Proposed Charter for the IDNAbis Working Group
Gervase Markham
gerv at mozilla.org
Wed Mar 26 12:49:40 CET 2008
Vint Cerf wrote:
> point taken. Honestly, the phishing problem has so many faces that the
> "confusingly similar character" version is one of many. Because the
> proposed documents for IDNAbis place a lot of responsibility on the
> registries to introduce additional restrictions that may be
> language/culture specific, it seems that this is where the bulk of the
> defense is likely to lie.
I agree; allowing particular registries to define policies within the
limited sets they allow is the best way to be flexible.
However, I don't want to have to have the "why are you allowing
line-drawing and other non-letters in your IDNs?" - "Er, it's a business
differentiator" conversation with 50 different registries.
I guess my main concern is that if I bring up a phishing-related point
in the discussion, it's not going to be immediately discounted with
"Check the charter - phishing is out of scope". If you are assuring me
that's not the case, then that's fine.
Gerv
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list