Site Map

Please note:

You are viewing archival ICANN material. Links and information may be outdated or incorrect. Visit ICANN's main website for current information.

ICANN Meetings in Vancouver, Canada

IDN Workshop

Wednesday, 30 November 2005
9:00 a.m.

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the IDN Workshop held on 30 November, 2005 in Vancouver, Canada. Although the captioning output is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: GOOD AFTERNOON.
CAN I JUST WELCOME EVERYBODY TO THIS WORKSHOP ON INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES.
AS THE COMPUTER SAYS, MY NAME IS PAUL TWOMEY.
I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYBODY AND THANK THE PRESENTERS FOR THE VARIOUS PANELS THIS AFTERNOON.
WE APPRECIATE VERY MUCH PEOPLE COMING AND SPEAKING FROM A WIDE DIVERSITY OF BACKGROUNDS.
I WON'T DO INTRODUCTIONS.
I'LL LET PEOPLE INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AS THEY'RE IN THE VARIOUS PANELS.
BUT I'D LIKE TO PARTICULARLY THANK CARY KARP, WHO IS GOING TO BE MODERATING THIS AFTERNOON'S SESSION FROM MUSEDOMA AND DOT MUSEUM.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF INITIATIVES UNDERWAY INSIDE AND OUTSIDE ICANN CONCERNING INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES.
A, THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
B, THERE'S DIFFERENT DEGREES OF TIME LINE AND URGENCY IN EACH OF THOSE INITIATIVES.
C, THOSE INITIATIVES ARE TAKING PLACE IN DIVERSE SPACES, BOTH GEOGRAPHICALLY, BECAUSE THERE'S BOTH GEOGRAPHIC AND LANGUAGE EMPHASES, DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD.
BUT I THINK, IMPORTANTLY, INITIATIVES ARE TAKING PLACE IN DIFFERENT LAYERS OF THE INTERNET.
AND WE'LL HEAR ABOUT SOME OF THAT TODAY.
I THINK AS FAR AS ICANN, THE ICANN BOARD, IS CONCERNED, WE CONSIDER IDNS TO BE, A, VERY IMPORTANT; BUT, B, THAT THERE'S A NECESSITY TO KEEP A DIALOGUE GOING ACROSS ALL THOSE INITIATIVES, AND NOT TO PRETEND THAT ALL THOSE INITIATIVES TAKE PLACE WITHIN ICANN, BUT TO TRY TO, A, PLAY THE ROLE THAT ICANN ITSELF NEEDS TO, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO NEW GTLDS, BUT, SECONDLY, TO TRY TO BE A CATALYST FOR HAVING THOSE VARIOUS INITIATIVES AND INTERESTS COME TOGETHER AND TALK AND SHARES THEIR SENSES OF IMPORTANCE, OF URGENCY, OF LIMITATIONS, OF CONCERNS, SO THAT THERE IS, I SUPPOSE, SOMEWHAT MORE OF A BROAD RIVER HEADING IN ROUGHLY THE SAME DIRECTION OF VARIOUS INITIATIVES AND VARIOUS CONCERNS.
WE THINK THAT'S PROBABLY VERY IMPORTANT.
TO THAT END, WE HAVE ANNOUNCED RECENTLY THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON IDNS.
IT HAS TAKEN SOME TIME TO POPULATE THAT COMMITTEE, PARTLY BECAUSE IT'S TAKEN TIME TO IDENTIFY PEOPLE, IDENTIFY INITIATIVES, ENGAGE INITIATIVES TO ASK PEOPLE TO ATTEND.
THE COMMITTEE ITSELF IS NOT YET FULLY POPULATED.
THERE ARE STILL OTHERS WHO WILL JOIN THAT COMMITTEE.
AND IF THERE ARE KEY PLAYERS WHO EMERGE IN THIS BROAD INITIATIVE AS BEING IMPORTANT PLAYERS, THEN THEY ALSO MAY BE INVITED ONTO THE COMMITTEE.
