Proposed Charter for the IDNAbis Working Group

[Vint Cerf]

no reasonable discussion will be out of bounds - this is a pretty  
complicated area.

v

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.
>
> Gerv