DNAME falling out of favor?

[zfreud]

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-gtlds/recom-summary-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-tlds/idn_tor_draft-12oct06.htm

[Explorer]

....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.

[bwhhisc]

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-comments/msg00005.html

[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?

[Explorer]

"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.

[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.

[Rubber Duck]

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.

[bwhhisc]

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.)

[zfreud]

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.... ;-)

[Giant]

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).

[Drewbert]

>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.

"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.

[bramiozo]

"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.

[bwhhisc]

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

[IDNCowboy]

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.

[thefabfive]

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.

[IDNCowboy]

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.

[bwhhisc]

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


Is that your personal prognostication?

[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?

[Rubber Duck]

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.

[Drewbert]

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?

[Giant]

Is that your personal prognostication?

Yes, and I don't even care about IDN.IDN's development any more, IDN.latin is good enough for me.

[Olney]

Ditto
Not a big need for the market I'm into. They can get used to jp, cn, com net after each word. It's the variation of English letters in words that's the problem to remember.


Yes, and I don't even care about IDN.IDN's development any more, IDN.latin is good enough for me.

[bwhhisc]

Ditto, Not a big need for the market I'm into. They can get used to jp, cn, com net after each word. It's the variation of English letters in words that's the problem to remember.

Probably don't even need to say "can get used to" for .com and .net.

The world has been using .com and .net all along...so they are the standard.
Should be a real joy to just adding familiar words (in unicode) in front.
Once they discover this, the experimentation and type ins should be really big, then the search to buy their favorite domain.
BTW- Are there keys to make the .net and .com with a single stroke in Japanese keyboard?

[Explorer]

BTW- Are there keys to make the .net and .com with a single stroke in Japanese keyboard?

There is. Give enough feedback to MSFT to add .com by default by pressing "enter". :-)

[Drewbert]

There is. Give enough feedback to MSFT to add .com by default by pressing "enter". :-)

Man, that would be heaven.

That's the way it used to be, and still is with Safari :)

[Explorer]

Man, that would be heaven.

That's the way it used to be, and still is with Safari :)

I know. Wishful thinking that would make a lot of people instant millionaires.

[Rubber Duck]

Is that your personal prognostication?

So how long have you been one of Bushes personal advisers?

[blastfromthepast]

I know. Wishful thinking that would make a lot of people instant millionaires.

Keep promoting Opera in Russia, and our dreams will come true.

[alpha]

>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.



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.

I thought i would just bump this old post with this comment from Drew back in October.

It certainly seems that the holy grail of having many many new idn aliases in different scripts that all map back to .com was just a pipe dream.

And from all the ICANN discussions the last couple of days, it looks like ICANN has picked up speed with the process of launching new IDN tld's, but there is no talk yet of what to do with existing TLD's... the easiest thing of course would be to do nothing.

There will be no pressure anymore to do anything, since the new igtlds will pacify all those that have been calling for them.

I think IDN.com and IDN.net as we know them today may just stay as-is.

[touchring]

Yes, and I don't even care about IDN.IDN's development any more, IDN.latin is good enough for me.


October post, btw.

[alpha]

yes i saw that. Heroic statement, but i can't believe its true.

[Rubber Duck]

I am totally confused as to how you arrived this conclusion.

I have just listened to Tina's live report.

Basically, just a short series of concatenated UMs! I rather get the impression that most of her prepared statement landed in the trash can!

I thought i would just bump this old post with this comment from Drew back in October.

It certainly seems that the holy grail of having many many new idn aliases in different scripts that all map back to .com was just a pipe dream.

And from all the ICANN discussions the last couple of days, it looks like ICANN has picked up speed with the process of launching new IDN tld's, but there is no talk yet of what to do with existing TLD's... the easiest thing of course would be to do nothing.

There will be no pressure anymore to do anything, since the new igtlds will pacify all those that have been calling for them.

I think IDN.com and IDN.net as we know them today may just stay as-is.

[alpha]

I am totally confused as to how you arrived this conclusion.

I have just listened to Tina's live report.

Basically, just a short series of concatenated UMs! I rather get the impression that most of her prepared statement landed in the trash can!

so RD, are you still standing by your cast-iron conclusion that .com will be mapped to many alisases in different scripts?

that is what you have been saying forever isn't it?

that is what some people here took as sound advice and invested accordingly.

