PostWG IDNA2008 implementation, transition and deployment document preparation
vint at google.com
Thu Dec 17 15:59:14 CET 2009
IANA follows directions from IETF on the management of technical
parameters and tables.
ICANN has policy development mechanisms for the TLD's. IANA also
manages a set of tables specific to language and TLD at the request of
the ICANN Board.
Cary is serving ICANN in a policy development role.
You are conflating Cary's role as the manager of .MUSEUM and his role
at ICANN's invitation to serve as part of a policy-development
IANA gets inputs from ICANN policy-development and from IETF. We hope
these are not in conflict.
On Dec 17, 2009, at 9:52 AM, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote:
> 2009/12/17 Cary Karp <ck at nic.museum>
> > I have however a question: .MUSEUM is an ASCII extension
> > which has no right to contribute to FAST TRACK. I also understand
> > is true for ASCII ccTLDs and IDNgTLDs (existing ones or projected
> > This is surprising to me as the basis for transition rules can
> only be
> > in conformance with RFC 5226?
> Despite the question mark at the end of this, I'm afraid that I can't
> tell what the question is.
> Sorry, the implied question was "ist it, is it not?"
> .MUSEUM has not participated in the Fast Track process in any manner
> This is what I find surprising since (a) you are part of the team
> defining its guidelines, (b) I do not understand what .MUSEUM is no
> part of it (is there not a Chinese, a Greek, or a Russian name for
> "Museum"), why do we discuss the eszett if it cannot be part of
> FASTTRACK (c) this seems in opposition with the RFC 5226 first come,
> first serve rule?
> I cannot see any heading in RFC 5226 under which the ICANN IDN
> Guidelines fall. They are not protocols nor otherwise maintained as an
> RFC, and the IANA does not participate in their development.
> Then we have a misunderstanding to clarify concerning ICANN.
> As Internet Users we understand ICANN as the IANA Manager for names
> and numbers (RFC 2860: "The IANA technical team is now part of
> ICANN"). Contracts between ICANN Inc. and TLD Managers may have
> indirect impacts on people, but not on the Internet as defined in
> RFC 3935, i.e. the technology documented by the IETF that also apply
> to private networks.
> We therefore consider RFC 5226 (and before RFC 2424) as the
> architectural rule which relates IETF technology users and IANA and
> its names and number governance in the default presentation and
> Class IN: "In order for IANA to manage a given namespace prudently,
> it needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values
> can be assigned or when modifications to existing values can be
> made. If IANA is expected to play a role in the management of a
> namespace, IANA must be given clear and concise instructions
> describing that role. This document discusses issues that should be
> considered in formulating a policy for assigning values to a
> namespace and provides guidelines for authors on the specific text
> that must be included in documents that place demands on IANA."
> IDNA2008 places demand on IANA and constrains the use of the
> namespace that IANA has the primary mission to document and ICANN is
> establish to administrate in class IN. In this we understand we
> fully comply with ICANN published and reclaimed policy in its ICP-3
> I certainly understand that " It is recognized that ICANN may,
> through the IANA, provide similar services to other organisations
> with respect to protocols not within IETF's scope (i.e. registries
> not created by IETF or IRTF action); nothing in this MOU limits
> ICANN's ability to do so.". However, I understand that IDNA2008 is
> acknowledged by ICANN as part of the IETF scope.
> RFC 2860 acknowledges that :
> "If in doubt or in case of a technical dispute, IANA will seek and
> follow technical guidance exclusively from the IESG. Where
> appropriate the IESG will appoint an expert to advise IANA."
> " The IANA will work with the IETF to develop any missing criteria
> and procedures over time, which the IANA will adopt when so
> instructed by the IESG."
> "4.2. In the event of technical dispute between the IANA and the
> IESG, both will seek guidance from the IAB whose decision shall be
> "4.3. Two particular assigned spaces present policy issues in
> addition to the technical considerations specified by the IETF: the
> assignment of domain names, and the assignment of IP address blocks.
> These policy issues are outside the scope of this MOU."
> "Note that (a) assignments of domain names for technical uses (such
> as domain names for inverse DNS lookup), (b) assignments of
> specialised address blocks (such as multicast or anycast blocks),
> and (c) experimental assignments are not considered to be policy
> issues, and shall remain subject to the provisions of this Section
> 4. (For purposes of this MOU, the term "assignments" includes
> It seems that Tina should enlight us on the issue, so we understand
> well how every concerned one stands in regards of IDNA2008
> implempentation, transition and deployment on a network wide basis.
> Thank you for your help in clarifying this.
> PS. I understand that this belongs to the WG/IDNABIS scope, but does
> not affect the text of the protocol vehicle. If not, we should
> organise another mailing list to discuss it, or use one of ours
> (ICANN or workon at idna2010.org)
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Idna-update