Re: [idn] homograph attacks

[Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>]

Hello James,

If using 'language' only, and never mentioning 'script',
is by design, then would you mind pointing me to that
design, or explaining it to me?

Regards,    Martin.


At 19:05 05/02/17, James Seng wrote:
>the choice of words of using language (instead of script) in ICANN 
community is by design.
>
>james
>
>On 17-Feb-05, at PM 04:55, Martin Duerst wrote:
>
>> At 14:06 05/02/17, Erik van der Poel wrote:
>> >Michel Suignard wrote:
>> >> It is much more challenging for a worlwide TLD such as .com to
>> >> establish registration rules.  Typically script is a much better
>> >> selector than language to establish those tables and associated
>> >> rules.
>> >
>> >"Typically"? You make it sound like you've "been there, done that". :-)
>> >
>> >Seriously, would you please elaborate on your ideas for .com? I would 
really like to know what you have in mind, specifically, to combat the 
homograph problem.
>>
>> Hello Eric,
>>
>> I can't answer fro Michel. But I just had a look at the ICANN guidelines,
>> and they use the word 'language' 19 times (hope I counted correctly),
>> and the word 'script' not a single time.
>>
>> However, there are at least as much 'script' aspects as there are
>> 'language' aspects in the current problem, and if you look at actual
>> implementation in ccTLD registries that have deployed IDNs, it's
>> also quite a bit about 'script'. As an example, .ch has published
>> a single table although they are very clearly working with three
>> or four languages.
>>
>> Too much emphasis on 'language' rather than 'script' also has lead
>> to strange claims such as that creating IDN TLDs is impossible
>> because we cannot create 6000 versions of .com. Again, looking
>> at this as a script problem is much more appropriate, after
>> all, neither "com" nor any ccTLD nor most of the gTLDs are
>> associated with any single language.
>>
>> Regards,    Martin.
>>
>