RE: [gtld-council] The focus of GNSO Council involvement in IDN
Hello Cary, I support the technical trial. The more options available to an existing or new TLD operator the better for now. (note that you can achieve a similar result as DNAMES with NS records at the provisioning layer - ie a single registry database can populate two zonefiles). Likewise from a policy point of view - now is the time to identify some options and issues. In general we should not restrict options unless there is an security or stability issue with implementing a particular option. In contrast we could begin to create some initial policies that allows us to move forward with the initial introduction of IDNs where some of the choices are initially limited, much as we did with the initial introduction of new gTLDs. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Hi Bruce. Could you pls calrify what you mean by similarity in the provisioning? Thanks Sophia On 26/03/06, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Cary,
I support the technical trial.
The more options available to an existing or new TLD operator the better for now. (note that you can achieve a similar result as DNAMES with NS records at the provisioning layer - ie a single registry database can populate two zonefiles).
Likewise from a policy point of view - now is the time to identify some options and issues. In general we should not restrict options unless there is an security or stability issue with implementing a particular option.
In contrast we could begin to create some initial policies that allows us to move forward with the initial introduction of IDNs where some of the choices are initially limited, much as we did with the initial introduction of new gTLDs.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
We are at the stage of discussing options on how to proceed, so we are sort of "whiteboarding" are we not? I recall that within ATT, we often did series of feasibility tests, and took the learning and did more, different such tests. I am comfortable with "tests" and perhaps the assurances that "tests" aka trials, are for informing, recognizing that the policy questions are myriad, and that we need to run in an interactive and collegial approach, with sharing all ways, then we can agree that the gNSO Councilors can support the trial (s). What I need is assurance that we are going to define the resources we need to fully do our parts, along with others, of course. So, I support the "tests" aka trials. And very good information cross pollination. So, thanks for all the participation with the councilors on this topic, to our guests and also to Tina., in helping to build our understanding. . Regards, Marilyn Cade -----Original Message----- From: "Sophia B" <sophiabekele@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:35:41 To:"Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc:"GNSO Council" <council@gnso.icann.org>, "Tina Dam" <tina.dam@icann.org>, "Pat Kane" <pkane@verisign.com>, "Ram Mohan" <rmohan@afilias.info> Subject: Re: [council] RE: [gtld-council] The focus of GNSO Council involvement in IDN Hi Bruce. Could you pls calrify what you mean by similarity in the provisioning? Thanks Sophia On 26/03/06, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au : <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> > wrote: Hello Cary, I support the technical trial. The more options available to an existing or new TLD operator the better for now. (note that you can achieve a similar result as DNAMES with NS records at the provisioning layer - ie a single registry database can populate two zonefiles). Likewise from a policy point of view - now is the time to identify some options and issues. In general we should not restrict options unless there is an security or stability issue with implementing a particular option. In contrast we could begin to create some initial policies that allows us to move forward with the initial introduction of IDNs where some of the choices are initially limited, much as we did with the initial introduction of new gTLDs. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
participants (3)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Marilyn Cade -
Sophia B