Re: [council] Motion on International Domain Names

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <vany@sdnp.org.pa>]

Elisabeth and all:

It was the addition I proposed to the IDN resolution considered?

Please, let me know.

Best Regards
Vany

--- Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Paul for seconding.
> 
> We need to provide many technical explanations,
> which are all
> very difficult - I count on you. You are so correct
> to restate
> the difficulties of bringing functionality to email
> and ftp with
> iDNs. 
> 
> The time is very short - if we want to have a chance
> to sent this
> motion to the Board before October 27th, we need to
> ask the NC 
> Members for their opinion. 
> The Secretariat will be sending shortly a ballot
> with Agree/Disagree/Abstain. I would appreciate to
> receive your answers
> s soon as possible (see deadline !).
> 
> To Caroline: this motion is intended to preserve
> interoperability
> and to not fragment the Internet, it is about all
> TLD, there is no
> distinction. The impact of IDN "testbed" is not
> related to the nature 
> of TLD.
> 
> Best regards,
> Elisabeth
> 
> 
> > From owner-council@dnso.org Thu Oct 25 20:17 MET
> 2001
> > Message-ID: <3BD8581A.451FBFAC@REACTO.com>
> > Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 19:21:14 +0100
> > From: "Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@reacto.com>
> > To: Elisabeth Porteneuve
> <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
> > CC: council@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [council] Motion on International
> Domain Names
> > 
> > I will second ....... on the basis that I believe
> the Constituencies need more
> > time to discuss the ramifications of allowing iDN
> resolution at the Second Level
> > to proceed without an IETF standard.
> > Please note I have no concerns with iDN resolving
> at the third level in testbed
> > mode, (which includes the Verisign initiative).
> > 
> > The climate today should be one of ensuring
> functionality and confidence in the
> > DNS system and it concerns me that the
> complications of bringing functionality
> > to email and ftp applications (excepting web
> traffic) to  iDNs is little
> > understood by the community.
> > 
> > Recognizing the appropriate body may be the ICANN
> Board, it could be that
> > Verisign themselves decide it is in their longer
> term interests that a small
> > delay in introducing (non-functional) iDNs at this
> stage, would be best served
> > by ensuring the functionality of iDNs before the
> "live" roll out (at a later
> > date).
> > 
> > Best
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
> > 
> > > Colleagues,
> > >
> > > It seems to me we have a stable text.
> > >
> > > I move the motion the Names Council passes the
> following resolution
> > > regarding International Domain Names, and
> forward it to the ICANN Board.
> > >
> > > Do I have a second ?
> > >
> > > Elisabeth
> > > --
> > >
> > > DRAFT names Council motion on IDN (final version
> v4).
> > >
> > > 1. Whereas the technical work by the IETF
> (Internet Engineering Task Force)
> > >    is at the basis of Internet developments, and
> recognized as
> > >    such by the worldwide community and by ICANN;
> > >
> > > 2. Whereas the IETF IDN (International Domain
> Names) engineers have
> > >    determined twelve items to be defined  at the
> technical level before
> > >    the ML (Multi-Lingual) domain names should be
> used in order to preserve
> > >    globally unique naming in a universally
> resolvable public name space;
> > >
> > > 3. Whereas only an important but insufficient
> element in the encoding scheme
> > >    has been published to date by the IETF and
> that element only as a draft;
> > >
> > > 4. Whereas there cannot be an open competition
> at an application level
> > >    without all the IDN specifications completed
> and published;
> > >
> > > 5. Whereas the deployment of IDN space in
> countries using non ASCII
> > >    characters is an order of magnitude higher
> than in
> > >    English-speaking countries, because  it
> impacts on inherent culture;
> > >
> > > 6. Whereas the introduction of IDN names must
> have careful,
> > >    worldwide coordination across all TLD space
> to avoid political battles,
> > >    a profusion of encoding prefixes and
> corresponding confusion;
> > >
> > > 7. Whereas it is critical to understand how the
> whois accessible
> > >    databases for IDN would function for gTLD and
> ccTLD alike;
> > >
> > > 8. Whereas the International Treaty
> Organizations, WIPO and ITU, are
> > >    planning a joint Symposium on Multilingual
> Domain Names in Geneva,
> > >    December 6 and 7, 2001;
> > >
> > > 9. Whereas the domain name system is a key
> infrastructure component
> > >    of the Internet and ICANN is committed to
> preserve the stability
> > >    and security of this worldwide resource;
> > >
> > > The Names Council advises that having multiple
> and non-interoperable
> > > implementations in the DNS has the potential to
> be harmful for the
> > > stability and securty of the DNS.
> > >
> > > The Names Council therefore calls upon the ICANN
> Board to take the
> > > necessary steps to delay the transformation of
> any TLD IDN "testbed"
> > > into active domain names in the Root until such
> time as the IETF
> > > standards be completed;
> > >
> > > --
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 317-0169
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
e-mail:  vany@sdnp.org.pa