PostWG IDNA2008 implementation, transition and deployment document preparation
tina.dam at icann.org
Thu Dec 17 17:36:45 CET 2009
Just a quick note on this:
I hope it is clear to everyone that the Fast Track Process is one process for IDN TLDs. Idns also obviously exists at lower levels and in the future for top level gltds, etc.
So the idn guidelines is for all and not "just" the Fast Track.
If anyone has questions on how the Fast Track or other IDN or ICANN related matters please contact me directly. I will make sure you get all the information needed and then you can assess how/if it relates to the idna work.
From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <jmabdp at gmail.com>
To: Cary Karp <ck at nic.museum>; Tina Dam
Cc: IDNA update work <idna-update at alvestrand.no>; IDNA2010 Documentation <workon at idna2010.org>
Sent: Thu Dec 17 06:52:22 2009
Subject: Re: PostWG IDNA2008 implementation, transition and deployment document preparation
2009/12/17 Cary Karp <ck at nic.museum<mailto:ck at nic.museum>>
> I have however a question: .MUSEUM is an ASCII extension
> which has no right to contribute to FAST TRACK. I also understand this
> is true for ASCII ccTLDs and IDNgTLDs (existing ones or projected ones).
> This is surprising to me as the basis for transition rules can only be
> in conformance with RFC 5226?
Despite the question mark at the end of this, I'm afraid that I can't
tell what the question is.
Sorry, the implied question was "ist it, is it not?"
.MUSEUM has not participated in the Fast Track process in any manner
This is what I find surprising since (a) you are part of the team defining its guidelines, (b) I do not understand what .MUSEUM is no part of it (is there not a Chinese, a Greek, or a Russian name for "Museum"), why do we discuss the eszett if it cannot be part of FASTTRACK (c) this seems in opposition with the RFC 5226 first come, first serve rule?
I cannot see any heading in RFC 5226 under which the ICANN IDN
Guidelines fall. They are not protocols nor otherwise maintained as an
RFC, and the IANA does not participate in their development.
Then we have a misunderstanding to clarify concerning ICANN.
As Internet Users we understand ICANN as the IANA Manager for names and numbers (RFC 2860: "The IANA technical team is now part of ICANN"). Contracts between ICANN Inc. and TLD Managers may have indirect impacts on people, but not on the Internet as defined in RFC 3935, i.e. the technology documented by the IETF that also apply to private networks.
We therefore consider RFC 5226 (and before RFC 2424) as the architectural rule which relates IETF technology users and IANA and its names and number governance in the default presentation and Class IN: "In order for IANA to manage a given namespace prudently, it needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can be assigned or when modifications to existing values can be made. If IANA is expected to play a role in the management of a namespace, IANA must be given clear and concise instructions describing that role. This document discusses issues that should be considered in formulating a policy for assigning values to a namespace and provides guidelines for authors on the specific text that must be included in documents that place demands on IANA."
IDNA2008 places demand on IANA and constrains the use of the namespace that IANA has the primary mission to document and ICANN is establish to administrate in class IN. In this we understand we fully comply with ICANN published and reclaimed policy in its ICP-3 document.
I certainly understand that " It is recognized that ICANN may, through the IANA, provide similar services to other organisations with respect to protocols not within IETF's scope (i.e. registries not created by IETF or IRTF action); nothing in this MOU limits ICANN's ability to do so.". However, I understand that IDNA2008 is acknowledged by ICANN as part of the IETF scope.
RFC 2860 acknowledges that :
"If in doubt or in case of a technical dispute, IANA will seek and follow technical guidance exclusively from the IESG. Where
appropriate the IESG will appoint an expert to advise IANA."
" The IANA will work with the IETF to develop any missing criteria and procedures over time, which the IANA will adopt when so instructed by the IESG."
"4.2. In the event of technical dispute between the IANA and the IESG, both will seek guidance from the IAB whose decision shall be final."
"4.3. Two particular assigned spaces present policy issues in addition to the technical considerations specified by the IETF: the assignment of domain names, and the assignment of IP address blocks. These policy issues are outside the scope of this MOU."
"Note that (a) assignments of domain names for technical uses (such as domain names for inverse DNS lookup), (b) assignments of specialised address blocks (such as multicast or anycast blocks), and (c) experimental assignments are not considered to be policy issues, and shall remain subject to the provisions of this Section 4. (For purposes of this MOU, the term "assignments" includes allocations.)."
It seems that Tina should enlight us on the issue, so we understand well how every concerned one stands in regards of IDNA2008 implempentation, transition and deployment on a network wide basis.
Thank you for your help in clarifying this.
PS. I understand that this belongs to the WG/IDNABIS scope, but does not affect the text of the protocol vehicle. If not, we should organise another mailing list to discuss it, or use one of ours (ICANN or workon at idna2010.org<mailto:workon at idna2010.org>)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Idna-update