Deprecated characters?

[JFC Morfin]

At 23:21 17/07/2008, John C Klensin wrote:
>--On Thursday, 17 July, 2008 20:53 +0200 JFC Morfin
><jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear John,
> > we obviously have different priorities you as an academic
> > designer and I as a pragmatic operator.
>
>Gee, I haven't been accused of that in circa sixteen years years.

Dear John,
"accused"? I do not see any accusation of anything here. I just note 
that you are not (to my knowledge) a field operator or a TLD Registry 
Manager, have no terms and conditions coined by a lawyer, discussed 
with the WIPO and are used to address legal complains of registrants 
of yours. Your last paragraph, seems to confirm that. Or am I wrong ?

> > However, I am sure
> > you realise that if  a character is replaced by another
> > because Unicode decides it, the  registered Trade Mark will
> > follows the replacement if it is adopted  by ISO. Courts and
> > TLD Managers will see it as a technical typo  correction
> > having nothing to do with creating new IPRs (missing
> > clarifications about this kind of points is for them a worry).
> > If we  are not sure of that, the best is then that we ask the
> > WIPO?
>
>But here I have almost no idea what you are talking about.  The
>characters that are proposed for deprecation are not, if I
>understand any of Mark's comments, Ken's note, or the review
>question as presented on the web site, "being replaced by other
>characters".

I discuss this of yours:
 > > At 18:03 17/07/2008, John C Klensin wrote:
 > >> But it does seem to me that there is a more general
 > >> question here at least for the future and especially if the
 > >> reason for deprecating a character is to replace it with a
 > >> different preferred (or normalized) form.

>Their use is simply being discouraged because they
>should not have been assigned code points in the first place or
>because there are better ways to do that same thing.  And, as
>Ken's note points out, very few of them are allowed in IDNs
>anyway (they are DISALLOWED, not PVALID, and hence irrelevant to
>anything that could appear in a domain name).

John, the point is not if there only are a very few, but if there any.
What is discussed is a standard.

>ISO doesn't have anything to do with actions that affect
>registered Trade Marks, and things that they "adopt" (in ISO/IEC
>JTC1/SC2 or elsewhere) don't automatically change anything.

This is your vision of the WIPO's position, it is not ours.
The best is we ask the WIPO and copy this WG of the WIPO position 
when we have obtained it.

>More generally, let's assume that there were a character that
>Unicode and ISO 10646 decided declare obsolete, obsolete,
>withdraw, and replace by something else -- that case is
>theoretically possible but let me save Ken the time by saying
>that it doesn't happen in practice and certainly is not what is
>being discussed as "deprecation".  If I had a Trademark that
>involved that code point and had reflected that Trademark in a
>domain name, I would certainly rush out an register the name
>name with the new spelling.

Dear John, what you would do, either in registering names in here, or 
in cancelling a nth level domain name whose nth+1 level does not 
fullfil your obligation (a previous thread) is wise. But as above, 
what has it to do whith the Charter of a standard? And Best 
Operational Practices ?

>I would probably also retain the
>old spelling forever, just to prevent various sorts of mischief.
>And I would use the trademark laws against anyone who tried to
>get ahead of me in registering the new form on the grounds that
>the two forms were a lot closer together than what would
>normally be considered similar enough to cause confusion.  And I
>would do that regardless of whether the trademark itself somehow
>magically migrated from one form to another.

This is well said. And exactly what the IETF standard, the national 
law, and the Registry rules are to organise, so the registrant is 
protected from the impact of issues out of his control, but under the 
control of the IETF/Unicode Reviewer.

>And, because that whole issue affects decisions made by
>trademark holders and registries, it has nothing to do with the
>task list for this WG, so you are confusing policy issues for
>which responsibility lies elsewhere with WG tasks.  Again.

Then I have not understood what IETF is about, and I apologise for 
confusing the issues.
May I take this text of yours as expressing a WG-IDNABIS rough consensus?
jfc




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20080718/701b1788/attachment.htm