Re: [registrars] IDN Representative
Good to hear your comments.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <email@example.com>
To: "Edmon Chung" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
> > - open standard protocol
> > - transition strategy that takes into consideration current installed
> > - fully functional multilingual domain names
> > - character equivalence mapping (Charprep) enabled for continued
> > user-friendliness
> > - registry responsibility to provide charprep information and support
> > - clear indication and specification of charprep support for registrars
> > implement
> > I look forward to any feedback, comments or concerns anyone may have,
> > represent the constituency well.
> First, I'm not sure where everyone else stands on this, or even if that's
> what you meant, but I would hardly qualify Verisign's test-bed and other
> similarly ill-conceived experiments on live subjects to be an "installed
> base". As I've said a couple of times, that's my personal view...
I wont view VGRS's testbed as "installed base" because it is a testbed, this
goes to all other "testbeds" or "experiments" as well. I think I am more
concerned about the production systems around the world as well as the
installed base of existing DNS applications.
> Second, I would strongly urge our representatives to look at this problem
> from a highly international standpoint - with the perspective of languages
> and Unicode imposed realities, and not necessarily that of countries and
> governments. Creative solutions will be continue to be required to ensure
> that we see an implementation that truly lives up to the standards of the
> work done within the IETF.
Absolutely. I have been working with the initiatives around the Traditional
Chinese/Simplified Chinese as well as CJK (Chinese, Japanese & Korean)issues
and have also worked on a character equivalence table for what I call LGC
(Latin, Greek & Cyrillic) charprep mapping. So you are right, and that is
my point on maintaining the user-friendliness of multilingual domain names
(ie. what you see what you get).
> Lastly, please try to consider not so much what impact current
> registry/registrar technologies will have on committee's recommendations,
> but rather what impact the committee's recommendations will have on
> registry/registrar technologies. The difference is slight, but I strongly
> believe that the former approach will allow the GNSO to progressively
> appropriate plans that benefits industry over the long term. Thinking
> the former lines will simply shackle our approach to "what is palatable"
> registries and registrars over the short term and restrict our options to
> those precious few afforded us by test-beds that we had little or no
> formative input into.
Yup. This would be my position too.
> Best wishes in this important endeavour.