Consensus Call Tranche 7 (BiDi Model)
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
harald at alvestrand.no
Thu Oct 16 07:13:02 CEST 2008
Eric Brunner-Williams skrev:
>
>
>> ...
>>
>> I'm happy with saying "Registries that want to claim conformance to
>> IDNA2008 ...
>
> I see two problems.
>
> First, applicants that have spent six to seven figures to obtain and
> operate a registry under contract with ICANN have a very different
> risk model compared to registries which operate without contract. Some
> ccTLD NIC may ignore as non-binding any MUST or MUST NOT language,
> while it would be somewhat risk insensitive for a gTLD NIC to ignore
> language that appears in, or is referenced by, the contract that
> allows them to operate a registry. IANAL, etc.
and wearing the foot in the other mouth.... ICANN is very concerned
about making strings available whose most distinguishing feature is that
they are useful in attempts to confuse, mislead and defraud, while it
does not want to stand in the way of the use of any string that has
another useful purpose.
So ICANN's likely to require conformance in contract to *some* set of
standards, IDNA200X being one. It's unlikely that ICANN would attempt to
require conformance to RFC 2549 (IP over Avian Carriers).
>
> Second, is IDNA200{3,X} as capable of conformance, let alone as
> important to conform (for insert your favorite motivation here,
> "security and stability" is one frequently used, I'm sort of partial
> to coherence and correctness, but YMMV) as 882/883 et seq?
If it's not possible to conform to IDNA200X, this WG has failed.
(Conformance to 882 would be extremely unwise. That document was
obsoleted ten years ago. I don't know what "et seq" means....)
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list