At 09:28 06/03/01, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>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:
You mix up technology and policy. Technology-wise, the Chinese are not
doing anything else than anybody else (read IDNA/Punycode,...),
plus probably some 8-bit stuff based on GB2312 and maybe even UTF-8
for backwards compatibility with earlier experiments.
Internationalization of the DNS, or whatever you want to call it,
works just fine (I don't think it's pretty, but that's a separate issue).
Most browsers already implement it, the rest is being updated.
So anybody who goes to China can get these names resolved there
(unless they are on a VPN or have their DNS servers preconfigured).
There is no need for a new IETF architecture at all, and even less
need for new buzzwords. The Internet is already multilingual;
the majority of Internet users is writing emails in languages other
than English, is reading and writing Web pages in languages other
than English, and so on.
(Speaking in Phillip's terms, the IETF has already defined how
to add a 'j' key to a telephone, and most telephones already
have one, or an equivalent.)
Policy-wise, ICANN has moved extremely slowly on non-ASCII top level
domain names. They lost a lot of time, and they very much have to speed up.
But that's completely independent from architecture and technology.
Also, it's only to a smaller part, if at all, an issue of who "controls"
ICANN. The main problem is that there are too many people at ICANN who
do not understand anything about foreign scripts, and rather than
making sure they get the necessary help, they have just been
paralized so far.
As for the three specific Han Ideograph TLDs,
the first (China/.cn equivalent) looks quite reasonable, although
it might have been possible to agree that TLDs in Han ideographs
can be one-letter.
For the other two, there are two problems:
1) They are to quite some extent language-specific,
which is significantly different from .com and .net
(much more like .company and .network). .com and .net,
although having language-related origins, are codes
used across languages.
2) It may be the first time that a country is creating/takeing
over a gTLD. While I think that ultimately (and hopefully sooner
rather than later), we need equivalents of gTLDs in other scripts,
and while the question of "who gets to run a gTLD" is probably the
most difficult for ICANN to decide, I don't think that it would be
such a good idea to allocate gTLDs to countries.
Regards, Martin.
>- 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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf