Proposed Charter for the IDNAbis Working Group

Gervase Markham gerv at
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.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list