Another Transition Plan Proposal

Cary Karp ck at
Fri Dec 11 13:33:57 CET 2009

>> The gTLD registry constituency, which is both all-inclusive and bound
>> by ICANN's IDN guidelines, is preparing a joint statement about this. (We
> I suppose I simply must point out that the RyC (or RySG) does not
> include registry operators, except those which happen to also be parties
> to registry contracts.

People who are directly involved in the establishment of IDN policies at
all of the gTLD registries, or who have immediate access to those policy
makers and speak on their behalf, meet in telephonic conference once
every two weeks. There is no comparably inclusive forum for the ccTLDs.

A sizable fraction of the total number of zones in which IDN labels are
likely to appear are rooted in gTLDs. A coordinated statement provided
by that gTLD forum ought therefore to be of easy utility in gauging the
way w.g. efforts are perceived by the administrators of that segment of
the namespace.

I am a tad concerned about the lesser degree of representativity of the
ccTLDs in the present discussion, despite the number of them that are
contributing individually. I take this as all the more reason for us to
abstain from trying to devise broad-based pre- and proscriptive measures
to be applied in local contexts about which we, quite simply, know nothing.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list