[Rubber Duck]

so RD, are you still standing by your cast-iron conclusion that .com will be mapped to many alisases in different scripts?

that is what you have been saying forever isn't it?

that is what some people here took as sound advice and invested accordingly.

When you see Verisign threatening to sue ICANN over the issue, you may then assume there is a serious problem.

You need to listen and read things in a holoistic sense before jumping to conclusions over the interpretation of individual statement in which the jargon is often confusing.

[domainguru]

When you see Verisign threatening to sue ICANN over the issue, you may then assume there is a serious problem.

You need to listen and read things in a holoistic sense before jumping to conclusions over the interpretation of individual statement in which the jargon is often confusing.

Actually I take more notice when ICANN threaten to sue VeriSign. It tends to mean more.

[bwhhisc]

that is what some people here took as sound advice and invested accordingly.

Hopefully they weighed advice from (everyone) in the IDN Camp, with the "advice" from the likes of Acro
and the naysayers, then made up their own minds whether to speculate on IDNs. One thing that has
always been certain about IDNs was that nothing was yet set in stone.

[touchring]

yes i saw that. Heroic statement, but i can't believe its true.


True? The verdict isn't here yet. This is what Giant believes in. I'm taking the middle line - .com and .idn might co-exist for some languages.

http://img.kakaku.com/images/kakaku_logo_new.gif

http://www.ikyu.com/img/logo.gif

[blastfromthepast]

True? The verdict isn't here yet. This is what Giant believes in. I'm taking the middle line - .com and .idn might co-exist for some languages.

Ironically, the languages farthest removed from Latin are least affected.

Japanese is willing to accept a .com lable as a cute embelishment.

Russian mixed with lowercase latin tld however, looks too similar to be acceptable.

[Rubber Duck]

True? The verdict isn't here yet. This is what Giant believes in. I'm taking the middle line - .com and .idn might co-exist for some languages.

http://img.kakaku.com/images/kakaku_logo_new.gif

Well that only serves to confuse the entire discussion further as everyone else is talking about the Top Level.

The bottom line is people are getting confused because things are being explained in what many see as unfamiliar jargon.

There will be dot com equivalents of IDN within the next 12 months. What has been said makes it certain that it has now actually been moved forward rather than back in my view, because there is no longer any logical reason for iccTLD to take precedence over igTLD.

What is clear is that no alternative IDN equivalents of dot com can be launched as registries in the time frames we are talking about. Dot XXX was first muted 5 years ago, dot EU took a similar amount of time. Dot Asia has taken much less probably only about 3 years. 2 years for introduction from first proposals is logistical lower limit. The whole concept that overnight there are going to be a 100 look alike dot Com registered is absurd.

[alpha]

..There will be dot com equivalents of IDN within the next 12 months. .

RD, you might be getting the feeling i'm your personal troll at the moment :p

but that is not the case. I object to statements like this. Why? because you are very influential - and you do not and cannot know that for sure.


just because it's what you and I and everyone else wants to happen, doesn't make it happen.

I'll stop trolling, if you stop making absurd statements that are masquerading to be given solid facts. ;)

[markits]

Apart from regging a new domain name igtld.com, I am way too confused: what is this all about? Are we having dname for com and net?

[alpha]

Apart from regging a new domain name igtld.com, I am way too confused: what is this all about? Are we having dname for com and net?

i wondered who that was! i grabbed the icctld yesterday. lol.

[blastfromthepast]

i wondered who that was! i grabbed the icctld yesterday. lol.

icctld.cc is the way to go.

[touchring]

Apart from regging a new domain name igtld.com, I am way too confused: what is this all about? Are we having dname for com and net?



Good for u, when i'm confused, i freeze.

[Rubber Duck]

I feel that I am being compelled to express such opinions because you are running around acting like The Little Red Hen.

The Sky isn't falling.

Actually, nothing has been decided, we are just listening to a lot of consultation process.

What is clear is that ICANN are only just beginning to get their heads around the problem but the constituency are demanding results and results soon.

ICANN has been trying in it own bureaucratic way to find a Universal Solution to an All Ecompassing Problem.

