Re: [gnso-idn-wg] Unified rules within a DNS subtree

["Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

>  I was responding Cary's comment that they
> > > only way to have a rule like "single script" work for an entire
> > > subtree is to have the entire subtree maintained within a single
> > > registry, and I was suggesting contractual enforcement, culture, etc.
> > > could also be used.
> >
> >
Yes, I am fully for this Steve,( as I suported it in the call by saying it
was a good
compromise, when Subbiah made the original recommendation), ie. generally
maybe necessary and that the applicant on a case-by-case will be generously
awarded what they need, without going to hunderds of scripts. (at the
enforceable
levels - 1st, 2nd and in some cases the 3rd etc).  And that it should just
simply
be made into a passive guidleines recommendation but a requirement to the
applicant in strong enforeacble contracts. (which Werner suggested). At  the

unenforceable levels, it should be a strong best practice recomendation
mentioned in the contract. The genreal idea is to prevent in the future,
hundreds of scripts and all manner of mixing them under single TLDs and
limit it to only a small handful of mixing based on local community needs as

requested by applicant.


On 07/03/07, Steve Crocker <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> I was also including in my thinking the possibility of having even
> stronger contractual controls for all subordinate levels in newly
> created TLDs if that turns out to be desirable.  I'm not necessarily
> advocating this approach.  I was responding Cary's comment that they
> only way to have a rule like "single script" work for an entire
> subtree is to have the entire subtree maintained within a single
> registry, and I was suggesting contractual enforcement, culture, etc.
> could also be used.
>
> Steve
>
> Steve Crocker
> steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Try Shinkuro's collaboration technology.  Visit www.shinkuro.com.  I
> am steve!shinkuro.com.
>
>
> On Mar 7, 2007, at 1:26 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>
> > Hello Steve,
> >
> >>
> >> Responding to your point on the call, I think it's feasible
> >> to have a
> >> uniform set of rules, e.g. single script adherence, imposed on an
> >> entire hierarchy even if the hierarchy is administered by multiple
> >> zone administrators, but it means using contracts and strong
> >> community enforcement instead of only mechanical checking.
> >>
> >
> >
> > It is really a balance between contractual enforcement and best
> > practice.
> >
> > For gTLDs:
> >
> > - top level - ICANN contractual term with registry operator
> >
> > - second level  - ICANN contractual term with registry operator
> >
> > - third and lower level - best practice/education
> >
> > (note that some TLDs like .name do support third level directly at the
> > registry, and hence compliance could be managed at that level)
> >
> >
> > For ccTLDs:
> >
> > - top level - ICANN contractual term with registry operator
> >
> > - second level - best practice/education
> >
> > - third and lower level -  - best practice/education
> >
> >
> > To some degree application software can also highlight issues - e.g
> > display a warning when mixed scripts are detected etc.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bruce Tonkin
> >
> >