Another Transition Plan Proposal

Cary Karp ck at
Fri Dec 11 00:05:48 CET 2009

> Not to be negative, but I am no longer certain what "bundle"
> means because it has been used in many different ways on this
> list.  In a way, that is an advantage, because I think giving
> registries choices of which interpretation of "bundle" then
> intend to use is an advantage as long as the general objectives
> can be met.
> Cary and others may be able to calibrate this better, but my
> understanding from discussions with various ccTLD operators that
> sunrise procedures have been much more effective

I do not believe that many TLD registry operators will agree that the 
registration of one element in a pair of labels such as "fuss" and 
"fuß", or "möller" and "møller", should, or even can, be made 
conditional on the registration of the other (bundling). The difference 
between those two cases that is of such great concern here can obviously 
only cause difficulty when the ß is actually being included in 
registered names.

The only way to know if the holder of a name containing ss would have 
preferred it to be an ß is by asking. Any registry that wishes to avoid 
the potential snags that we're talking about will therefore need to poll 
the holders of all ss names no matter what. When doing so they can 
easily offer the holder of, say, fuss.tld privileged opportunity to 
register fuß.tld before the ß is added to the generally available 
repertoire (sunrise). The terms under which that is done (perhaps 
offering some form of cost relief), or the action taken if the offer is 
declined (perhaps reserving the ß name for the holder of the ss name 
nonetheless, or "blocking" it entirely), or the decision even to support 
the new codepoint, or the timetable on which any of this action is 
conducted, is certain to vary from registry to registry. I don't see any 
realistic way for us to impose a uniform business regimen on the entire 
SLD space (much less the entire name space).

Beyond that introductory action, the issues attaching to the maintenance 
of a single zone that contains names which differ only by the element of 
the ß/ss pair they include, become no different than those associated 
with ä/a/æ, ö/o/œ, ü/u/ue, é/e/è or any other of the many situations 
where such clustering might be considered.

> Please also don't forget the fact that there are German and
> Greek registrations in various gTLDs.  I don't know whether the
> same principles would usefully apply, but I think we need to at
> least consider the issue rather than assuming it is limited to
> ccTLD registries whose primary language of interest is Greek or
> German.

The gTLD registry constituency, which is both all-inclusive and bound by 
ICANN's IDN guidelines, is preparing a joint statement about this. (We 
don't need to hold our breath in anticipation of it including a request 
for one-size-fits-all guidance in matters that the individual gTLD 
registries have felt comfortably able to deal with all along.)


More information about the Idna-update mailing list