Rubber Duck
28th March 2007, 04:33 PM
>>CARY KARP: Our country -- the name of our country exists and there's many languages that exist and quite a large number of them are quite content with the ASCII repertoire. Where does that leave us? And I think one of the perpetual issues that tends to confuse IDN is the number of aspects of the IDN concerns that are not specific to IDN. So --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. I mean, if I was just to use it in non-IDN characters, if I was to have the domain name dot Germany and the domain name dot Deutschland, they both can be expressed in non-IDN terms, but a -- an organization may wish to operate both of those and effectively alias the outcome. So it's interesting so to just consider it from that point of view.
>>CARY KARP: The concept and the conundrums attaching to the internalization of the domain name space are -- overlap but are not identical with the issues that attach to replacing ASCII with Unicode as the basic character set underlying what we're doing.
>>RAM MOHAN: But fundamentally, Bruce, I think you're right in the policy required here would not be necessarily just for IDNs, but it would be for that concept as a whole.
http://icann.org/meetings/lisbon/transcript-gnso-forum-28mar07.htm
Could be argued that sTLD such as dot Travel need to be translated into other languages as ASCII. I guess Travel doesn't mean anything in most Western European languages.
Furthermore, it would seem to me that if you allow Chinese registries that overlap in meaning with Commercial of dot Com then there is nothing to stop something similar happening in other langauges including Latin based ones. If we assume that dot Com is an English Extension, how many Latin languages could claim the need for a distinct extension for dot Com, if that principle were accepted in non-Latin languages?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. I mean, if I was just to use it in non-IDN characters, if I was to have the domain name dot Germany and the domain name dot Deutschland, they both can be expressed in non-IDN terms, but a -- an organization may wish to operate both of those and effectively alias the outcome. So it's interesting so to just consider it from that point of view.
>>CARY KARP: The concept and the conundrums attaching to the internalization of the domain name space are -- overlap but are not identical with the issues that attach to replacing ASCII with Unicode as the basic character set underlying what we're doing.
>>RAM MOHAN: But fundamentally, Bruce, I think you're right in the policy required here would not be necessarily just for IDNs, but it would be for that concept as a whole.
http://icann.org/meetings/lisbon/transcript-gnso-forum-28mar07.htm
Could be argued that sTLD such as dot Travel need to be translated into other languages as ASCII. I guess Travel doesn't mean anything in most Western European languages.
Furthermore, it would seem to me that if you allow Chinese registries that overlap in meaning with Commercial of dot Com then there is nothing to stop something similar happening in other langauges including Latin based ones. If we assume that dot Com is an English Extension, how many Latin languages could claim the need for a distinct extension for dot Com, if that principle were accepted in non-Latin languages?