RE: Mississippi Hißes

[Alexander Mayrhofer]

> > That seems to be headed down a garden path that wouldn't 
> really serve anybody well.
> > So Stewart & Stevenson: http://www.ssss.com/
> > would then automatically trigger the bundling of what? 
> ßss.com, sßs.com, sß.com, and ßß.com? Does anybody really 
> want to go there?
> > What about some snake afficionadoes who decide to register 
> hissssssssss.com?

Even worse, bundling introduces a lot of side effects on registry processes, and make all those processes harder to understand for the registrant.

For example:

- what do you do when the registrant transfers one of the "bundled" domains to a different registrar? 
- When he changes ownership of one of the bundled domains? 
- When he re-delegates just one out of the 8 bundled domains?  Do you "block" the transaction until the registrant has applied the same transaction to those other domains as well? 
- What do you do if the registrant cancels one domain out of the bundle? 
- What if he doesn't pay for one of them? 

(And that's the result of just 10 minutes of brainstorming...)

Therefore, it makes sense for registries to avoid bundling at almost any cost, and hence hissss.at and hißß.at should be two completely independent domains.

Which is just possible if mapping "ß" to "ss" stops as soon as IDNA2008 gains major deployment. Otherwise, we'll never ever get rid of the "tainting".

Alex