Registry restrictions

[JFC Morfin]

>>On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 09:42:26PM +0100, Gervase Markham 
>><gerv at mozilla.org> wrote a message of 19 lines which said:
>>>Which I think leads to a useful principle. We can "safely" leave 
>>>to registries any action, the failure to do which will impact only 
>>>that registry or its customers. They have full permission to 
>>>shoot  themselves in the foot. We should embed in the protocol any 
>>>safety measure or restriction which, if not followed, allows a 
>>>registry to shoot other registries or their customers in the foot.

>>.At 02:11 06/05/2008, JFC Morfin wrote:
>>Nobody gives them permission or says it is legal or illegal. They 
>>have no permisssion to shoot themsekves in the foot, they have the 
>>right and the capability to do it. The role of the IETF is only to 
>>"influence the people who design, use and manage the internet for 
>>it to work better". That infuence can be positive if they accept 
>>its constraints. It can also be negative if it goes too far for 
>>them to accept its constraints. The target is to permit adherence 
>>to something because everyone can accept it as reasonable in one's real life.

>On May 6, 2008, at 8:58 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>>Nice on paper but not realistic. We do not prevent (in the DNS 
>>standard) ".cm" for adding a wildcard which allow them to 
>>typosquatt ".com". Why should we prevent them from registering some 
>>IDN domain names?
>>
>>The whole discussion seems to imply that the IETF is a sort of 
>>Internet police in charge of protecting the poor users against 
>>unspecified dangers. This directly leads to a dangerous hubris (and 
>>it is also a direct violation of the charter).

At 15:32 06/05/2008, Vint Cerf wrote:
>I do not agree with this assessment. The purpose behind the 
>standards is to try to reduce the likelihood of harmful registrations and to
>maximize the benefit of IDN use. We plainly are drawing a line 
>between the use of the standards for this purpose and the 
>recommendation that other kinds of protection (restriction) be 
>left  to registries to implement.

In such a case this should be implemented in the operational 
algorithm being used. Not in Unicode related "How To". Or , if IETF 
does not want to do more, it should publish this as "Best Practices"

The OETF Internet standard process practice helped me indentifying 
between technoethics (a good way to use technology) and ethitechnics 
(a science to develop a technology which is to do good things). 
Ethitechnics is something most of the SSDOs lack, but some people and 
poliics start being interested. Says Lessig, the internet 
constitution is in its source code. This means in the RFCs so far. In 
an increasing manner the "Internet constitution" becomes the world's 
constitution, as the WSIS shows it. In the IETF's perspective of this 
world constitution (RFC 3935), IDNA is the most visible and key 
aspect. Specifying it, is no small task, with no small impact, and a 
total lack of representative control friom the people being impacted. 
"For the people, without the people".

This is why, to give it the best chance to succeed (i.e. being 
locally accepted everywhere (the way we understand the word "global") 
and used without creating conflicts),

- the proposition must be compact, robust and totally fool proof (vs. 
phishers and zone manager of any level). This will be a job for the 
hackers to check.

- it must be acceptable to all. This is why there are ISOC France and 
france at large people on this list to help when they are asked if they 
understand the questions, as far as French and Languages of France 
are concerned (one of our motivations is to understand why AFNIC has 
not implemented IDNA yet, as there is an on going Government 
consultation on AFNIC future [much like the JPA in the USA] we have 
to anwer). I understand that French locutors are not the only lurkers 
on this list with this positive spirit.

jfc