Re-sending TXT form of Proposed IDNA2008 Transition Idea
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Tue Dec 15 02:06:44 CET 2009
Hmm. We can tell we're not in San Francisco as the locus of
irresponsibility isn't registries ...
Seriously John, there are registries, and registries, from the
repurposed toys to the highly responsible, and there are registrars
and registrars, from the domainer shells to the highly responsible.
There is no benefit to a registrar, or a registry, in what you expect
of either. This is not a fault of individual registrars, or individual
registries, so when looking for root causes, try to look to
fundamental incentives. Try and complete a sentence that begins with
"Honesty towards ICANN is ..." and doesn't end "wasted effort."
I don't think it is necessary to invent a "registry service" to as the
preferred solution to registrant desires to register additional
domains. I didn't think it was necessary to invent a "registry
service" as a solution to registrant desires to synchronize the expiry
and renewal dates of domains.
It may just as well be implemented as a registrar service, and on that
distinction registries, and registrars, pay no small amount of attention.
It ICANN wants to incent registries it need only look to the registry
desire to offer IDNs. If ICANN wants to incent registrars it need only
look to the registrar desire to offer IDNs. Don't screw around playing
with the two dimes, look to fundamental incentives.
Apropos of EPP and bundling, I proposed containers, they were in XRP,
it was a natural fit for bundles, and no one else at the time thought
EPP needed anything more than a single unit transaction type.
I'm now concern with how this discussion is going.
On 12/14/09 3:34 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Monday, December 14, 2009 15:17 -0500 Steve Crocker
> <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
>> Thanks. Let me say this a bit more carefully. My wording was
>> indeed imprecise. The meaning I intended, particularly in
>> the ICANN arena where the registries are restricted from
>> initiating registrations, is that the registrar would
>> registrar the variants on behalf of the existing registrant
>> at no cost for a limited period of time.
> I'm trying to figure out how this would work, at least other
> than on a case-by-case basis. For the registries, ICANN could
> do some persuading, could waive the per-name fee, or offer other
> incentives. And there aren't very many of them. But it seems
> to me that the registrars are a different matter: There are many
> of them. We know that a large number of them are in it
> primarily for the money, with "smooth, stable, and secure
> operation of the Internet" as not a very high priority. Having
> this be "no cost" means that they have to go to significant
> effort to identify appropriate registrations and create new ones
> without any expectation of compensation. Worse, they then
> either have to track the registrants down and work out with them
> how the new zones are going to be delegated and supported
> (costly) or have to support those delegations themselves (also
> costly and with the potential of all sorts of interesting
> security problems since, by definition, that means that the two
> zone files are different except in the case in which the
> registrar is already the registrant's zone admin (and maybe web
> and mail service provider). I don't see our being able to
> persuade them to do that work for the general good as being very
> Do you have a different model in mind?
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update