Esszett, Final Sigma, ZWJ and ZWNJ

Paul Hoffman phoffman at imc.org
Mon Feb 23 20:49:00 CET 2009


At 2:30 PM -0500 2/23/09, John C Klensin wrote:
>--On Monday, February 23, 2009 13:06 +0100 Cary Karp
><ck at nic.museum> wrote:
>
>>...
>>> That's of course possible. But that basically means asking to
>>> pay again for something that the registrant thought they
>>> already had as part of their registration.
>>
>> Who said anything about multiple billing?  And, yet again,
>> what makes that a protocol-level concern?
>
>Just to explain that a bit further, of the domains I'm aware of
>that have implemented some sort of variant/ bundling strategy,
>some reserve the extra names and charge full price if they are
>registered (by the bundle owner), others reserve but charge a
>reduced price because the names are not available to others,
>others provision the extra names away for free because it isn't
>the registrant's fault that variants are generated, still others
>use variants and bundles only to block, and so on.    It is
>probably the case that all of the possible options are already
>deployed.
>
>Given that, any specific recommendation we would make would
>essentially require specifying a particular business practice.
>I don't think we want to go there.  I hope others don't either.

I certainly don't. But I'm not sure that your explanation is relevant. Do any of the domains that you are aware of bundle *after* a registrant has one name? That is, a registrant registers one name, the transaction is finished, and five years later the registry decides that the registered name is now part of a bundle and therefore takes one of the above actions.

I am not aware of any such domains, but you might be.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list