Re: [jig] Getting started

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I think it might be better called global interoperability for IDNxTLDS.

Though in order to bother implementing/deploying/replacing an application that 
supports these new IDNxTLDs, one does need to accept that there is a reason to 
do so.  This is going to get into the sticky issue of market reason to bother, 
just like IPv6, people will need so see an incentive for changing all of the 
code they run.

I am not sure, though, what part of this is an ICANN issue.  Not saying it 
isn't, just not sure I understand why it would be.

IETF needs to make sure that the protocol standards worked.
ICANN needs to make sure all of the policy issue related to stability and 
security of the DNS are in place.

Especially with regard to IDNccTLDs, which are the only ones that will exist 
for the first while, the sponsors of those IDNccTLDS will have the market 
imperative of making sure they work in their market area  - which one can 
assume is primarily in country.

a.

On 27 Nov 2009, at 04:05, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> Thanks Edmon,
> 
> Are you talking about universal acceptance solely at the technical level?
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 27 nov. 2009 à 04:23, Edmon Chung a écrit :
> 
>> This sounds like a good conversation and one other clear item of common 
>> interest between IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs is the acceptance of IDN TLDs by 
>> systems around the world.  ICANN has been working on the universal 
>> acceptance of TLDs: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/TLD-acceptance/
>>  
>> This issue would clearly be heightened when IDN TLDs are introduced.
>>  
>> Perhaps one of the items this group can discuss is the universal acceptance 
>> of IDN TLDs.
>>  
>> Edmon
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: owner-jig@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-jig@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Terry L 
>> Davis, P.E.
>> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 5:03 AM
>> To: 'Andrei Kolesnikov'; jig@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [jig] Getting started
>>  
>> Andrei
>>  
>> I think your suggestions are probably critical to success.
>>  
>> Fahd, As the different entities begin to plan on their implementations and 
>> script standards, I would encourage all to consider the difficulties of 
>> managing spelling/script differences to such critical items such as:
>> -          Firewalls
>> -          Anti-virus
>> -          Load balancers
>> -          Virtualized services
>> -          Replication services
>> -          Etc
>>  
>> Getting the standardized and certified tools to manage these will be made 
>> more challenging by variations in the scripts especially if the tools must 
>> discriminate by the TLD of the domain name as to how they convert the IDN 
>> names.
>>  
>> Remember that the “Puny code” name translations as stored in the DNS are 
>> unintelligible to anyone, regardless of your native script.  So good tools 
>> will be critical to full functionality.
>>  
>> Take care
>> Terry
>>  
>> From: owner-jig@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-jig@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrei 
>> Kolesnikov
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:09 PM
>> To: jig@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [jig] Getting started
>>  
>> Fahd,
>>  
>> Just a common sense thought – less mixing of the various scripts, the easier 
>> way to launch gTLDs. One of the core success factors of Fast Track is the 
>> script restriction. If talking about Latin .arab TLD, you may find the 
>> comfortable situation in case where there is no Latin allowed for second 
>> level domains, only IDNs, let it be even extended script table, including 
>> all scripts you’ve mentioned. You may find useful the same trick for any 
>> Arabic .IDN – prohibit Latin script for the second level.
>> The pressure to gNSO and new gTLDs has a name. This is big businesses and 
>> trademarks from the Latin-script world and there is nothing wrong with it. 
>> But this pressure can be minimized by restriction for two forms of IDNs:
>> -          Only IDN second level domains in new latin gTLDs;
>> -          No Latin second level domains in new IDN gTLDs.
>>  
>> So, this is  question of  smart combination of Latin and other scripts. Kind 
>> of “Fast Barak” (baracca, Italian – fast construction of the building). This 
>> can go as a discussion sub-topic for already mentioned.
>>  
>> If to apply for gTLDs in Cyrillic and understanding of the reality with TM 
>> protection in Russia (and Cyrillic-use countries), I would recommend any 
>> applicant to restrict gTLD only to Cyrillic and second/third/etc domains to 
>> Cyrillic script only.
