Consensus Call Tranche 7 (BiDi Model)

Eric Brunner-Williams ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Thu Oct 16 13:47:54 CEST 2008


Harald,

1. ccTLD registries aren't contractually obligated to ICANN. That was 
the intent of my first comment, which you appear to have missed completely.

2. et seq means those that follow, like router requirements follow from 
1009, which is wicked old too. Some IETF work products are more used 
than others, and even some of the most used are imprecise, and bakeoffs 
have been necessary to find the better interpretations. I thought that 
was clear in my second comment, but obviously another reading was possible.

Eric

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> 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