Fwd: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs from PAF
Begin forwarded message:
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com> Date: 5 februari 2006 14.17.16 EST To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org>, John Klensin <john- ietf@jck.com>, Cary Karp <ck@nic.museum> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs
On 5 feb 2006, at 19.33, Avri Doria wrote:
Even the questions that PAF asks are dependent on the current thinking about the technology and if there was creative work being on the research and engineering for IDN, we might have different questions to answer.
(I know my messages are not accepted by the GNSO mailing list exploder, but please forward if you want to.)
If you start with the questions you want to ask, and some requirements, I can let you know what the technology say about it.
For example, wether you want (technical) guarantees that the same registrant have the domain name example.foo and example.<idn- version-of-foo>. Or is it a requirement that those two domains can be managed by two different registrants?
As long as that is not resolved, there is simply no way technical community can help.
Unfortunately, as interesting as the IAB draft is, it doesn't, to my mind, do much to indicate what work will be done to try and figure out solutions, maybe even creative solutions, that take the very real political realities into account.
Can you please list what those "very real politicla realities" are? If you do, I can make sure the technical community do have a look at it. This is exactly what I talk about when I ask for what questions you have and what the answer is.
Patrik
Hi, I agree that it would be a useful objective for the GNSO Council to coordinate the explanation of the political issues and the requirements. I do, however, continue to think that this should not be done in isolation by the council as it needs to take into account a larger context. I also do not believe that it should be done in a technical vacuum, but should be done together with the technical experts, from both the IAB, IETF and elsewhere. thanks a. On 5 feb 2006, at 14.57, Avri Doria wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com> Date: 5 februari 2006 14.17.16 EST To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org>, John Klensin <john- ietf@jck.com>, Cary Karp <ck@nic.museum> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs
On 5 feb 2006, at 19.33, Avri Doria wrote:
Even the questions that PAF asks are dependent on the current thinking about the technology and if there was creative work being on the research and engineering for IDN, we might have different questions to answer.
(I know my messages are not accepted by the GNSO mailing list exploder, but please forward if you want to.)
If you start with the questions you want to ask, and some requirements, I can let you know what the technology say about it.
For example, wether you want (technical) guarantees that the same registrant have the domain name example.foo and example.<idn- version-of-foo>. Or is it a requirement that those two domains can be managed by two different registrants?
As long as that is not resolved, there is simply no way technical community can help.
Unfortunately, as interesting as the IAB draft is, it doesn't, to my mind, do much to indicate what work will be done to try and figure out solutions, maybe even creative solutions, that take the very real political realities into account.
Can you please list what those "very real politicla realities" are? If you do, I can make sure the technical community do have a look at it. This is exactly what I talk about when I ask for what questions you have and what the answer is.
Patrik
Point well taken..I just responded to your previous comment on this point. Thanks. Sophia On 05/02/06, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I agree that it would be a useful objective for the GNSO Council to coordinate the explanation of the political issues and the requirements.
I do, however, continue to think that this should not be done in isolation by the council as it needs to take into account a larger context. I also do not believe that it should be done in a technical vacuum, but should be done together with the technical experts, from both the IAB, IETF and elsewhere.
thanks a.
On 5 feb 2006, at 14.57, Avri Doria wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com> Date: 5 februari 2006 14.17.16 EST To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org>, John Klensin <john- ietf@jck.com>, Cary Karp <ck@nic.museum> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs
On 5 feb 2006, at 19.33, Avri Doria wrote:
Even the questions that PAF asks are dependent on the current thinking about the technology and if there was creative work being on the research and engineering for IDN, we might have different questions to answer.
(I know my messages are not accepted by the GNSO mailing list exploder, but please forward if you want to.)
If you start with the questions you want to ask, and some requirements, I can let you know what the technology say about it.
For example, wether you want (technical) guarantees that the same registrant have the domain name example.foo and example.<idn- version-of-foo>. Or is it a requirement that those two domains can be managed by two different registrants?
As long as that is not resolved, there is simply no way technical community can help.
Unfortunately, as interesting as the IAB draft is, it doesn't, to my mind, do much to indicate what work will be done to try and figure out solutions, maybe even creative solutions, that take the very real political realities into account.
Can you please list what those "very real politicla realities" are? If you do, I can make sure the technical community do have a look at it. This is exactly what I talk about when I ask for what questions you have and what the answer is.
Patrik
-- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele@gmail.com sbekele@cbsintl.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com
participants (2)
-
Avri Doria -
Sophia B