Registry restrictions

[Vint Cerf]

I do not agree with this assessment. The purpose behind the standards  
is to try to reduce the likelihood of harmful registrations and to  
maximize the benefit of IDN use. We plainly are drawing a line  
between the use of the standards for this purpose and the  
recommendation that other kinds of protection (restriction) be left  
to registries to implement.

vint


On May 6, 2008, at 8:58 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 09:42:26PM +0100,
>  Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote
>  a message of 19 lines which said:
>
>> Which I think leads to a useful principle. We can "safely" leave to
>> registries any action, the failure to do which will impact only that
>> registry or its customers. They have full permission to shoot  
>> themselves
>> in the foot. We should embed in the protocol any safety measure or
>> restriction which, if not followed, allows a registry to shoot other
>> registries or their customers in the foot.
>
> Nice on paper but not realistic. We do not prevent (in the DNS
> standard) ".cm" for adding a wildcard which allow them to typosquatt
> ".com". Why should we prevent them from registering some IDN domain
> names?
>
> The whole discussion seems to imply that the IETF is a sort of
> Internet police in charge of protecting the poor users against
> unspecified dangers. This directly leads to a dangerous hubris (and it
> is also a direct violation of the charter).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update