Re: [alac-admin] IDN
On 2004-11-28 18:31:17 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> The problem is that here we have a very peculiar situation, in
> which the existing domain (e.g. liberte.com) is actually the typo
> for the new one (liberté) - so the person who would now get the
> IDN version would basically turn the existing registrant into a
> squatter.
How does this keep a process like the UDRP from solving the problem?
When facing the choice between encumbering the process of
registering every single domain name with a complicated and
unflexible ruleset, and handling the relatively few actual problems
by a dispute resolution process, then I'd go for the dispute
resolution approach.
> As for the protocol part, you are absoutely right that it would
> better be the application to do the translation, and that
> protocol strings are not DNS - but what I mean is that, in
> practice, the internationalization of the Internet identifiers
> infrastructure requires other steps than just internationalized
> SLDs,
Once more, URI schemes are a something that you don't
internationalize "in the infrastructure." The very purpose of URI
schemes, as far as infrastructure is concerned, is to be universally
unique and accepted.
> and that ICANN should take the lead on that,
I don't think it should.
> But we need someone to go and bug IETF, the IT industry, etc, and
> I think that ICANN has to take the lead, or the problem will
> never be solved,
I'd recommend that you talk to the people at the W3C's
Internationalization Activity about that.
<http://www.w3.org/International/>
> and there will be people that will claim that the current
> Internet governance community is not able to solve these
> problems.
Technical flaws are typically *not* issues of Internet "governance",
but rather issues of Internet *engineering*; not every claim that
something should be solved by the current Internet governance system
means that it's best solved there.
--
Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at <http://log.does-not-exist.org/>.