[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] Chinese Domain Name Consortium (CDNC) Declaration
At 11:17 AM +0800 2/9/02, hoho wrote:
>Since the WG insists on a client solution based on Unicode, without on
>solution, we have no way to depend on the courtesy of internationalized
>to make registration policies being friendly to language communities
>who will be most seriously damaged by the decision of the WG.
You have never given any justification for that assumption. In fact,
later in your message you show that there are solutions to the
> It would be
>if we could not prevent greedy business from dumping defective domain
>into Chinese community.
Then you should work to prevent it for your community. The IETF has
absolutely no control over the products that use the standards we
produce. Everyone knows that.
> We definitely are positive for your efforts in
>bring up a solution
>that solves DN problem for many languages. But, please do not force the
>community to be the victim of the side-effect.
The IETF could not force such a thing, and obviously does not want to do so.
> > Of course, CDNC members would like to maximize their
>> financial gain in registration, but the concern of the IETF is always
>> towards helping users. There is a huge different between "cannot be
>> solved" and "it will cost a small number of organizations a lot of
>This is also interesting. As far as I know, TWNIC has their social
>in our country. There major concern for TWNIC to work with IDN WG is
>protection. The reason why they work on TC/SC, is that we all aware the
>of an international standard on Han variants which we could use to
>WG to pay attention.
That work, which was done by CNNIC starting a year ago, was
successful. The WG now understands the scope of the problem. We also
understand what it would take to solve the problem in the IDN
standards or in a registration solution. (I don't consider the spam
and technically misleading messages that TWNIC has been sending for
the last two weeks to be constructive work on TC/SC.)
> Thus TC/SC becomes the best hope because it's
>exists for more than 50 years. If the working group could adopt it, then
>at least this is
>something for all registries to restrict their name space a little bit
>and not too make
>too much trouble to Chinese community.
We fully agree here. However, in order for the WG to adopt it, we
need an Internet Draft that contains a protocol that can be used in
the IETF. So far, no such Internet Draft has appeared, even after
lots of strong efforts of CNNIC. Further, in recent private
conversations, TWNIC has told people in the IETF that they don't
believe such a draft is possible. So you are asking the WG to adopt
something that you believe it cannot.
> It's a very humble wish, but
>rejected by the WG. On the other hand, I can assure you that there is no
>way for TWNIC
>to make a registration policy without taking the maximum set of Han
>variants into account.
It is good to hear you finally admit that this is possible! Note that
the declaration that started this thread said it was not possible.
Such a registration policy will indeed help the people of Taiwan and
the rest of China.
>As a non-profit organization, consumer protection is beyond the goal of
>making a big
>profit. Furthermore, dometistic consumer protection groups will not allow
Then it is your responsibility to show them how to prevent the problem.
>I am going back to my family in another city for Chinese New Year now.
>I'll respond to
>the rest of your questions as soon as possible.
Please enjoy the holiday; many of us here will be doing the same.
>By the way, I have trouble sending a message with a long list of
>recipients. Could you
>cut your list shorter please? I guess most people on your list is already
>on IDN list.
Um, that long list was started by TWNIC. Most of us are quite happy
to have the list shorter.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium