Proposed Charter for the IDNAbis Working Group
Gervase Markham
gerv at mozilla.org
Wed Mar 26 12:33:05 CET 2008
Vint Cerf wrote:
> This work will address stable and unambiguous IDN identifiers.
> There are a variety of unsolvable problems, notably the problem
> of characters that are confusingly similar in appearance (often
> known as the "phishing" problem) that are not part of the scope
> of the WG.
I entirely agree that it is not possible for this group to "solve" the
phishing problem. Any mitigation strategy will require changes at all
levels, not just that of the IDN protocols.
However, my understanding and hope is that IDNAbis will disallow, in
some way, a large number of characters which are not used in the
languages of the world but are permitted by the current "include unless
we thought of a reason to exclude" approach. What would be the rationale
for doing so if not as one of the many actions to be taken to mitigate
phishing?
Is excluding phishing from consideration entirely the right way to put
this? Do we not want something more like: "It is not within the
capabilities or scope of the WG to solve the phishing problem. However,
some changes which are considered to be helpful in working towards a
solution may be made."? (Or better words.)
Gerv
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list