They are in a mess. They are only just beginning to figure out what the questions are in many instances. Final Implementation of iccTLD which they assumed would take place very soon is now years away and will require DNAME. It is now clear that to satisfy everyone they are going to need about 20K Mappings just to do iccTLD. They though igTLD was going to be complicated and they thought they needed to complete iccTLD first using NS. It now abundantly clear that whilst NS will have a role to play it is only every going to be suitable for the short-term implementation of a lot of ad-hoc solutions, which will probably have to be shifted to DNAME at some point in the future.

If they permit new registries in each language for each of the existing gTLD and sTLDs we are going to be taking several thousand new registries. To date the average time it take to launch a registery is 3 to 5 years. So nothing is going to happen soon, and in any event would be dependant on NS, which is all but discredited as reasonable long-term solution for iccTLD. Indeed igTLd is probably more suited to implementaton by NS because there are fewer cases by a factor of about 10, but it is still far too many.

Politically they do need to be moving forward. They have approval for insertion of IDN NS records on an Experimental basis. They will almost certainly go for the political fudge of entering these on an Ad-Hoc basis. The alternative is stand at the microphone like Tina did this morning and just say UM about 200 times.

[alpha]

I feel that I am being compelled to express such opinions because you are running around acting like The Little Red Hen.

The Sky isn't falling.

good anology, i'd like to offer you one back, I liken you to Captain Smith, who is only really famous for saying one thing "What iceberg.."

[Rubber Duck]

good anology, i'd like to offer you one back, I liken you to Captain Smith, who is only really famous for saying one thing "What iceberg.."

Yes, as I understand it Captain Smith was steaming ahead at full throttle in Iceberg infested waters in the dark, in the confidence that his vessel was unsinkable.

Situation could not be more different. ICANN these days tries to look at things from every possible angle. The one thing they are not going to ignore is previous Intellectual Property rights. They are already struggling with the IDN process and struggling to find ways of simplifying the process. The last thing they need to do is approve 2k more registries that are going to make submissons in languages that none of them can understand.

There is a lot of crap talked about a whole lot of things on this forum. Take Gongsi for instance. The assumption of many is that the CNNIC will be awarded Gongsi.
How can that happen? At the moment they CNNIC is a ccTLD registery. They have only the same rights as all the other ccTLD registeries. At the moment that only entitles them to a single ASCII extension. Realistically, if they want Gongsi they are going to have to make application as a gTLD registry and go through a similar process to that being undertaken for dot XXX only with the full opposition of Verisign. And of course we are all assuming that the whole thing is going to be stitched up by this time next month.

[markits]

RD, will the 2k new registries be mapped to existing gtlds or are they new extentions?

[bramiozo]

All that is certain is that uncertainty remains untill a final decision has been made ... or unless some of us starts dating Tina Dammmn but seriously why isn't there any representative of these organisations on these forums ?

[blastfromthepast]

All that is certain is that uncertainty remains untill a final decision has been made ... or unless some of us starts dating Tina Dammmn but seriously why isn't there any representative of these organisations on these forums ?

Where's our man in Spain? Next meeting is in Puerto Rico, so East Coast domainers can easily attend.

[alpha]

Yes, as I understand it Captain Smith was steaming ahead at full throttle in Iceberg infested waters in the dark, in the confidence that his vessel was unsinkable.

maybe it was actually daytime and he had a pair of dark goggles on.

I'm done sparring with you on this issue. Personally I need clarity before my next renewal which is next Feb, so until then it doesn't really matter.

[Rubber Duck]

RD, will the 2k new registries be mapped to existing gtlds or are they new extentions?

New Extension means new Registry.

Mapping means no new registry.

Trust me there are not going to be 2K new Registries from all over Asia approved and up and running in any time frame we need to worry.

[bramiozo]

....double post

[markits]

New Extension means new Registry.

Mapping means no new registry.

Trust me there are not going to be 2K new Registries from all over Asia approved and up and running in any time frame we need to worry.
OK I now understand.
You mean igtld will most possibly be implemented by mapping (NS) solutions, rather than creating 2k new .idn extensions. However you believe the implementation will take minimum 12 month. Right?

On the other hand, alpha thinks that the existing idn.gtld will be remaining as is, but there will be new .idn extensions.

