This might be of interest; FYI in case you've missed it. --- Chun Eung Hwi <chun@PEACENET.OR.KR> wrote:
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:20:47 +0900 From: Chun Eung Hwi <chun@PEACENET.OR.KR> Subject: Re: Fwd: application to the NCUC To: NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
<snip>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: JFC Morfin <jefsey@club-internet.fr> Date: Nov 6, 2006 10:18 AM Subject: [ga] IDN and IANA To: ga@gnso.icann.org Cc: vint@google.com
The IGF Athens meeting was quite interesting. I was surprised by the pressure that ICANN put on IDNs. I did not see any new technical solution (Falstrom explained that the IETF was active on the issue,
but it looks they really need help more than anything else). Is it :
- because Verisign starts sending me (and probably many others) CNNIC Chinese.Chinese Name propositions? - or because Bob Khan excited people in documenting the way his Handles could be a more open solution? - or because Google could represent a new opportunity? - or because there are new possibilities in Windows Vista (may be they listen to what we explain t hem for years?) - or because IE7 makes now credible the ML alias/keyword propositions?
IDNs are necessarily the future of the DNS. I am surprised the GNSO
has no IDN committee (I heard one could be formed?). The issues we face are not that much technical but strategic (there are two technical problems - the number of TLDs and the phishing, now IE7 supports punycode).
The ITU General Secretary said that on his opinion the Internet of the future would be more national and local than it is today. This is also my opinion. I discussed with the candidate to the ITU General Secretariat who was in Athens: we were not in full agreement but he
would obviously want things to move ahead and open the ITU debate in an IETF like manner. However, a Multilingual/Multinational Internet
is not what the IETF has technically in mind while it is not (yet?)
what the ITU can politically target [they are (today) purely Gov oriented].
This is why it is, now and not in a few months, a good opportunity to stabilise ICANN for the years to come (in relation with their DNSSEC entity?) as an IDN organiser - before the MINC does it. Since the IETF will not deliver anything grandiose, ICANN should show what it
can do quick, before there is a grassroots move - or to objectively
ally with it? IMHO the ccNSO is not in a position to do anything exciting, but the GNSO could - considering the governance related issues?
I also reminded the idea that IDN revenues should in priority serve
the language empowerment work - as .org benefits to ISOC - but in better proportion. There is a better coordination with ISO 3166 MA also to consider. etc.
Any suggestion/comment? jfc
-- ------------------------------------------------------------ Chun Eung Hwi General Secretary, PeaceNet | fax: (+82) 2-2649-2624 Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 19-259-2667 Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: chun@peacenet.or.kr ------------------------------------------------------------