Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050218131146.047ec4c0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:16:49 +0100
To: Erik van der Poel <erik@vanderpoel.org>,
	"Martin v. LXwis" <martin@v.loewis.de>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [idn] homograph attacks
Cc: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, idn@ops.ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4215D375.3080206@vanderpoel.org>
References: <FD16260E2EDF204E80A22FB904A425C30BD0A0CF@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
 <4214ABF5.3080700@dready.org>
 <4214C445.9070106@vanderpoel.org>
 <6.0.0.20.2.20050218113553.08077390@localhost>
 <4215A572.3050903@v.loewis.de>
 <4215D375.3080206@vanderpoel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

At 12:37 18/02/2005, Erik van der Poel wrote:
>Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>Martin Duerst wrote:
>>>Very much agreed. Except for registries with very special
>>>policies (such as the blocking used by some East Asian
>>>registries), the language association doesn't make too
>>>much sense.
>>However, as the East Asian languages might cause blocking,
>>every .COM user is required to provide a language tag. So
>>in that sense, every gTLD will have very special policies.
>
>The .com and .net domains are operated by VeriSign:

I understand from sales and renewals that the registrants also have adopted 
a Chinese blocking.
I suggest you also go and visit the CNNIC site when you consider Chinese 
issues.
jfc


>http://icann.org/faq/#regrules
>VeriSign appears to have adopted the Chinese blocking:
>http://verisign.com/products-services/naming-and-directory-services/naming-services/internationalized-domain-names/idn-standards/idn-character-variants/page_002087.html
>
>Do you know whether any of the other gTLDs have adopted the Chinese blocking?
>Also, does any registry have blocking for any languages other than Chinese?
>Thanks,
>
>Erik