>> “Big Cyrillic” is larger than Russian one, but it’s OK.
>>  
>> --andrei
>>  
>> From: owner-jig@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-jig@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Fahd A. 
>> Batayneh
>> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 3:01 PM
>> To: jig@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [jig] Getting started
>>  
>> Hi Edmon,
>> 
>> With respect to your first question, I would suggest discussing both items 
>> since they might be of use to the IDN community.
>> 
>> With regards to the Arabic script in specific and whether policies should be 
>> applied alike for cc's and g's, my answer is NO! Since the Arabic script 
>> consists of Arabic, Urdu, Farsi, Jawi, and Turkish languages, each community 
>> can devise their own language table for their cc. However, as for g's, and 
>> since various countries using the same script might require different 
>> variants or digits, a different script table would be used. For example, we 
>> in Jordan are going to use only the Arabic alphabets we use as an Arabic 
>> speaking community with no diacritics or variants. Also, we will prohibit 
>> digit mixing since digit mixing is not required. However, as for the Arabic 
>> table devised for registering the .arab domain (for the entire Arab region 
>> in Arabic), we might require some variants and some possible digit mixing!
>> 
>> We could discuss this issue further in our next telephonic conference or 
>> f-2-f meeting.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> -- FAB
>> Sent from Amman, Jordan
>> 
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Edmon Chung <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Fahd,
>>  
>> From your explanation, can I understand it to be interest to add an item for 
>> discussion on one or both of:
>> - IDN language table/policy at the root for IDN TLD strings
>> - Consistency of language table/policy applied for 2nd/3rd level domain 
>> registrations across TLDs
>>  
>> I understand that you are talking specifically about the Arabic script, am 
>> trying to generalize what you are saying into an item for discussion for 
>> this group.
>>  
>> With regards to Arabic script specifically, can you share with us perhaps 
>> whether you think that the policies should be applied across ccTLDs and 
>> gTLDs alike when Arabic IDNs are concerned? and why...
>>  
>> The JIG is intended to be a group to discuss issues that are common (or 
>> should be viewed as common or leads to an inter-relation) across IDN ccTLDs 
>> and IDN gTLDs.  Especially policy implementation issues at the root and 
>> those which ICANN (or IANA for that matter) would concern itself with in 
>> coordinating the security and stability of the DNS.  [[Others please correct 
>> or add to this :-)]]
>>  
>> Edmon
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: Fahd A. Batayneh [mailto:fahd.batayneh@xxxxxxxxx] 
>> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 2:25 PM
>> To: Edmon Chung
>> Cc: jig@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [jig] Getting started
>>  
>> Greetings Edmon and Members of the JIG working group,
>> 
>> First of all, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Fahd, and I represent 
>> JO (Jordan). I am one of the additions from the ccNSO.
>> 
>> Since I am a member of the Arabic Script community, one challenge we are 
>> facing is the issue of digit mixing. Other issues that have been discussed 
>> and resolvedare the usage of diacritics, as well as zero-width joiners and 
>> zero-width non-joiners.
>> 
>> Since I am not aware of other scripts or languages other than the Arabic 
>> script, and since I am not sure if the items I mentioned are of concern to 
>> this working group, just thought of bringing them up in case...
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> -- FAB
>> Sent from Amman, Jordan
>> 
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Edmon Chung <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Everyone,
>> 
>> I understand that the ccNSO representatives along with some observers are 
>> added to this list, and we are ready to get started finally :-)
>> 
>> One of the discussions we had in Seoul (during the GNSO/ccNSO launch) was 
>> that we anticipate the release of a report from the staff IDN team shortly 
>> (regarding IDN TLD length and variant management). It may be useful for this 
>> group to observe some of the outcomes from that effort as well.
>> 
>> I wonder if anyone can provide some update on the release of that report?
>> 
>> Based on previous discussions the 2 items that we have identified as items 
>> of common interest were in fact:
>> 1. Length of IDN TLD strings (ccTLD vs. gTLD)
>> 2. Variant implementation at the root (for IDN TLD strings)
>> 
>> Does anyone have any suggestion on other potential items to discuss?
>> 
>> Edmon
>>  
>