Re: [idn] Registration Policies

[James Seng <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

No, it is definately not under IDN WG's scope to decide where to deploy IDN.

"The group will not address the question of what, if any, body should
administer or control usage of names that use this functionality."

I believe this discussion on registration policies are better carried on other
forum, either ICANN or MINC. Please refer to http://www.icann.org/ and
http://www.minc.org/. If registration policy is what you interested, a good
place to start is Registration Policy WG in MINC chair by Ku-Wei Wu
<c00wu00@nchc.gov.tw> and Chanki Park <ckp@nic.or.kr>.

Would appreciate if we can get back to the discussion on the requirements doc
and drop this topic. Thanks!

-James Seng

"Eugene M. Kim" wrote:
> 
> Yes, it is true that such registrars are actually making a void promise
> -- in a sense.  We don't even know whether the IDN will be deployed
> under ccTLDs only, under .com/.net/.org only, or under both.  And again,
> they can't 100% guarantee that they will get the name that customers
> have `reserved' with them, especially because it is expected that there
> will be a big burst in name registration volume.
> 
> And a question: is it still within the IDN WG's scope to decide where to
> deploy IDN (i.e. under non-ccTLDs)?
> 
> Thank you,
> Eugene
> 
> On Tue, 23 May 2000, Patrik [iso-8859-1] Fältström wrote:
> 
> | At 07.55 +0200 00-05-23, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> | >Summary: plenty of worry, plenty of talking, not clear how it will be done.
> |
> | What I personally is most worried about is the "preregistration"
> | which some registrars are doing regarding IDN, and promises to
> | customers that whatever is registered now will be registered in
> | whatever the standard MINC/IETF will come up with.
> |
> | I can not see how that kind of promise can be published, given that
> | it is unclear how/if canonicalization and case folding is to be done
> | (or not).
> |
> | So, as Harald states, lots of worries, plenty of talking...
> |
> | If at least people could agree on those issues, so the semantics were
> | sorted out (but I guess that is the hard part of this game?).
> |
> |    paf
> |
> 
> --
> Eugene M. Kim <ab@astralblue.com>
> 
> "Is your music unpopular?  Make it popular; make music
> which people like, or make people who like your music."