the posting of the "Issues Report for IDN at the Top-Level", its terms of reference have been reviewed in the light of the outcome of the Amsterdam meeting 29-31 August 2006 on the New gTLD PDP and the subsequent GNSO Council call 28 September. It is proposed that policy development activities relating to the introduction of generic Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels (IDN-gTLDs) shall be guided by the following considerations:

* Given the urgency of current interest in fully localized domain names, and the limited range of potential outcomes of the impending technical tests of devices for entering top-level IDN labels into the root zone, the policy for the inclusion of IDN-gTLDs can begin to be assessed.
* Policy development will proceed under the assumption that top-level IDN labels will be entered into the root zone, conditional upon the outcome of the requisite initial trials.
* The Amsterdam meeting on the New gTLD PDP reached conclusions of both direct and indirect importance for policy aspects on new IDN-gTLDs, inter alia:

1. Each application for a new IDN-gTLD should be regarded as applying for a wholly new gTLD
2. Applicants should be treated consistently, whether from an existing gTLD operator or a new entrant
3. Applications for IDN and non-IDN gTLDs should be judged by applying the same policies, as far as at all possible
4. There should be possibilities to apply for IDN-gTLD labels in the first new gTLD round, with approval to proceed to insert a IDN-gTLD label into the root conditional upon the results of the technical tests
5. The string checking requirements for IDN labels should be consistent with those for non-IDN labels (see section 2.5 of Draft new gTLD recommendations at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtl...ry-14sep06.htm )
6. Contractual conditions for any new gTLD should include obligations to abide by IETF IDN standards and ICANN IDN guidelines. (See also IETF RFC4690: Review and Recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4690.txt dated September 2006)

Terms of Reference

1.

Initial and General Provisions, "Phase I"
1. As an initial task, plan the necessary activities and interaction steps in cooperation with ICANN staff, and develop a suitable timeline that takes into account the timeline for the technical tests. Such interaction would include interaction with the ccNSO, GAC, SSAC, RSAC, and ccTLD managers as required.
2. In general, during all of the steps, identify and document any policy issue for which it is essential that policy is harmonized for all IDN-TLDs and develop the related policy for IDN-gTLDs in interaction with other relevant entities, including other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, in a way that ensures harmonization of the policy outcome.
3.

In particular, as a priority activity, identify any specific rules that should apply to the choice of IDN gTLD labels, inter alia:

c1. What rules should govern IDN-gTLD label minimum length?

c2. What rules should govern permissible script/language in an IDN-gTLD label? By inference from the ICANN IDN Guidelines it seems advisable that all characters/symbols within a single IDN-gTLD label should be from a single identified script and from a single identified language table within that script.

c3. Should the script/language used for an IDN-gTLD label be exclusively propagated on all lower levels in the sub-domain tree (allowing for the general exceptions attaching to that script as referenced in the ICANN IDN Guidelines)? (It should be noted that there is no such restriction in place for current gTLDs.)

4. d. The outcome of the above steps in Phase I, including recommendations regarding issues essential for the first round, should be reported to the Council. If adopted by the Council, such recommendations should be put forward for implementation in the first round, subject to Board approval. Other issues should be addressed in phase 2.
2.

Additional issues to address, "Phase II"
a. Consider all issues identified during Phase I that are not essential to resolve for launching the first round, but may be of importance during future operation. Examples of such issues could be a) Whether modifications of the present UDRP would be needed for IDN gTLDs and b) Whether modifications of the WHOIS rules would be needed to facilitate use for end-users with different scripts.

Article found here: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tld...ft-12oct06.htm
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 18th October 2006, 09:57 PM
Explorer's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 761
iTrader: (13)
Rep Power: 589
Explorer is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: DNAME falling out of favor?

....Each application for a new IDN-gTLD should be regarded as applying for a wholly new gTLD....

That will take more than a few months :-)

By the time they are all approved (legal, technical, translation, financial), Verisign will be all over the space with their DNAME solution.
__________________
Asking a local domainer who missed the boat on IDNs in his language if IDNs are valuable is like asking your wife whether your mistress is pretty.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 18th October 2006, 10:09 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,864
iTrader: (60)
Rep Power: 2200
bwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enough
Re: DNAME falling out of favor?

Here was a report of DNAME issues, published 11/05 from one of the long time ICANN Board members who also is a systems engineer with broad experience with the internet.

http://forum.icann.org/lists/idn-tld.../msg00005.html
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 18th October 2006, 10:11 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 93
iTrader: (1)
Rep Power: 519
zfreud is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: DNAME falling out of favor?

"By the time they are all approved (legal, technical, translation, financial), Verisign will be all over the space with their DNAME solution."

No. That is not how it works. Verisign will have to go through the full application process for EVERY idn g-TLD they wish to represent REGARDLESS of whether it is a DNAME or New space record. Which would mean, I assume, that Verisign would have very little incentive to use DNAME even if it passes technical tests. Why bother if they have to go through the standard application process, which is expensive, and they can have a whole new TLD to promote registrations for?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 18th October 2006, 10:19 PM
Explorer's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 761
iTrader: (13)
Rep Power: 589
Explorer is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: DNAME falling out of favor?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zfreud
"By the time they are all approved (legal, technical, translation, financial), Verisign will be all over the space with their DNAME solution."

No. That is not how it works. Verisign will have to go through the full application process for EVERY idn g-TLD they wish to represent REGARDLESS of whether it is a DNAME or New space record. Which would mean, I assume, that Verisign would have very little incentive to use DNAME even if it passes technical tests. Why bother if they have to go through the standard application process, which is expensive, and they can have a whole new TLD to promote registrations for?
My understanding is that Verisign doesn't need to go through the full application process since DNAME is an option already considered by ICANN and all Verisign has to do is to map their own com/net/tv/cc into newly “translated” extension in other languages. There would be no “root” work.
__________________
Asking a local domainer who missed the boat on IDNs in his language if IDNs are valuable is like asking your wife whether your mistress is pretty.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 18th October 2006, 10:25 PM
domainguru's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,835
iTrader: (14)
Rep Power: 2514
domainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura about
Re: DNAME falling out of favor?

The only thing obvious to me at this time of night is the whole process is going to take forever.

That is fine by me. I intend to make hay whilst the IDN.com sun shines.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 18th October 2006, 10:30 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: 4507
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: DNAME falling out of favor?

Dot Com is a gTLD it means it has global scope.

There may well need to be an Internal Process at ICANN to approve the use of each Alias, but it doesn't need referring back to the US Government if it is done by DNAME, it can be done Internally.

Any fair arbitration will not permit names that conflict with dot com. That means anything that mean Commerce will be vigoursly opposed by dot Com. Verisign could probably WIPO the entire registry, if someone else infringed their trademark. It is likely that they could claim useage of the term Commerce in each of the Local Languages.

This policy committee at ICANN has its own agenda, but most of it consistuents are not of this World. Most of this will just get booted into the long grass.

In any event Verisign would whip the arse of any registry trying to compete directly against it, even if it stayed with IDN.com. As it stands this document is a recipe for chaos and confusion. Ojectivity will prevail even if Verisign has to sue ICANNs butt into the middle of next week. And we all know the outcome last time that was on the cards.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 18th October 2006, 10:31 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,864
iTrader: (60)
Rep Power: 2200
bwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enough
Re: DNAME falling out of favor?

Quote:
Originally Posted by domainguru
The only thing obvious to me at this time of night is the whole process is going to take forever. That is fine by me. I intend to make hay whilst the IDN.com sun shines.
You can say that again. I do believe that what ever is decided, it all has to be approved by ICANN and that will take a good long while. There have been many blogs about the DNAME solution being the practical one from the engineering standpoint of the internet, as well as the one being pushed forward by Verisign. (Search on google for "Verisign DNAME" for their complete report on the subject and thorough explantation- a good read.)
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 18th October 2006, 10:42 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 93
iTrader: (1)
Rep Power: 519
zfreud is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: DNAME falling out of favor?

Intellectual property issues...very good point you damn duck.

