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

[Steve Crocker <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sophia, and others:

At the risk of stirring up unnecessary controversy, let me press on  
the specific point I have in mind to see whether we have the same model.

In my mind, I make a large distinction between existing TLDs and new  
TLDs.  Existing TLDs are governed by an existing set rules.  In  
particular, the existing TLD administrators, particularly the  
existing gTLD administrators, have little control over the lower  
levels.  I operate shinkuro.com, and if I choose to create a third  
level name which is a mixture of many scripts, I'm free to do so.

On the other hand, it seems to me we have the option of having a  
different set of rules to govern new TLDs, if we think there's a good  
reason for there to be different rules.  It was with this assumption  
that I replied to Cary that it might be possible to use contractual  
and other means, not just a unified zone, to enforce a rule about the  
use of scripts in lower levels.  Thus, the picture I have in mind is  
all levels would be enforceable for new TLDs, if that's the direction  
that's adopted.

I'm not saying whether this is a good or bad idea.  I was merely  
putting forth an alternative means of accomplishing the enforcement  
of a rule like "single script" as a reply to Cary's note that it  
would be necessary to implement all levels within a single zone.  As  
I said, this wouldn't apply to any existing TLD.  Similarly, Cary's  
comment about having all levels within a single zone would only be  
possible for a new TLD.


Thanks,

Steve

Steve Crocker
steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Try Shinkuro's collaboration technology.  Visit www.shinkuro.com.  I  
am steve!shinkuro.com.


On Mar 7, 2007, at 12:53 PM, Sophia B wrote:

> 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
> >
> >