RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Tagged Names Report

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike,
 
The U-Label will not be authoritative; the A-Label will be.
 
Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it 
is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and 
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, 
distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the 
original transmission." 
 


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
        Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 11:56 AM
        To: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Tagged Names Report
        
        

        I imagine (without any real knowledge…) that Tokyo and Beijing could be 
represented differently in those scripts.  What happens when there is more than 
one appropriate U-label?  Is this where we employ the “one string per 
application” rule, and any other strings would be confusingly similar and 
therefore not allowable?   Or, could the applicant have several variants all 
resolving to the same xn-TLD?  

         

        The latter seems to make sense to me to maximize the utility of the 
TLD, but that would mean that Verisign probably ought to get .comm or .com with 
an umlaut?

         

        Mike Rodenbaugh

        Sr. Legal Director

        Yahoo! Inc.

         

        NOTICE:  This communication is confidential and may be protected by 
attorney-client and/or work product privilege.  If you are not the intended 
recipient, please notify me by reply, and delete this communication and any 
attachments.

        
________________________________


        From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 7:35 AM
        To: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] Tagged Names Report

         

        Here is the final version of the second recommendation for the Tagged 
Names Report.  It is now ready for full WG approval:

         

        For each IDN gTLD proposed, applicant must provide both the "ASCII 
compatible encoding"  (“A-label”) and the “Unicode display form” 
(“U-label”)[1][1].  For example:

        *       If the Chinese word for ‘Beijing’ is proposed as a new gTLD, 
the applicant would be required to provide the A-label (xn--1lq90i) and the 
U-label (北京). 

        *       If the Japanese word for ‘Tokyo’ is proposed as a new gTLD, the 
applicant would be required to provide the A-label (xn--1lqs71d) and the 
U-label (東京). 

         The will send the full report later.

        
        

        
________________________________


         

        Chuck Gomes

         

        "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, 
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized 
use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received 
this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the 
original transmission." 

         


________________________________

        [1][1] Internet Draft IDNAbis Issues: 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-idnabis-issues-01.txt 
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-idnabis-issues-01.txt>  (J. 
Klensin), Section 3.1.1.1