Language requirements

[Paul Hoffman]

At 11:12 AM +0100 12/19/06, Cary Karp wrote:
>The TLD registries that are introducing support for IDN in a measured
>manner all seem to be doing so with extreme caution. The predominant
>practice is to select highly limited subsets of the available repertoire
>on the basis of the language requirements of the communities the
>registry serves, and to support those languages subject to further
>policy restrictions that may be appropriate from registry to registry.

We cannot build this assumption into IDNAbis. "com" "net" "org" "biz" 
"info" and so on have no such language requirements.

>These registries are fully aware of the need for reducing the latitude
>for interpretation that attaches to IDNA2003, and look forward to the
>increased focus of IDNA200n, both because of the direction it will
>provide to the operators of lower-level registries, and because of its
>potential for reducing less laudable manifestations of differing
>interpretations of IDNA among competing TLD registries.

That may be true for some registries, but unless we hear directly 
from all of them to that effect, we should not assume it. In 
particular, I have in the past been told the opposite by the business 
people at VeriSign, the managers of "com" and "net".