I think either way it won't affect the current idn value and potential, which is still totally depending on when ie7 will get popular and internet users realise that they can actually use their own language in domain names. As blast pointed out, Japanese are totally ok with .com and .jp. The only thing remains worries is that China is creating and promoting their own .idn extensions, which will potentially damage Chinese.gtlds.

[thegenius1]

As blast pointed out, Japanese are totally ok with .com and .jp

Yup these investments are in the money , others should research it before they tear up ;)

[touchring]

Yup these investments are in the money , others should research it before they tear up ;)


Darn, i still put my money on my japanese.com.

Dname? By the time they finally launch it, it won't matter any more. Ok, back to my biz.

[Giant]

Alleluia! IDN.com will be king and Ascii.com will be queen.

I think VeriSign is celebrating now. But don't worry, it will take time to let the truth unfold.



... The only thing remains worries is that China is creating and promoting their own .idn extensions, which will potentially damage Chinese.gtlds.

Then you probably don't understand China's gesture. 醉翁之意不在酒！

90% of China's large business will be using IDN.com!

There's a misunderstanding that China is promoting Dot CN but not Dot Com. No, China simply doesn't care. Dot CN and Dot Com both are good for China's development.

[touchring]

Btw, anyone who can't wait to get out of .com, i'm might consider exchanging my chinese .gongsi for your equivalent keywords in .com.

This is the litmus test. :p

[Rubber Duck]

OK I now understand.
You mean igtld will most possibly be implemented by mapping (NS) solutions, rather than creating 2k new .idn extensions. However you believe the implementation will take minimum 12 month. Right?

On the other hand, alpha thinks that the existing idn.gtld will be remaining as is, but there will be new .idn extensions.

I think either way it won't affect the current idn value and potential, which is still totally depending on when ie7 will get popular and internet users realise that they can actually use their own language in domain names. As blast pointed out, Japanese are totally ok with .com and .jp. The only thing remains worries is that China is creating and promoting their own .idn extensions, which will potentially damage Chinese.gtlds.

No I think all IDN will eventually be done in DNAME now, but in the meantime the ones that are "Ready to Go" including gTLD will get mapped in NS for a limited number of languages.

Full implementation of ccTLD using DNAME is at least 12 months away in my opinion, but if a handful of the extension that matter are implemented using NS the time delay won't be very critical.

Yes, Alpha thinks they are junk, but if you watch carefully, he is still buying them.

The whole IDN.IDN issue is a bit of a Red Herring in many ways. The real issue is browser support, which is largely down to Microsoft not ICANN. Microsoft have already delayed more than is conceivably possible. If they do not deliver on Vista at least, the whole company is going down the tubes. The early indications are that Vista is ahead of projections.

China only get on ccTLD in the ICANN root, the same as everyone else. They put their Gongsi registrations in under dot CN at anytime, and that is probably what they will be forced to do.

[alpha]

Yes, Alpha thinks they are junk, but if you watch carefully, he is still buying them.

don't start something with with Dave. We have had a good relationship of late - don't go and ruin it posting bollocks about me.

I will post this in bold type, in case its your eyesight that is the problem:

I am not saying anything is junk or not. I am simply saying the jury is still out. and it is wrong to make sweeping statements saying the deal is done on any kind of mapping.

Of course I'm still buying. As far as I am concerned, nothing has changed since i bought my first one last year.

that means: nothing has changed. Thats not the what you have been posting of late.

enough.

[Rubber Duck]

OK, lets stop the rib tickling. The real information such as it is, is here:

http://icann.org/meetings/lisbon/transcript-idn-wg-28mar07.htm

I have started to extract some of the interesting snippets here:

http://www.idnforums.com/forums/10256-transcript-idn-gac-gnso-and-ccnso-working-groups-workshop.html

Please be my guests to take cuttings for analysis on that thread.

The bottom line is people are getting confused because things are being explained in what many see as unfamiliar jargon.


And just to underline my point, here is a quote from Tina:

>>I know that I have been sitting in meetings all week and before this week as well where it is very clear that because the terminology can be difficult and people mean different things with different expressions, people are not actually talking about the same thing. And we really don't have the time to allow confusions like that to happen.<<