Duck you always think of the angle I didn't...which is why I suppose I've sent you so much money in the first place.... ;-)
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 18th October 2006, 10:53 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,806
iTrader: (19)
Rep Power: 682
Giant is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: DNAME falling out of favor?

To Dname or not to Dname? It's no more a question. Never Dname!

I suspect IDN.com is the end product (IDN.cn, IDN.jp as well).

The future IDN-TLDs will have one form only ---> IDN.idn (no IDN.latin alternative alias).
__________________
@

Dot Com is King. IDN.com will soon be king.
@
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 18th October 2006, 11:03 PM
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: DNAME falling out of favor?

>DNAME falling out of favor?

I don't think so.

This is merely outlining how they will go about processing IDN gTLD's. This is a parallel process with any DNAME work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zfreud
"By the time they are all approved (legal, technical, translation, financial), Verisign will be all over the space with their DNAME solution."

No. That is not how it works. Verisign will have to go through the full application process for EVERY idn g-TLD they wish to represent REGARDLESS of whether it is a DNAME or New space record. Which would mean, I assume, that Verisign would have very little incentive to use DNAME even if it passes technical tests. Why bother if they have to go through the standard application process, which is expensive, and they can have a whole new TLD to promote registrations for?
No. I disagree.

DNAME is a solution for globalising EXISTING gTLD's.

This policy is about NEW IDN-gTLD's. A completely different kettle of fish.
__________________
It's all jaded style to me.

Last edited by Drewbert; 18th October 2006 at 11:06 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 18th October 2006, 11:13 PM
bramiozo's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Haarlem
Posts: 2,251
iTrader: (30)
Rep Power: 928
bramiozo is on a distinguished roadbramiozo is on a distinguished roadbramiozo is on a distinguished roadbramiozo is on a distinguished roadbramiozo is on a distinguished roadbramiozo is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to bramiozo Send a message via Skype™ to bramiozo
Re: DNAME falling out of favor?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zfreud
"By the time they are all approved (legal, technical, translation, financial), Verisign will be all over the space with their DNAME solution."

No. That is not how it works. Verisign will have to go through the full application process for EVERY idn g-TLD they wish to represent REGARDLESS of whether it is a DNAME or New space record. Which would mean, I assume, that Verisign would have very little incentive to use DNAME even if it passes technical tests. Why bother if they have to go through the standard application process, which is expensive, and they can have a whole new TLD to promote registrations for?
Can you backup the statement that indeed every new tld in ANY form needs that application process ?

If dname is technically sound then that application process would be pointless since idn dname merely represents existing extensions which already have been approved. Yes it is expensive and labour intensive but those efforts would be redundant.
Besides, what are they really suggesting ? A New set of .tld's in the root for each significant language with sunrises for all extensions ?? That's a huge effort by all parties on a recurring basis ! (not shouting at you btw )

Aliasing would in fact amount to saving time and effort, keep it simple and keep it manageable. Use dname and you only have to focus on implementing one concept in the root, use new name spaces and the same effort has to be made in the root technology-wise times the amount of extensions + the registrars instantaneously get dozens of new extensions to manage.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 18th October 2006, 11:20 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,864
iTrader: (60)
Rep Power: 2200
bwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enough
Re: DNAME falling out of favor?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bramiozo
Can you backup the statement that indeed every new tld in ANY form needs that application process ?.
The ICANN guy uses the word "presumably" in this (non-official) statement of his opinion:

(4) The limit on the maximum number of names we can safely accommodate in the root has more to do with manageability than
with "technology". Since DNAMEs point to names and not addresses, they should be stable once added, i.e., changes in
delegation of the target names will not impact the DNAME records.

However, the decision to add a DNAME alias would presumably go through the usual, careful (and often slow) ICANN
and US Government review and approval processes for root changes. There have been concerns expressed in the past about
how long those processes take. END QUOTE
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 18th October 2006, 11:29 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,320
iTrader: (2)
Rep Power: 1434
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: DNAME falling out of favor?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwhhisc
The ICANN guy uses the word "presumably" in this (non-official) statement of his opinion:

(4) The limit on the maximum number of names we can safely accommodate in the root has more to do with manageability than
with "technology". Since DNAMEs point to names and not addresses, they should be stable once added, i.e., changes in
delegation of the target names will not impact the DNAME records.

However, the decision to add a DNAME alias would presumably go through the usual, careful (and often slow) ICANN
and US Government review and approval processes for root changes. There have been concerns expressed in the past about
how long those processes take. END QUOTE
Well the people responsible should go a lil faster in reaching decisions....... I thought DNAME was gonna be final soon. What the #%#% is holding them up.
__________________
$995/mo drop lists available.. will be hand delivered by a playboy bunny
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 18th October 2006, 11:33 PM
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On the Road
Posts: 2,276
iTrader: (50)
Rep Power: 1218
thefabfive is on a distinguished roadthefabfive is on a distinguished roadthefabfive is on a distinguished roadthefabfive is on a distinguished roadthefabfive is on a distinguished roadthefabfive is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Skype™ to thefabfive
Re: DNAME falling out of favor?

Quote:
Originally Posted by IDNCowboy
Well the people responsible should go a lil faster in reaching decisions....... I thought DNAME was gonna be final soon. What the #%#% is holding them up.
Laboratory tests of DNAME and NS Records are supposed to be completed by Dec. 8 (the date of the ICANN's Sao Paulo meeting). Who knows how long policy decisions will be made after that.
__________________
IDN? What's an IDN?
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 18th October 2006, 11:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,320
iTrader: (2)
Rep Power: 1434
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: DNAME falling out of favor?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thefabfive
Laboratory tests of DNAME and NS Records are supposed to be completed by Dec. 8 (the date of the ICANN's Sao Paulo meeting). Who knows how long policy decisions will be made after that.
How hard can it be...Didn't take China that long. CNNIC already allows those with .cn names within china to have the .idn equivalent for free with their purchase.
__________________
$995/mo drop lists available.. will be hand delivered by a playboy bunny
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 18th October 2006, 11:52 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,864
iTrader: (60)
Rep Power: 2200
bwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enough
Re: DNAME falling out of favor?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giant
To Dname or not to Dname? It's no more a question. Never Dname!
Is that your personal prognostication?
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 19th October 2006, 12:16 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 93
iTrader: (1)
Rep Power: 519
zfreud is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: DNAME falling out of favor?

well maybe at this point it is like reading tea leaves, but I take the following:

"1. Each application for a new IDN-gTLD should be regarded as applying for a wholly new gTLD"

to mean that DNAME aliases will be treated as applying for a wholly new gTLD. As there currently exists no ICANN recognized IDN-gTLD, what else could that mean? Further, what could the word "wholly" in that sentence possilby refer to other than aliased TLDs as it is evident, prima facia, that a new gTLD is "wholly" new.

Which would mean that DNAME would involve applying for aliases that would be considered wholly new gTLD.

No?
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 19th October 2006, 12:24 AM
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: 4507
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: DNAME falling out of favor?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zfreud
well maybe at this point it is like reading tea leaves, but I take the following:

"1. Each application for a new IDN-gTLD should be regarded as applying for a wholly new gTLD"

to mean that DNAME aliases will be treated as applying for a wholly new gTLD. As there currently exists no ICANN recognized IDN-gTLD, what else could that mean? Further, what could the word "wholly" in that sentence possilby refer to other than aliased TLDs as it is evident, prima facia, that a new gTLD is "wholly" new.

Which would mean that DNAME would involve applying for aliases that would be considered wholly new gTLD.

No?
Aliases cannot be new gTLD. By definition Aliases do not occur in the Root and are therefore not independent TLDs. They only exist as Aliases. Obviously, there has to be some proper approval process, but seeing as these will be released before the formation of so called new registries is even conceivably possible, this is largely mumbo jumbo.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 19th October 2006, 12:42 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: DNAME falling out of favor?

Maybe it's a scam set up so the existing gTLD holders have to pay through the nose for the ICANN gTLD application fees for the 50 odd DNAMES they'll want for their registrant clients?
__________________
It's all jaded style to me.
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 10:19 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