ICANN News Alert -- Status Update: IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Implementation

Andrew Sullivan ajs at shinkuro.com
Tue Sep 15 12:00:40 CEST 2009

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:42:18PM +0530, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> for IETF to produce it, a consolidated IETF report is essential. If we make

The IETF produces its "consolidated reports" in the form of the actual
protocols it produces.  If there were more to say than the words that
are in the RFCs, then the RFCs would be longer.  If there were _less_
to say about the topic than are in the RFCs, then the RFCs would (in
some cases mercifully) be shorter.

> request to this list is more in the nature of a question to IETF about what
> the IETF feels about the technical preparedness as also questions succh as

I don't know what that means, but if the IETF thinks the documents are
inadequate in some way, that will surely come up during last call.

> "Does IETF have any recommendation for 'technically-phasing' in IDN
> implementation?" for which the response can only come from the IETF.

I disagree.  That's a problem for implementers and deployers, not a
problem for protocol writers.  Implementers and deployers will need to
draw their own conclusions about how to phase in IDNA2008 support.
The documents as they stand explicitly recommend that registries form
policy about whether they will undertake this or that registration.
In some cases, such policies will naturally entail long phase-in
periods.  In other cases, the "switch" can be flipped at one point in


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.

More information about the Idna-update mailing list