RE: [jig] Getting started

["Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stephane

 

To me it becomes hard to separate the acceptance at the technical level from
acceptance for implementation within the international community.  Simply,
if an entity cannot feel that it can reliably and securely support
implementation of IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs till integration tools are
generally available, they may lack critical global support for full
integration into the Internet for some.  Yes we will resolve this, but
availability of appropriate support tools and processes will be critical to
early acceptance.  

 

Keep in mind that vendors are implementing blocking capabilities directed at
IDNs.  I don?t like this and I?d certainly prefer good tools to support IDN
integration; but I understand the concern of various entities that they may
not have the tools they need to provide the reliability and security to
incorporate IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs into their infrastructure that their
users require.

 

Take care

Terry

 

From: owner-jig@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-jig@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane
Van Gelder
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 1:05 AM
To: Edmon Chung
Cc: jig@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [jig] Getting started

 

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