Re: [alac] Updated terms of reference for IDN-gTLDs policy development

["Hong Xue" <hongxueipr@xxxxxxxxx>]

The IDN-PAC has decided in Marrakech that the IDN test will be limited to NS
record. The DNAME is actually off the test agenda (see the timetable I sent
to the list). In the experiment, there will only be an analysis on
possibility of DNAME.  So, DNAME won't go real at least in the test. But
still we'd better keep on eye on the IDN PDP in the GNSO. We don't know
whether the GNSO will be bound by the test arrangment or test result of the
IDN-PAC.

Reservation could be a solution but the key issue is how to set the
criteria-how to decide a term in a lingustic string other than Latin is
"semantic" to an existing TLD, such as "com". Should it be more than
visually (graphically) similar?

Hong



On 7/30/06, John L <johnl@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > "Determining that a proposed new IDN label is adequately differentiated
> > from a pre-existing label requires comparison in graphic, phonetic, and
> > semantic terms."
>
> > We don't know what was in the mind of those drafters when "Semantic
> terms"
> > were used. It'd be very unpredictable if it means
> > translations/transliterations of the pre-existing labels.
>
> In view of the proposed DNAME experiment, I think we can assume that the
> intention is to reserve every name that means something like commercial,
> organization, network, business, information, travel, and the names of
> every other TLD.  It's not clear to me whether this would mean that VRSN
> would get every translation of .COM as a synonym for .COM, as separate
> TLDs, as reserved names not available, or what.
>
> Personally, I think this is a rathole, other than perhaps forbidding TLDs
> with names that are visually identical to other TLDs.
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl@xxxxxxxx, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
> Dummies",
> Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor
> "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.