Re: [idn] homograph attacks

[John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>]

--On Wednesday, 16 February, 2005 20:51 +0100 "\"Martin v.
Löwis\"" <martin@v.loewis.de> wrote:

> JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>...
>>> I personally don't see why it should be on a IANA server.
>>> As for "should it be common to all the gTLDs", I honestly
>>> believe the answer should be "no".
>> 
>> These opinions of yours are opposed by gTLD contracts with
>> ICANN.
> 
> Does that apply to the "old" gTLDs as well?

Actually, this is just confusion at best.   The current ICANN
guidelines (and gTLD contracts to the extent they are relevant)
do not require at all gTLDs use the same tables for a given
language, nor that they register the tables they are using.  The
latter is merely a strong recommendation.

>> There is a IANA registration for IDN Table, even very poor.
>> The proposed "RFC 3066bis" Draft lead to a debate where the
>> authors who are discussing the language tags to be registered
>> by IANA described as outrageous the idea that they should
>> consider IDNs and be consistent with them. Do you support
>> that?
> 
> I don't think consistency across gTLDs is necessary (nor do I
> think consistency across ccTLDs of countries using the same
> "scripts" is necessary). What does matter is that the policies
> are published and open for discussion. It is ok that the
> policies
> evolve over time, in which case "legacy" registration need to
> be considered.

That view is consistent with current ICANN policy although, IMO,
the current requirements for publication and openness are
probably not yet strong enough.  It is not clear to me whether
or not ICANN would meet resistance if they tried to strengthen
those requirements.

regards,
   john