Another Transition Plan Proposal
ck at nic.museum
Fri Dec 11 13:58:21 CET 2009
> Of course, you can't make the registration of "fuss"
> conditional on the registration of "fuß" if you charge €19.99 for each.
> But if you charge €19.99 for both, suddenly it becomes entirely
> reasonable to make it conditional, or even to enforce it, and even
> without necessarily bothering to tell the registrant what you've done.
Why is it reasonable for the German Chapter of the International
Federation of Podiatrists to forgo their preferred name in .GTLD because
it was automatically given to the American Fussbudget Society?
> Would registries really prefer to administer such a scheme rather than
> just run a script over their zone file?
Manual sunrise increases the number of potentially satisfied customers.
Gratuitous burn-and-bury bundling reduces it.
>> 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.
> I entirely agree with that. Which makes me surprised that you think
> there's some question about whether such bundling can be done.
The point is the operators of zones in which this is already going on
don't support it with automated bundling. The addition of the ß/ss pair
is not going to result in an inversion of established practice.
Bundling, for sure, but by registrant selection, not registry dictate,
and certainly not by protocol requirement.
More information about the Idna-update