Another Transition Plan Proposal

John C Klensin klensin at
Wed Dec 16 20:25:47 CET 2009

--On Wednesday, December 16, 2009 13:52 -0500 Eric
Brunner-Williams <ebw at> wrote:

> Its not the current g and c problem, in which CORE is the
> unique  orphan with registries and no contracted party status
> (save as a  registrar, not relevant to the issue), but the
> future g and c problem,  where the majority of gTLDs are not
> operated by the union of Verisign,  NeuStar and Afilias, nor
> by CORE either, just for the implied humor.


This discussion has been about transition issues faced by zones
which already have names registered that _might_ be interpreted
differently, when queried, by IDNA2008 and IDNA2003-compliant
software.  It seems to me that any domain that starts
registering IDNs (or, for Sharp-S and Sharp-S along, ASCII LDH
strings containing "ss") only after this discussion reaches its
has a different problem.  We (or ICANN, or some other body)
might want to make recommendations to them too, but the one
problem they -- especially those that are completely new domains
-- certainly do not have is an existing body of registrations
that much somehow go through a transition process.  And it is,
from their point of view, desirable that we get IDNA2008
approved and do whatever we do about non-registry aspects of
transition as quickly as we can.

Or am I missing something?


More information about the Idna-update mailing list