http://english.people.com.cn/200602/28/eng20060228_246712.html
http://www.interfax.cn/showfeature.asp?aid=10411&slug=INTERNET-POLICY-MII-DOMAIN%20NAME-DNS
http://www.domainesinfo.fr/vie_extensions.php?vde_id=859
http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/06/02/28/1610242.shtml
Please look at the press tonight and tomorrow....
The Chinese Names were with us for a couple of years. But they are
now fully disclosed. The result raise a question. Is the IETF to:
- continue considering that globalization (internationalization of
the Internet + localization of the foreign end) is its only doctrine,
recently embodied by RFC 3066 Bis, that the Internet architecture
must keep adding constraints over constraints to protect it, that
such Chinese Names are an alt-root balkanization?
- accept that there is an Internationalised US ASCII Internet decided
by the US Congress, that there is an emerging Chinese Internet
decided by the Chinese law; that there will be many other lingual and
lateral internets decided by Govs, Corporations, empowered languages,
Communities, users grassroots efforts; that their interoperable
harmonization forms the Multilingual Internet; and that the ITEF
architecture must be revisited to support them all as a single system?
And the next question: should-not ICANN act accordingly? RFC 3935
says that the mission of the IETF is to influence the way people
design, use and manage the Internet. The MoU with ICANN gives it IANA
responsibility over names and numbers management. But here we face a
fundamental architectural issue. Should it be left to an organization
aiming at fostering competition in selling ASCII domain names and
mudded in IDNs?
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf