Proposed Charter for the IDNAbis Working Group
vint at google.com
Wed Mar 26 12:54:06 CET 2008
no reasonable discussion will be out of bounds - this is a pretty
On Mar 26, 2008, at 7:49 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> 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