[Fwd: [council] [Fwd: IDN's moving forward]]
Please thank your colleges at Verisign for listening to the calls to
delay the deployment date (from May 31st) for Resolution Phase 3.3 of
the IDN programme to allow for more consultation to until June 19th....
so we can discuss in Stockholm.
Can you tell us what is going on here??
Why is action being suggested just days before the Stockholm meeting?
Can you please delay this a few days until we have had chance to discuss at
Last I heard Versign was willing to cooperate with the IETF process, - what is
the IETF's position on this - have they choses BQ--******* I had heard an
alternative to BQ wuld be introduced??
The implications for IDN name holders are substantial.... I hope you will give
us the opportunity to discuss...
"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> > What survey??
> For reference I've archived copies of the original survey and ensuing
> correspondence @ http://www.byte.org/vgrs-idn/versign-idn-survey-052301.pdf
> > Did a significant number of registrars participate and give it
> > the green light?
> Unknown. The "official" story would indicate this, but there is no
> transparency to the proceedings which conceivably puts VRSN in the position
> to self-determine and self-interpret the results of the survey. From the
> responses that I've received thus far, there is no clear consensus on these
> points which, in my mind, indicates that this merits further discussion and
> *not* immediate action.
> > Is this deviating from teh work of the IETF?
> Completely. This "test-bed" has been a contentious issue between the IETF
> and VRSN since day one. John Klensin personally spoke out about the issues
> that this test-bed raises at the November ICANN meeting.
> > Is this something the NC reps should take up with ICANN??
> Quite possibly. See below...
> > What course of action would you suggest?
> I'm not sure yet. As I mentioned in my original message, this might simply
> be a case where Tucows adopted a minority position and in fact VRSN's
> statements does indeed reflect the wishes of the test-bed registrars. It
> does not however reflect the wishes or consensus position of the DNSO
> Registrars constituency or registrants in general because they were never
> formally consulted in any meaningful way. Most appropriate first steps I
> believe, would be to discover whether or not the survey results are
> representative of the wishes of the registrar community.