[discuss] Options for root zone

[Patrik Fältström]

On 19 jan 2014, at 04:23, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:

> Whether or not бг is standardized by ISO is not the point. The Tunis agenda is strict: 
> 
> « 63. Countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country’s country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD). Their legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country, in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected, upheld and addressed via a flexible and improved framework and mechanisms. »

There is a difference between ccTLDs and IDN-ccTLDs, where the policy for the latter is developed by the PDP hosted by the ccNSO in ICANN.

> I don't get it. Obviously бг and other non ascii ccTLD are IDN and potential sources of confusing similarities. This results from ICANN's policy in constraining IDN specifications so that it would not be possible to introduce non ascii scripts.

If you believe a policy development process within ICANN has developed the wrong policy, then the place where that should be changed is within that very same policy development process.

> The chinese team who developed IDN was smart enough to overcome the constraints.

IDN was developed by a working group in the IETF, not by a team in China. Individuals from China was part of the core group of developers in the IETF.

> It is normal for users to view ccTLD's from their national context, regardless of the local scripts they use. As ICANN was unable to change its US-ASCII centric fixation the design was botched. 

The issue is not so much an ICANN issue as a Unicode issue where unification was done for some scripts but not for others. Because of that, different scripts will get different treatment.

Once again, this should be brought up in the ccNSO hosted PDP and not here.

> E.g. MORPHO could be a perfectly regular new gTLD. Can anyone tell if the string is ascii or cyrillic ? 

The policy separates the policy for 2-character IDN-ccTLDS from other possible IDN strings, so I do not understand what this example have to do with the issue you originally has brought up in this thread.

> We need a new linguistically customized internet.

Please keep complaints on the result of an open policy development process separated from other interests.

   Patrik

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140119/8e3fe370/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140119/8e3fe370/signature.asc>