Subject: [idn] Re: IDN Registration Integrity

From: "AM" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:44:48 -0700

charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk

AM
[email-masked]
Re: IDN Registration Integrity

As an individual concerned with the future of IDNs, I would like to
recommend that ICANN seriously consider incorporating a clause in their
registry agreements that ensures registrants that their IDN =
registrations
will be valid through all changes in registry operators, through all
standards' progressions, through to the day when multi-lingual domains =
will
be incorporated into zone files as are ASCII domains.

Though confident in ICANN, the IETF, and Registry Operators, individuals =
are
concerned that their IDNs are the work of proprietary standards put =
forth by
the Registry Operators.  Plug-in applications used as a link between =
ASCII
names and their multi-lingual equivalents further this suspicion.  =
Though
the suspicion is false, I learned the truth only after speaking to a =
number
of individuals at my registrar, Verisign-GRS, ICANN and the IETF working
group.  Still, they could not be completely certain that "your name =
would
always be your name." =20

The question at hand is are my current IDN registrations so-called
"ICANN-certified" registrations, as are the ASCII domains of today?  In
ASCII registrations, I am confident that through all registry operator
changes, through any accidental deletions or transfers of my domain, I =
can
be assured that my domain name will be valid and governed by ICANN =
policies.
I would like to be assured that not just my ASCII "bq--" or "xn--" =
string
will be "ICANN-certified" but that its multi-lingual equivalent will =
always
be a constant registration, valid and governed by ICANN policies, =
through to
the day when multi-lingual domains will be incorporated into zone files =
as
are ASCII domains.

Again, after learning about the issue, I am most confident that "my
registration will most likely always be my registration."  This is =
probably
not a major issue.  Still, it may be worth clarification from ICANN.  =
Any
discussions or statements by the applicable IDN committees in future
meetings would be most appreciated.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best wishes,
AM

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:45 AM
Subject: BOUNCE [email-masked]: Non-member submission from ["AM"
<[email-masked]>]

> From [email-masked] Wed Mar 26 18:45:02 2003
> Received: from dav42.sea1.hotmail.com ([207.68.162.100] helo=hotmail.com)
> by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1)
> id 18yNO1-000F3k-00
> for [email-masked]; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:45:01 -0800
> Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
> Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:45:01 -0800
> Received: from 68.63.184.139 by dav42.sea1.hotmail.com with DAV;
> Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:44:56 +0000
> X-Originating-IP: [68.63.184.139]
> X-Originating-Email: [[email-masked]]
> From: "AM" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: IDN Registration Integrity
> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:44:48 -0700
> Message-ID: <000001c2f40a$d571cad0$8bb83f44@cc634135b>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
> Importance: Normal
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2003 02:45:01.0077 (UTC)
FILETIME=[DCC87450:01C2F40A]
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.8 required=5.0
> tests=BAYES_10
> version=2.50
> X-Spam-Level:
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp)
>
> AM
> [email-masked]
> Re: IDN Registration Integrity
>
>
> As an individual concerned with the future of IDNs, I would like to
> recommend that ICANN seriously consider incorporating a clause in their
> registry agreements that ensures registrants that their IDN =
> registrations
> will be valid through all changes in registry operators, through all
> standards' progressions, through to the day when multi-lingual domains =
> will
> be incorporated into zone files as are ASCII domains.
>
> Though confident in ICANN, the IETF, and Registry Operators, individuals =
> are
> concerned that their IDNs are the work of proprietary standards put =
> forth by
> the Registry Operators.  Plug-in applications used as a link between =
> ASCII
> names and their multi-lingual equivalents further this suspicion.  =
> Though
> the suspicion is false, I learned the truth only after speaking to a =
> number
> of individuals at my registrar, Verisign-GRS, ICANN and the IETF working
> group.  Still, they could not be completely certain that "your name =
> would
> always be your name." =20
>
> The question at hand is are my current IDN registrations so-called
> "ICANN-certified" registrations, as are the ASCII domains of today?  In
> ASCII registrations, I am confident that through all registry operator
> changes, through any accidental deletions or transfers of my domain, I =
> can
> be assured that my domain name will be valid and governed by ICANN =
> policies.
> I would like to be assured that not just my ASCII "bq--" or "xn--" =
> string
> will be "ICANN-certified" but that its multi-lingual equivalent will =
> always
> be a constant registration, valid and governed by ICANN policies, =
> through to
> the day when multi-lingual domains will be incorporated into zone files =
> as
> are ASCII domains.
>
> Again, after learning about the issue, I am most confident that "my
> registration will most likely always be my registration."  This is =
> probably
> not a major issue.  Still, it may be worth clarification from ICANN.  =
> Any
> discussions or statements by the applicable IDN committees in future
> meetings would be most appreciated.
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
> AM
>
>

---

From: "Adam M. Costello" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:53:49 -0800

AM <[email-masked]> wrote:

> recommend that ICANN seriously consider incorporating a clause in
> their registry agreements

I don't know how closely ICANN monitors this mailing list.

