[vip] Suggested meta-questions to think about

[Cary Karp]

Quoting Daniel:

> ICANN is just preparing to enter the "registry business" with the introduction of the
> new gTLDs. This makes ICANNs decisions and implementation to what is a variant and
> what is not comparable with that of any other registry.

ICANN introduced the first new TLDs a decade ago. If the impending round
means ICANN is just preparing to enter the registry business, why did
the previous two rounds not take them into it?

> The DNS is designed in such a way, that uniform technical rules apply to any label
> at any level in the hierarchy. Therefore, the community will benefit best from our work,
> if we come up with an agreed and understood "standard" of what variants are, what they
> are not and how are (or will be) implemented in the todays world of
non-ASCII DNS.
> 
> I do understand, that ICANN (staff, board) needs fast answers to just few questions
> in order to proceed with the new gTLD launch, but there are other processes/parties
> that can benefit from this work, such as the ccNSO IDN PDP, as well as each and every
> DNS registry from now on.

I recognize the significance of your placing quotes around the word
"standard". I also understand the potential utility of a generally
applicable statement of suggested registry practices, broader than the
document(s) ICANN has charged our study group with preparing. ICANN
already maintains such a document under the designation, "ICANN
Guidelines for the Implementation of Internationalized Domain Names".
Our work is as much intended to inform the maintainers of that text as
it is any other facet of ICANN's IDN activity.

If we perceive need for releasing an extended statement of our own
external to ICANN we need a separate venue for it. Our present charge
does not go beyond ICANN's immediate needs, and reframing our mandate is
out of scope. Establishing a platform for any further activity we might
wish to conduct is probably best deferred until we see how far we get
with the initial task we have undertaken.

And just to have it said -- the DNS standard (here deliberately without
quotes although I'm not certain it's entirely the right word) remains as
firmly ASCII oriented as it has ever been. The 'A' in IDNA means
something very important and if any members of our group are uncertain
about what that is, we would probably benefit from a brief tutorial review.

> From what we have so far, there seems to be strong opinion, that variants should be
> considered character based and script specific. I will again voice my opinion, that
> variants are label (word) based and language specific. Or even go as far to suggest
> sometimes they are community or region specific.
> 
> Some languages might be simplified enough to use character/script variants -- look
> at how "good" Latin got translated into ASCII. But my  belief is, that todays computers
> and software are not that primitive, so that we should make such sacrifices for the
> same of simplicity.

Actually, Latin is quite comfortably accommodated by ASCII. It's the
other languages that are written with the same script that may have a
worse time of it. The closer consideration of that is, I am assuming,
precisely what should be discussed in the Latin study and I will post my
own further remarks about it to the dedicated list.

/Cary