PostWG IDNA2008 implementation, transition and deployment document preparation

jean-michel bernier de portzamparc jmabdp at
Sun Dec 20 20:24:09 CET 2009

sorry to have been slow in answering this. We had extensive discussions
about all this. You will see the mail I also send tonight.

1) we do not think that ICANN guidelines can be for all.
2) some of the participants do not accept the "IDNccTLD" and "future gTLDs"
3) we are sorry, but we work openly in the IETF framework which is open to
every individuals. So, I cannot contact you in private or phone you on
something the Chair consider as a wider and more open forum than this WG.

However, I am sure that we will find a way to cooperate for the good of the
Internet Users.
All the best

2009/12/17 Tina Dam <tina.dam at>

> Just a quick note on this:
> I hope it is clear to everyone that the Fast Track Process is one process
> for IDN TLDs. Idns also obviously exists at lower levels and in the future
> for top level gltds, etc.
> So the idn guidelines is for all and not "just" the Fast Track.
> If anyone has questions on how the Fast Track or other IDN or ICANN related
> matters please contact me directly. I will make sure you get all the
> information needed and then you can assess how/if it relates to the idna
> work.
> Tina
> ------------------------------
>  *From*: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <jmabdp at>
> *To*: Cary Karp <ck at>; Tina Dam
> *Cc*: IDNA update work <idna-update at>; IDNA2010 Documentation
> <workon at>
> *Sent*: Thu Dec 17 06:52:22 2009
> *Subject*: Re: PostWG IDNA2008 implementation, transition and deployment
> document preparation
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Idna-update mailing list