Consensus Call Tranche 8 Summary - Addendum

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Wed Oct 22 15:53:25 CEST 2008


John,
I agree with most of what you say, but for the reasons I gave I 
consider Martin's suggestion as a necessity. This could be 
implemented in having two classes ccTLD tables. First class the 
current table, second class as the historic/reserved characters as 
considered by the TLD Manager.
jfc


At 14:53 22/10/2008, John C Klensin wrote:


>--On Tuesday, 21 October, 2008 17:21 +0900 Martin Duerst
><duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> >...
> > One idea I just had was to create a category HISTORIC.
> > While this category would be equivalent to PROTOCOL-VALID
> > for the protocol, it would clearly give some information
> > to registries out there. Because it would not mean any
> > decision with regards to protocol, it might be easier
> > for us to come forward with some guidelines on what
> > to put into HISTORIC, easier than it was with MAYBE
> > and friends. Just an idea. And it wouldn't help for
> > the Greek final Sigma, but it would send a signal for
> > Hangul and other scripts.
>
>Martin,
>
>Whatever  the other advantages or disadvantages of this
>approach, I believe that:
>
>         (i) The now-long-dead idea of "MAYBE NO" was intended to
>         serve the role of "usable if needed and should be
>         resolved, but should not be permitted by registries
>         unless there were special needs".  The conclusion was
>         that it was too hard to define properly and too
>         uncertain to be practical.  While I'm not sure that
>         decision was optimal, I hope we do not have to revisit
>         it and do not believe its possible advantages are worth
>         the time that discussing it and trying to specify it
>         would cost us.
>
>         (ii) As we have seen in earlier discussions,
>         perspectives on what is and is not historic differ,
>         partially because of the existence of scholarly
>         communities that might consider labels to have helpful
>         and obvious mnemonic value even though the associated
>         scripts have not been used to represent anyone's first
>         language in tens of centuries.  While we often assume
>         that those cases would mostly occur in the third level
>         of the tree and below, the current documents carefully
>         do not distinguish among registries at various levels of
>         the tree (a characteristic that I believe is very
>         important and that, given the DNAME-related issues that
>         have been problematic for some Bidi approaches, possibly
>         an absolute necessity).  And, fwiw, nothing in the
>         current ICANN rules other than the need to raise the
>         money would prevent a community from proposing a TLD
>         for, e.g., .HITTITE in the appropriate script.
>
>There is an existing, long-standing but non-protocol,
>recommendation to registries, which is that it is a bad idea to
>register labels that use any script that they do not fully
>understand.  For most registries and obvious reasons, that
>recommendation subsumes "be careful with Historic scripts or
>characters".   I believe that recommendation is common sense,
>although a hypothetical particularly greedy registry or
>registrar might not agree.  If people feel that recommendation
>should be made explicit in the documents somewhere, please
>suggest text and where to put it.
>
>       john
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Idna-update mailing list
>Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update



More information about the Idna-update mailing list