alexander.mayrhofer at nic.at
Thu Dec 3 19:58:38 CET 2009
> >>ccTLDs are typically not contractually bound to ICANN.
> This is true but somewhere along the line someone is
> contractually bound to
> the domain name holder. If ICANN/IETF issue any directive for the
> safety/security/implementation of domain names and the TLD (g
> or cc) ignores
> it, then they are liable to their customers for knowingly
> selling them a
> domain name that MAY not work consistently. I think they
> would follow any
> directive in their own interests.
A "directive to registries" that they should bundle is a little bit beyond safety/security/implication. Anyway, two things about that:
"registries" are not just limited to the ~250 organizattions listed in the root zone. Every single zone administrator runs a little registry (and some of those are significantly larger than most TLDs). I am sure that most TLD registries are doing a sensible job regarding what they allow and what they don't. They follow developments (and probably this thread here), so they are (hopefully) aware of the implications.
However, the "livejournal.com", "blogger.com", "soup.io", "deviantart.com" etc. registries out there might *not* follow that discussion. Some of them might not allow IDNs, but i'm pretty sure that only a minority among them might doing something like bundling to avoid certain problems.
So, even if it was possible, whatever you try to mandate on TLD registries will not help you for the other levels in the DNS. It's hierarchical, it's distributed, and every zone has it's own policy. And that freedom with regards to policy is extremely unlikely to change, because it would essentially kill off the main property of the success story that DNS is today.
2) "knowingly selling" and "liability"
(i'm keeping this one short, because i'm sure this is out of the scope of this group)
Nobody ever "knowingly sold" a domain name with an "ß" in it. Not a single registrant under ".at" has a contractual relation with us regarding such a domain name with an "ß". This is (currently) a side effect of having registered a domain name with an "ss" sequence only.
More information about the Idna-update