Regarding issues report on IDNs

Hello Sophia,
I suppose the PDP public forum does not include the IDN at this point. Correct?
We formally requested an issues report on IDN's in Vancouver. However we were informed that there was some other work going on via the President's committee and also work within the IAB that would help in the development of that report. I expect we should have the report for our meeting in Wellington, but as IDN's is a large and very specialised topic I don't see that being on the agenda for the meeting in Washington. Regards, Bruce

We formally requested an issues report on IDN's in Vancouver. However we were informed that there was some other work going on via the President's committee and also work within the IAB that would help in the development of that report.
I expect we should have the report for our meeting in Wellington, but as IDN's is a large and very specialised topic I don't see that being on the agenda for the meeting in Washington.
The President's Committee was planning to meet earlier this week but was rescheduled to 8 Feb. In the interim, the version of the IAB "nextsteps" draft to which John Klensin and Patrik Fältström made reference during our last meeting will be released. I will post notice of its availability and suggest that the Council members review it with a thought to its discussion at our own next meeting (hereby proposing a corresponding agenda item). Since the President's Committee will be meeting two days thereafter, we may wish to use the opportunity to communicate our own recent thinking. Also, at the two most recent Council meetings reference was made to the development of an experiment for determining suitable means for the support of IDN on the top-level of the DNS. Upon listening to the MP3s of those meetings I note that we failed to make an adequate distinction between the IAB draft and the outline of the experiment prepared directly by John. I have therefore (with John's permission) attached a copy of the latter document to the present message. /Cary

Cary, Thanks for the update. Could I kindly ask for your confirmation on these two matters: 1) I understand that the President Committe is fairly new, may I ask who is represented on the committee? 2) I was also not aware that John was involved in the 'testbed' scenario until I saw the attachment you sent, based on some of his responses in the Council meeting. Would he be working on that with you. Many thanks ahead, Sophia On 26/01/06, Cary Karp <ck@nic.museum> wrote:
We formally requested an issues report on IDN's in Vancouver. However we were informed that there was some other work going on via the President's committee and also work within the IAB that would help in the development of that report.
I expect we should have the report for our meeting in Wellington, but as IDN's is a large and very specialised topic I don't see that being on the agenda for the meeting in Washington.
The President's Committee was planning to meet earlier this week but was rescheduled to 8 Feb. In the interim, the version of the IAB "nextsteps" draft to which John Klensin and Patrik Fältström made reference during our last meeting will be released. I will post notice of its availability and suggest that the Council members review it with a thought to its discussion at our own next meeting (hereby proposing a corresponding agenda item). Since the President's Committee will be meeting two days thereafter, we may wish to use the opportunity to communicate our own recent thinking.
Also, at the two most recent Council meetings reference was made to the development of an experiment for determining suitable means for the support of IDN on the top-level of the DNS. Upon listening to the MP3s of those meetings I note that we failed to make an adequate distinction between the IAB draft and the outline of the experiment prepared directly by John. I have therefore (with John's permission) attached a copy of the latter document to the present message.
/Cary
-- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele@gmail.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com

Dear Bruce, Per the agenda tabled for Washington meeting, the matters of IDN has been mentioned, viz (4) 1:30pm - 3:30pm - PART 1 Should we have new gTLDs? - review external influences - e.g alternative roots (both ASCII and IDN based), search engines, tld (cctld and gtld) registry competition, growth in Internet users that are non-English speaking and users that use different character sets. However, your email note to me below, expressed that due to IDNs wide scope, it would not be part of our Washington meeting. While the agenda mentions influence ( seem like market analysis) vs. usability of course, if it is to lead us to discuss POLICY or technical issues of IDN?, please advise so as to determine scope. Many thanks. Sophia --------------- On 24/01/06, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Sophia,
I suppose the PDP public forum does not include the IDN at this point. Correct?
We formally requested an issues report on IDN's in Vancouver. However we were informed that there was some other work going on via the President's committee and also work within the IAB that would help in the development of that report.
I expect we should have the report for our meeting in Wellington, but as IDN's is a large and very specialised topic I don't see that being on the agenda for the meeting in Washington.
Regards, Bruce
-- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele@gmail.com sbekele@cbsintl.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com
participants (3)
-
Bruce Tonkin
-
Cary Karp
-
Sophia B