[discuss] Options for root zone
james.seng at gmail.com
Mon Jan 20 08:49:09 UTC 2014
For the record, I am a Malaysian who lives in Singapore when I was
co-chair'ing the IDN Working Group in IETF.
While I often get the "So where is Singapore in China?", if you willing to
look up Google Map, Singapore is about 3,900 km away from China.
ps: I moved to China for my own career development in 2008 but that is way
after IDN WG closed.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
> 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
> 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.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss