PostWG IDNA2008 implementation, transition and deployment document preparation

jean-michel bernier de portzamparc jmabdp at
Thu Dec 17 16:59:14 CET 2009

Dear Vint,
I am sorry if I conflate Cary's role. I am not used to ICANN (I do not even
use root servers) and try to be as correct and open as I can, also to
clarify what is everyone's scope and duty to the Internet users. I would
hate to create confusion. This is why I asked if Tina Dam should not answer?
I am also suggested to copy Bart Bowsinkle and Thomas Narten to get better

2009/12/17 Vint Cerf <vint at>

> 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 apparatus.
> IANA gets inputs from ICANN policy-development and from IETF. We hope these
> are not in conflict.

My only fear (from Cary's remark) is that what I have accepted to undertake
in good faith could be in conflict sometime with others. I want to be sure
it will not be the case. Who is the ICANN policy-development Manager or ITEF
person who can best advise me ? The workon mailing list is currently
moderated in order to avoid a wrong mission creep, but subscribers comes in.
We want to advise people to best use IDNA2008 (in the hope it is quickly
approved) not to oppose anyone.

However, we already have participants complaining they are prevented to do
so by ICANN. I try understand how. And how to best support the testing they
want to initiate.Or to best handle the problem so we stay on a pure
technical track. I was advised that technically the best was to stick to
RFCs and to what ICANN and IETF signed, or ask for it to be updated. I
accepted such an advise as wise.

Thanks for the help


> vint
> On Dec 17, 2009, at 9:52 AM, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote:
> 2009/12/17 Cary Karp <ck at>
>> > I have however a question: .MUSEUM is an ASCII extension
>> > which has no right to contribute to FAST TRACK. I also understand this
>> > is true for ASCII ccTLDs and IDNgTLDs (existing ones or projected ones).
>> > 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
>> whatsoever.
> 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 document.
> 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 final."
> "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 allocations.)."
> 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.
> Portzamparc.
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Idna-update mailing list