> that ensures registrants that their IDN registrations will be valid
> through all changes in registry operators, through all standards'
> progressions, through to the day when multi-lingual domains will be
> incorporated into zone files as are ASCII domains.

Non-ASCII IDNs are likely to start appearing very soon (if they haven't
already) in non-standard zone files for internal use by registry
operators, but standard zone files might continue to be ASCII-only for a
long time, maybe forever.  Widespread deployment of IDNs does not depend
on any upgrades to the zone file format or any other infrastructure;
upgrades of end-user applications is sufficent.

> "ICANN-certified" registrations, as are the ASCII domains of today?

Your current "IDN" registrations are not IDN registrations.  IDN did not
exist when those registrations were made.  Those registrations are part
of an experimental testbed based on a very early (and long ago rejected)
draft of IDNA.

> I would like to be assured that not just my ASCII "bq--" or "xn--"
> string will be "ICANN-certified" but that its multi-lingual equivalent
> will always be a constant registration, valid and governed by ICANN
> policies,

Your bq-- string under mltbd.com has no standard meaning; it means
whatever Verisign says it means, and Verisign can either discard it or
convert it to a standard IDN, at their whim.  They have announced plans
to convert these registrations, but I doubt there are (or will be) any
ICANN policies compelling them to do so.

But if you register an xn-- string at the second level (which is not
yet possible because ICANN has not yet opened the gates), it will have
a standard interpretation defined by IETF standards (not by Verisign
or ICANN), and will also be a regular ASCII domain name with the same
protections as any other ASCII domain name (unless those protections are
explicitly removed).

Disclaimer:  This is all to the best of my knowledge, but I have no
authority, and I don't speak for any of the organizations mentioned
above.

AMC

---

From: "Martin v. Löwis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:44:59 +0100

Adam M. Costello schrieb:
> yet possible because ICANN has not yet opened the gates), 

Can you elaborate? What gates need to be opened? There are certainly
already xn-- registrations at the second level.

Regards,
Martin

---

From: "Adam M. Costello" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:47:09 +0000

"Martin v. Löwis" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> What gates need to be opened?  There are certainly already xn--
> registrations at the second level.

Under some TLDs, yes, but last I heard ICANN was not yet allowing xn--
registrations under any TLD whose registry had signed a contract with
ICANN, which includes all the gTLDs and some ccTLDs (like .jp).

I've heard that xn-- registrations are happening under .nu.  Do you know
of others?  The .nu registry claims that "NU Domain Ltd is the only Top
Level Domain (TLD) in the world offering this service", but I wouldn't
be surprised if the claim is exaggerated or out of date.

I guess there are many ccTLDs that are not blocked by ICANN, but are
waiting while they develop their own registration policies.

AMC

---

From: [email-masked] (Martin v. Löwis)
Date: 29 Mar 2003 10:10:35 +0100

> ICANN, which includes all the gTLDs and some ccTLDs (like .jp).

Very interesting. Was this published anywhere? What is the rationale?

> be surprised if the claim is exaggerated or out of date.

Me, atleast, I cannot counter that claim.

Thanks,
Martin

---

From: "Adam M. Costello" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:32:42 +0000

"Martin v. Löwis" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > Under some TLDs, yes, but last I heard ICANN was not yet allowing
> > xn-- registrations under any TLD whose registry had signed a
> > contract with ICANN, which includes all the gTLDs and some ccTLDs
> > (like .jp).
>

http://www.icann.org/riodejaneiro/idn-topic.htm

Note that that is not the only point of view on the subject of IDN
registration policy.  See also:

http://www.imc.org/idn-reg-policy/

AMC

---

From: "Edmon Chung" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:14:09 -0500

The number of ccTLDs that have a contract with ICANN is however quite small.
;-)
http://www.icann.org/cctlds/