looking up domain names with unassigned code points
jefsey at jefsey.com
Mon May 12 03:50:55 CEST 2008
At 02:35 12/05/2008, Vint Cerf wrote:
>Jefsey, I think what John meant is that the RFCs did not impose the
>restriction, ICANN did.
Sure. ".su" is a ccTLD. They do not refer to the IETF who refused to
enter into an MoU with them over the matter (cf. Brian Carpenter's
response to my invitation to attend the ccTLD Meeting in Luxembourg
to investigate it - it was well timed with the NTIA principles). They
refer to the "serious confusion and/or Fud" introduced by ICANN.
This means that the very disappointing outcome damaging the
WG-IDNABIS efforts to make the Internet a less confusing place in
which to operate comes from ICANN. This is why I would advocate a
crash meeting in Paris end of june to have ccTLDs, ICANN, IETF
WG-IDNABIS to settle a common road map for the implementation of
IDNA. I know that this is a very short notice but, again, I think
that Beijin Olympic Games will show the non-ASCII world how every
Chinese athlete has a Chinese name web site and mail. If there is no
consensual road-map by then I am afraid it will be very difficult to
prevent as a result a non-coordinated ML-DNS deployment. It will take
some time after decisions will be taken. So, we might consider that
they could mushroom in Falls 2009. Not necessarily a good timing for ICANN.
Up to you to decide.
More information about the Idna-update