[vip] Multi-script TLDs (was Re: Descriptive terminology)

[JFC Morfin]

Francisco,

This is a truly existential question for ICANN. This ICANN/WG/VIP can 
consider itself as being:

1. either an ICANN/WG with the ICANN policy in the background, 
considering the variants in this sole framework. In such a case, this 
would only impact the ICANN documents and permit other root 
management systems to propose solutions that ICANN would in turn not 
accept. This can be a guarantee of better quality of service that is 
favorable to the ICANN world, or a limitations set that will lead TLD 
candidates to use a system other than the ICANN/NTIA root.

2. or an Internet Users leading WG, trying to "influence (mission of 
the IETF [RFC 3935] in terms of protocols) those who design, use, and 
manage the Internet for the IDNA to work better". In that case, the 
target would be to show ICANN as an open common sense leader, 
proposing a naming netiquette that everyone will want to respect. 
That will be a source of trust for TLD candidates who will think: 
ICANN is more serious and secure, if they lead the consensus they 
will probably also lead the process' quality.

I know that this is a vision of the DNS and naming that is different 
than ICANN's vision. However, this is the DNS vision that is actually 
documented by the RFCs. Jon Postel, ICANN, and simpler management 
have all led to constrain the reading of these RFCs and the resulting 
Internet architectural deployment. IDNA2008's consensus was reached 
because its RFCs do not constrain the true nature of the internet, 
i.e. subsidiary unique virtual root and its distributed structure. 
The true issue is not to sell TLDs. The true issue is a stable, 
technically sound, legally acceptable, operationally proficient and 
conflict free set of systems/services permitting one to freely 
operate their root name/TLD (software, machine, control, 
registration, new services, lawyers, etc. ) on a VPN, an externet 
(e.g. class supported vision of the Internet), the entire Internet, 
or throughout the whole digital ecosystem.

When ICANN decides to sell a TLD for $185,000, it must correctly 
understand what it is selling and the resulting presentation strategy 
that it must adopt. What ICANN is selling at $185,000 is not a TLD 
that can be freely operated on the Internet. It is selling TLDs that 
have been technically, financially, legally screened, stamped and 
sponsored by ICANN and the USG. There are people and corporations 
that are obviously ready for many reasons to pay that $185,000 for 
the ICANN label on their TLD. However, there are many more who are 
not willing or cannot pay ICANN when cheaper commercial offers and 
free FLOSS systems are available. The entire necessary program set, 
except for the installation and some NIC management SQLite routines, 
are already in operation - no big deal for some investor to take over 
the name space, or for Google in using their public DNS service (IP 
4.4.4.4 and 8.8.4.4.).

ICANN must not confuse its TLD business plan and the decline of the 
wrong open root solution. Open roots propose (sell) alternative 
domain names. Here, what is at stake is the market acceptance of 
crossing the 300 TLDs threshold. Less than 300 TLD was in some way a 
stable perception of the Internet domain names system: a few global 
TLD names to memorize, and one per country. ITLDs and gTLD sales are 
going to switch usage from a very limited set of known TLDs being 
used by each user to the common experience that TLDs are just another 
part of the domain name with thousands of them. Either ICANN will 
influence the acceptance of a certain TLD netiquette that the users 
will all be familiar with (distrusting the non conformant TLDs) or 
will not. In the later case, TLDs will be totally free form because 
no one is  able to visually recognize an ICANN sponsored TLD from a 
non ICANN sponsored one when reading a URL.

The decision is yours. This is the future of ICANN.

jfc

At 09:17 07/09/2011, Cary Karp wrote:
>Quoting Francisco:
>
> > Besides protocol restrictions there could also be policy restrictions. For
> > example, there could be a policy prohibiting TLD labels that have code
> > points from Latin and Cyrillic scripts.
>
>ICANN requires that a gTLD adopts the following policy before freeing it
>from a general contractual prohibition on accepting IDN registration:
>
>"All code points in a single label will be taken from the same script as
>determined by the Unicode Standard Annex #24: Script Names
><http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24>. Exceptions to this guideline are
>permissible for languages with established orthographies and conventions
>that require the commingled use of multiple scripts. Even in the case of
>this exception, visually confusable characters from different scripts
>will not be allowed to co-exist in a single set of permissible code
>points unless a corresponding policy and character table is clearly
>defined."
>
>Of course, if there were any language that is so regularly written with
>mixed Cyrillic and Latin letters that a justifiable TLD label could be
>proposed with them, root policies might require additional constraint.
>Asking again -- is there any such everyday writing system? If not,
>putting this on our agenda is redundant at the very least.
>
>/Cary