I WON'T GO ON TO MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE COMMITTEE HERE.
I'LL JUST POINT OUT THAT MY TWO COCHAIRS FOR THAT COMMITTEE ARE MOUHAMET DIOP FROM SENEGAL, WHO'S ONE OF THE ICANN BOARD MEMBERS, AND ALSO HUALIN QIAN, FROM CHINA.
I THINK PROFESSOR QIAN IS IN THE ROOM.
THERE HE IS, YES.
CAN I JUST SAY WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT PEOPLE HAVE DONE IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS AND AT THIS MEETING TO COME TOGETHER AND DELIVER THESE WORKSHOPS, TO SHARE INFORMATION.
WE APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE BY THE REGISTRIES, FOR INSTANCE, ON UPDATING OF REGISTRY -- ON THE GUIDELINES; WE APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE ON THE IANA IDN REGISTRY, DISCUSSIONS THAT ARE TAKING PLACE.
SO FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU.
AND SECONDLY, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, MAY I SAY THAT I KNOW MYSELF AND OTHERS ARE VERY INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT WE EXPECT WILL BE A VERY DIVERSE AND HOPEFULLY VERY, AS THEY SAY IN DIPLOMATIC LANGUAGE, OPEN AND FRANK EXCHANGE THIS AFTERNOON ON ISSUES.
FIRST OF ALL, ABOUT INTERNATIONALIZED TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN APPROACHES, WHICH WILL TAKE US THROUGH TO A COFFEE BREAK AT 4:45.
SECOND SESSION FOCUSING ON INTERNATIONALIZED SECOND-LEVEL DOMAIN IMPLEMENTATION, THROUGH TO 6:30.
AND THE THIRD SESSION ON ADDITIONAL IDN COMMUNITY INITIATIVES, WHICH WILL COMPLETE, THEN, AT 7:30.
SO THANKS VERY MUCH.
I THOUGHT I'D INTRODUCE VINT CERF, WHO MIGHT HAVE ONE OR TWO IDEAS ON THIS TOPIC, TO TALK AND GIVE A FURTHER INTRODUCTION.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PAUL. AND GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.
I HOPE I CAN JUST PUT A LITTLE BIT OF FRAMING ON WHAT I EXPECT IS GOING TO BE A REALLY INTERESTING DISCUSSION TODAY.
LET ME START OUT BY ADMITTING THAT I HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE MORE SKEPTICAL OF THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THE EASE WITH WHICH INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES COULD BE SUCCESSFULLY INTRODUCED INTO THE EXISTING DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM.
AND I CONFESS THAT I COME TO THIS VIEW LARGELY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF A TYPICAL ENGINEERING BELIEF THAT YOU SHOULD TRY TO MAKE SURE YOU'VE SOLVED ALL THE PROBLEMS BEFORE YOU START SO THAT YOU WON'T BE SURPRISED WHEN YOU BEGIN IMPLEMENTATION.
BUT I HAVE COME TO BELIEVE -- I'VE BEEN PERSUADED BY MY COLLEAGUES THAT WE MIGHT HAVE A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT PATH FORWARD THAT WILL ALLOW US TO MAKE SOME PROGRESS.
MOUHAMET DIOP IS ELOQUENT IN HIS ARGUMENT THAT WE SHOULD BE WILLING TO EXPERIMENT WITH SOME OF THESE IDEAS.
THAT'S HOW THE INTERNET GOT STARTED.
AND WE SHOULDN'T BE AFRAID THAT SOMETIMES THE EXPERIMENTS WON'T ALWAYS GO AS PLANNED.
MOREOVER, WE MIGHT TRY TO SOLVE LESS THAN WHAT I WOULD CALL THE ENTIRE PROBLEM AND GET SOME USEFUL RESULTS.
AND BY THIS I MEAN UTILITY FROM THE WORK.
LET ME START OUT, THOUGH, BY SUGGESTING THAT BEFORE WE CAN ARGUE A LOT ABOUT HOW TO DO SOMETHING, WE MIGHT WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
AND IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT CRISP AND CONCRETE, I WOULD ASK YOU TO THINK FOR A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT A USER TO EXPERIENCE.
I'M USING THE WORD "EXPERIENCE" RATHER THAN "SEE," BECAUSE THERE IS MORE TO IDN THAN WHAT YOU SEE.
FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN YOU REGISTER AN IDN, YOU'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME PROCESS THAT EXPOSES YOU TO A REGISTRAR'S PROCEDURES OR POSSIBLY DIRECTLY INTERACTING WITH A CCTLD REGISTRY THAT DOESN'T USE A REGISTRAR.
SO PART OF YOUR EXPERIENCE WILL HAVE LITTLE TO DO WITH THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM ITSELF BUT HAVE A LOT TO DO WITH THE THINGS THAT SURROUND IT.
PART OF YOUR EXPERIENCE WILL BE A CONSEQUENCE OF THE SOFTWARE THAT YOU'RE USING THAT IS INTENDED TO RECOGNIZE THAT YOU HAVE ENTERED AN INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME OR TO RECOGNIZE THAT YOU HAVE MOVED YOUR MOUSE OVER ON TOP OF AN INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME.
AND SUPPOSE THAT YOU WERE TO USE THE CUT AND PASTE FUNCTION TO TAKE THE INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME, COPY IT, AND PLACE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.
THAT'S PART OF YOUR USER EXPERIENCE, TOO.
OF COURSE, THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WHEN YOU DO CUT AND PASTE, ESPECIALLY OVER AN HTML OR AN XML FILE.
CUT AND PASTE, -- OR OVER A PDF FILE.
CUT AND PASTE IS NOT A TRIVIAL FUNCTION.
IF IT EVER WAS, IT ISN'T ANYMORE.
SO IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES, THESE VARIOUS ACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS THAT WE TAKE AS WE USE THEM, MANIPULATE THEM, SEE THEM, AND FORWARD THEM, ARE GOING TO COLOR WHAT OUR EXPERIENCE IS.
SO THE MENTAL EXERCISE, OR AS EINSTEIN PUTS IT, THE GADONKIN EXPERIMENT, IS TO IMAGINE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS IN WHICH INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES MIGHT APPEAR AND MIGHT BE USED.
THE USER IS SITTING IN, LET'S SAY, IN RUSSIA, AND WANTS TO INTERACT WITH THE NETWORK USING CYRILLIC CHARACTERS IN THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE AND IS -- WOULD BE VERY HAPPY IF ALL OF HIS INTERACTIONS, OR HER INTERACTIONS, WERE IN CYRILLIC.
NOW, IT'S FAIR TO POINT OUT THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO PRODUCE AN INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME BY TYPING ON YOUR KEYBOARD, THERE WILL PROBABLY BE SOME SYMBOLS THAT YOU WILL USE THAT ARE NOT CYRILLIC.
THEY ARE THINGS LIKE A PERIOD OR MAYBE A SLASH, BECAUSE IT'S PART OF A REFERENCE TO A URL.
YOU MAY EVEN FIND YOURSELF HAVING TO ENTER SOME ASCII CHARACTERS, LIKE HTTP COLON SLASH SLASH, UNLESS THERE'S -- SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED TO THE SOFTWARE LOCALLY THAT HAS A CYRILLIC EQUIVALENT THAT'S GOING TO BE TRANSLATED INTO HTTP FOR PURPOSES OF INTERACTING WITH THE REST OF THE NETWORK.
SO I'M -- WHAT I'M SUGGESTING HERE IS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE ONE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THE PARTY WHO'S USING INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES IS ONLY INTERACTING WITH OTHER PARTIES USING THE SAME SET OF CHARACTERS, THE SAME LANGUAGE.
THAT MIGHT BE THE SIMPLEST OF THE CASES.
MY CORRESPONDENTS ALL SPEAK RUSSIAN, THEY ALL USE CYRILLIC, THEIR CHARACTER SETS AND KEYBOARDS ARE CONFIGURED FOR THAT.
AND SO THIS APPEARS TO WORK QUITE WELL.
AND PEOPLE ARE HAPPY.
THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU HAVE TO INTERACT WITH SOMEONE WHO USES A CHARACTER SET THAT IS USING ARABIC SCRIPT -- AND I APOLOGIZE TO THE EXPERTS IF I AM USING INADEQUATE LANGUAGE HERE.
I MIGHT HAVE USED SYMBOLS OR FONTS OR GLYPHS OR SOME OTHER THING.
BUT THE POINT HERE IS THAT WHEN YOU ARE CONFRONTED WITH A MULTITUDE, WHERE MULTITUDE MIGHT BE JUST MORE THAN ONE, ALTERNATIVE SCRIPT AND LANGUAGE, IT CAN CAUSE SOME PROBLEMS, BECAUSE SUDDENLY THE SOFTWARE HAS TO BE AWARE OF THE DISTINCTIONS AMONG THEM AND HOW TO TREAT THEM.
LIFE GETS MORE COMPLICATED WHEN SOME OF THE LANGUAGES ARE RIGHT TO LEFT AND SOME OF THEM ARE LEFT TO RIGHT.
SO I RAISE ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS ASKING YOU TO DO SOME THINKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENT CASES THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOLVED IN THE USE OF IDNS.
AND MAYBE WE SHOULD DIVIDE THESE CASES UP INTO THESE ARE THE SIMPLER ONES AND THESE ARE THE HARDER ONES.
AND I THINK THE HARDER ONES ARE THE ONES THAT INVOLVE EXCHANGES THAT REQUIRE SOME AWARENESS OF MULTIPLE SCRIPTS, MULTIPLE LANGUAGES.
AND AFTER WE DO AT LEAST THIS TOKEN CASE ANALYSIS, MAYBE OUT OF THAT WILL COME SOME SPECIFIC CASES THAT ARE EASIER TO SOLVE THAN OTHERS.
IF THAT'S TRUE, MAYBE WE SHOULD START WITH SOME OF THOSE.
MY ONLY BIG CONCERN IS THAT AS WE BEGIN TO EXPLORE SOLUTIONS TO OR ANSWERS TO THESE CASES, THAT WE NOT INTRODUCE CONSTRAINTS ON FUTURE SOLUTIONS TO THE MORE COMPLEX CASES.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE CONSCIOUS OF THE POTENTIAL FOR ADOPTING, FOR EXAMPLE, A STANDARD WHICH WORKS FOR THE SIMPLER CASES AND DOESN'T WORK FOR THE MORE COMPLEX ONES.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO KNOW THE ANSWERS TO ALL OF THE COMPLEX ONES.
BUT WE AT LEAST SHOULD BE TRYING HARD NOT TO LET THE EARLY SOLUTIONS IMPEDE OUR ABILITY TO SOLVE MORE COMPLEX PROBLEMS.
I THINK THAT ANOTHER ISSUE FOR ME, ANYWAY, IS THAT THE DNS ITSELF, WHEN IT WAS DESIGNED, WAS DESIGNED WITH EIGHT-BIT CHARACTERS IN MIND.
IT'S ACTUALLY WHAT WE COULD CALL EIGHT-BIT CLEAN.
PAUL MOCKAPETRIS ISN'T HERE TO SPEAK ON HIS OWN BEHALF.
AND I WAS ACTUALLY NOT PART OF THE DESIGN TEAM THAT PUT DNS TOGETHER.
SO I'M EXPERT AMONG K HERE.
BUT MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE COMMUNITY ADOPTED AN EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE REPRESENTATION OF DOMAIN NAMES THAN THE SYSTEM ITSELF COULD SUPPORT, BECAUSE IT ADOPTED A SEVEN-BIT ASCII REPRESENTATION AND IT LIMITED THE CHARACTERS OF DOMAIN NAMES TO ALPHABETIC CHARACTERS, ROMAN ALPHABETIC CHARACTERS, THE DIGITS 0 THROUGH 9, AND THE HYPHEN.
OF COURSE, THE PERIOD BEING USED AS A SEPARATOR BETWEEN LABELS.
THAT SIMPLIFICATION SERVED VERY WELL FOR THE PURPOSES THAT IT WAS INTENDED.
LOWER CASE WAS MAPPED INTO UPPER CASE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF SIDE EFFECTS OF THE SIMPLIFICATION THAT MADE THE SOFTWARE EASIER TO WRITE.
AND IT CREATED A SUBSTANTIAL UNIFORMITY.
WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF 16-BIT UNICODE, THE ATTEMPT TO MAP THAT INTO SEVEN-BIT ASCII USING THE PUNYCODE AND NAMEPREP MECHANISMS AT LEAST I THINK HAS PROVED TO BE TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE.
PEOPLE HAVE IMPLEMENTED IT.
BUT IT MAY HAVE TURNED OUT TO BE INSUFFICIENT TO SOLVE EVEN THE SIMPLER-CASE PROBLEMS.
AS WE LEARNED VERY QUICKLY WHEN WE TRIED DOING SOME OF THESE IDN EXPERIMENTS AND DISCOVERED THAT PEOPLE COULD REGISTER STRINGS THAT TURNED OUT TO BE AMBIGUOUS, THAT TURNED OUT TO BE CONFUSING, OR IN SOME CASES, TURNED OUT TO MASQUERADE AS URLS WHEN IN FACT THEY WEREN'T, BECAUSE THE SYMBOLS APPEARED TO BE PART OF THE SYMBOLS OF THE URL SYNTAX BUT IN FACT WERE DRAWN FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE UNICODE SPACE THAN ONE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED.
SO WE CLEARLY STILL HAVE WORK TO DO.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE SITTING IN THIS ROOM.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION.
I THINK THAT IN THE END, AS PAUL POINTED OUT, THERE WILL BE A LARGE NUMBER OF INITIATIVES UNDERTAKEN TO EXPLORE THE SPACE OF POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS FOR DEFINITION AND USE OF INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES.
I THINK IT WILL BE VERY VALUABLE FOR THERE TO BE AS MUCH COORDINATION AS POSSIBLE IN THE COURSE OF THAT EXPLORATION SO THAT WE ARE GENERALLY AWARE OF WHAT ALL THE OTHER PARTIES ARE DOING.
AND, FINALLY, I WANT TO ECHO WHAT MY COLLEAGUE JOHN KLENSIN HAS FREQUENTLY REMINDED US OF, AND THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOCALIZATION AND INTERNATIONALIZATION, OR IF YOU LIKE, INTERNATIONAL INTEROPERABILITY.
IN THE POSTAL SERVICE, AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT WAS MADE THAT EVEN IF ALL OF THE CONTENTS OF A LETTER AND THE FACE OF THE ENVELOPE, THE ADDRESS OF THE ENVELOPE, HAPPENED TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN A LANGUAGE NOT LOCAL TO THE COUNTRY, TO BE CONCRETE, IF I'M SITTING IN THE U.K. AND I'M WRITING TO A FRIEND WHO HAPPENS TO SPEAK URDU, IT'S PERFECTLY ALL RIGHT IN THE U.K. AND IN MOST OTHER COUNTRIES, TO WRITE THE ADDRESS OF THE PARTY IN URDU.
BUT AT THE BOTTOM, THE POSTAL UNION AGREED INTERNATIONALLY THAT THE NAME OF THE DESTINATION COUNTRY WAS TO BE WRITTEN IN UPPER-CASE FRENCH ROMAN CHARACTERS.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, I MIGHT WRITE TO MY FRIEND IN URDU -- WHICH I DON'T SPEAK, SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU A CONCRETE RENDERING -- AND AT THE BOTTOM, I MIGHT WRITE IN BLOCK LETTERS, "INDIA."
OR ANOTHER -- OR PERHAPS OTHER COUNTRY WHERE URDU WAS SPOKEN.
IN FACT, MY FRIEND MIGHT SPEAK URDU BUT MIGHT BE LIVING IN A COUNTRY WHERE URDU IS NOT A COMMON LANGUAGE.
IF THAT'S TRUE AND THE REST OF THE ENVELOPE IS WRITTEN IN URDU AND THE LETTER ARRIVES, LET'S SAY, IN HONOLULU, THE LOCAL HONOLULU POSTAL SERVICE MAY NOT HAVE FACILITY WITH URDU AND THEY HAVE TROUBLE FIGURING OUT HOW TO DELIVER THE ENVELOPE.
SO YOU DO HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHICH LANGUAGE -- IN WHICH LANGUAGE THE POSTAL SERVICE IS LIKELY TO BE ABLE TO DELIVER THE LETTER.
BUT THE POSTAL UNION'S AGREEMENT WAS THAT THERE WAS ONE STANDARD FOR THE REFERENCE TO THE NAME OF THE COUNTRY WHERE THE LETTER WAS SUPPOSED TO GO.
THAT CREATES INTERNATIONAL INTEROPERABILITY AT LEAST AT THE ENVELOPE LEVEL.
IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT WHAT'S INSIDE.
WE NEED TO THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT WHAT WE DO WITH IDNS SO AS TO MAINTAIN THE INTERNATIONAL INTEROPERABILITY OF THE INTERNET.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT EVERY SINGLE E-MAIL, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT YOU RECEIVE IS NECESSARILY UNDERSTANDABLE TO YOU.
I RECEIVE E-MAILS THAT I SUSPECT WERE WRITTEN USING KANJI CHARACTERS, WHICH MY COMPUTER IS NOT CAPABLE OF DISPLAYING. AND IT PRODUCES A RATHER INTERESTING IMAGE ON THE SCREEN WHEN I RECEIVE ONE OF THESE.
BUT IT'S ALSO POSSIBLE FOR ME TO REPLY TO IT.
OF COURSE, THAT PRESUMES I'VE FIGURED OUT WHO IT CAME FROM AND WHAT IT WAS THAT THEY WERE ASKING ME TO DO.
BUT THE MECHANISM ALLOWED ME TO RESPOND, EVEN IF I COULDN'T READ IT.
I THINK WE WANT TO BE CAREFUL TO TRY TO PRESERVE THAT SORT OF CAPABILITY SO THAT EVEN IF WE DON'T QUITE KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING, WE CAN STILL MAKE THE SYSTEM WORK.
I'M EVEN WILLING TO ACCEPT THE POSSIBILITY THAT FOR SOME CASES, I WON'T BE ABLE TO REPLY, I WON'T BE ABLE TO DISPLAY, AND I HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT FOR SOME SEGMENT OF MY POSSIBLE UNIVERSE, I WON'T BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THAT PARTY.
BUT I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT WANT TO INTRODUCE A SYSTEM THAT GUARANTEED THAT FOR THE MOST PART, I WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD BECAUSE THEIR E-MAIL ADDRESSES COULD NOT BE REPRODUCED ON MY KEYBOARD.
SO I THINK IT'S A CHALLENGE FOR THE PEOPLE AT THIS TABLE, THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM, AND THOSE OF US IN THE REST OF THE INTERNET WORLD WHO ARE EAGER TO SEE INTRODUCTION OF INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT WILL DELIVER TRUE UTILITY TO THE LARGEST SEGMENT OF OUR USER SPACE.
SO I NOW LEAVE IT TO THIS COMMITTEE TO HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT SOME OF THOSE CHALLENGES ARE.
AND I INTEND TO STAY HERE FOR THIS MEETING AND LEARN JUST AS MUCH AS I POSSIBLY CAN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME THESE OPENING REMARKS.

(APPLAUSE.)
>>CARY KARP: I HAD ACTUALLY PREPARED A NUMBER OF SIMILAR OPENING REMARKS AND DON'T NEED TO SAY ABOUT MORE THAN 2% OF WHAT I HAD PLANNED TO, THANKS TO VINT'S QUITE COGENT PRESENTATION OF ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER TODAY.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS WORKSHOP IS, IN FACT, TO TAKE INVENTORY OF THE CONCERNS THAT IMPINGE UPON THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE DOMAIN NAME SPACE AND EQUALLY MUCH, IF NOT EVEN MORE SO, AFFECT THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE LOCALIZING THEIR OWN WORKING ENVIRONMENTS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE POTENTIAL THAT IDN IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE.
THERE ARE FOUR PREPARED PRESENTATIONS TO PROVIDE SOME SIGNIFICANT CONTEXT TO THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE ARE, I HOPE, UNABLE TO ANTICIPATE AT THIS POINT.
WE EXPECT THERE TO BE QUITE A BIT OF NEW PERSPECTIVE ADDED TO THESE ISSUES DURING THE COURSE OF THIS SESSION.
BUT, AGAIN, WE'VE GOT SOMETHING SET UP TO GET THE PROCESS ROLLING.
HOW MANY OF YOU IN THE AUDIENCE WERE PUZZLED BY SOME OF THE TERMINOLOGY THAT VINT USED IN HIS PRESENTATION OF THIS?
DO I NEED TO DO A BRIEF GLOSSARY OF IDN TERMINOLOGY TO MAKE WHAT'S ABOUT TO BE SAID UNDERSTANDABLE?
OKAY.
YES, THERE ARE HANDS GOING UP.
>>VINT CERF: I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT I SAID, EITHER.
(LAUGHTER.)
>>CARY KARP: OKAY.
YOU ARE LIKELY TO HEAR A NUMBER OF BUZZWORDS AND ACRONYMS USED DURING THE COURSE OF THESE PRESENTATIONS.
AND IN FACT THIS ENTIRE THING IS RATHER SIMPLE.
BUT UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S SIMPLE IS VERY DIFFICULT.
SO WE THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE REASONABLE FOR YOU TO SHOOT YOUR HANDS UP AT ANY POINT DURING ANY OF THE PRESENTATIONS IF SOMEONE SAYS SOMETHING THAT IS SIMPLY CONFUSING.
AND IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS MEANT, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING BEYOND THAT, JUST LET US KNOW.
SO YOU CAN RISE TO POINTS OF DEFINITION AT ANY TIME DURING THIS BUSINESS.
ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT IS GOING TO BE REPEATED, I WOULD BELIEVE, OVER AND OVER DURING THE COURSE OF THIS AFTERNOON IS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND SCRIPT.
I AM ADDRESSING YOU USING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
THE NOTES THAT I HAVE ON MY PAPER USE THE LATIN SCRIPT, THE LATIN ALPHABET TO NOTATE THAT.
AND A LARGE PART OF THE ANGUISH THAT ATTACHES TO I SUPPOSE THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM -- IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ITS INTERNATIONALIZATION -- RESULTS FROM THE FAILURE TO REALIZE THAT DOMAIN NAMES, ALTHOUGH THEY APPEAR TO BE WORDS AND PHRASES, WEREN'T REALLY INITIALLY INTENDED TO BE THAT.
THEY WERE THINGS THAT WERE INTENDED TO PROVIDE MNEMONIC CONVENIENCE WHEN ACCESSING RESOURCES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED BY NUMBERS RATHER THAN LETTERS, AND THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT HUMAN BEINGS HAVE AN EASIER TIME REMEMBERING PRONOUNCEABLE SEQUENCES OF LETTERS THAN THEY DO LONG SEQUENCES OF NUMBERS.
SO ONE OF THE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES IS GOING TO BE, WHAT IS IT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SAY IN A DOMAIN NAME THAT WE SIMPLY CANNOT SAY IN A DOMAIN NAME?
THE INITIAL ASCII ENVIRONMENT -- ASCII IS AMERICAN STANDARD FOR CHARACTER -- FOR -- FOR COMPUTER INFORMATICS --
>>VINT CERF: AMERICAN STANDARD CODE FOR INFORMATION INTERCHANGE.
>>CARY KARP: OKAY.
IT IS SIMPLY A WAY OF GIVING EVERY LETTER AND NUMBER AND A FEW PUNCTUATION MARKS AND OTHER SYMBOLS IN THE LATIN SCRIPT A NUMERICAL CODE, OKAY.
AND THIS HAS BEEN EXPANDED MASSIVELY. YOU WILL HERE THE TERM UNICODE USED DURING THE COURSE OF THE AFTERNOON, AND UNICODE IS SIMPLY THE SINGLE ENCODING SCHEME THAT EMBRACES ALL OF THE VARIOUS GRAPHIC DEVICES THAT ARE USED TO REPRESENT THE PHONETIC ELEMENTS OF LANGUAGE AND A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER STUFF AS WELL.
AND AGAIN, HOW THIS MAPS INTO SUCH A SEMANTICALLY IMPOVERISHED THING AS THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM GENERATES QUITE A BIT OF CONTROVERSY; RIGHT?
FOR THE BENEFIT OF YOU WHO MAY NOT BE SEEING WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE ROOM BUT HEARING THIS, THERE ARE GESTICULATING MEMBERS OF THIS PANEL.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE PARTICIPATING IN THIS THERE IS A JABBER ROOM OPEN AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS, AND THE SCRIBES HAVE THIS SO YOU WILL SEE IT ON THEIR SCREEN. IT IS IDN-ROOM, THAT IS THE NAME OF THE CHAT, AT CONFERENCE.ICANN.ORG.
AND WE WILL BE MONITORING ANYTHING THAT WILL BE CONTRIBUTED FROM THE NET SIDE OF THIS DISCUSSION, AND WE WILL SIMPLY PLACE NEW THE QUEUE WHEN THE MICROPHONE HAS BEEN OPEN FOR THE GENERAL DISCUSSION.
OKAY. SCRIPT AND LANGUAGE. SO LANGUAGE IS THE AUDITORY COMMUNICATIVE PROCESS. SCRIPT IS ITS GRAPHIC NOTATION. AND DOMAIN NAMES ARE ONE SMALLER SUBSET STILL OF WHAT IS CAPABLE OF SUCH GRAPHIC NOTATION.
UNICODE, THIS BROAD REPERTOIRE OF CHARACTERS, IS WHAT IDEALLY PEOPLE EXPECT TO SEE WHEN ADDRESSING COMPUTERS. AN INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES. IS ANYBODY ONLINE? DOES ANYBODY HAVE ACCESS TO THE VIDEO THING WHO HAS AN IDN IN ALL OF ITS BEAUTIFUL GLORY AVAILABLE TO SHOW?
YOU WILL SEE THIS IN A MOMENT.
THE UNICODE THAT YOU WILL SEE IN REGARD TO BE AN INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME IS, IN FACT, ENCODED BEFORE IT IS SENT ONTO THE WIRE INTO A QUITE UNINTELLIGIBLE SEQUENCE OF BASIC ASCII CHARACTERS. THE 26 LETTERS OF THE LATIN ALPHABET, THE DIGITS ZERO TO NINE, AND THE HYPHEN.
THAT IS ALL THAT IS ACTUALLY USED IN THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM, EVEN IN ITS INTERNATIONALIZED VERSION. SO THE UNICODE THING THAT USERS EXPECT TO SEE ARE ENCODED. AND THE NAME FOR THAT ENCODING FORMALISM IS REPRESENTED VARIOUSLY AS PUNYCODE, GET IT? UNICODE, PUNYCODE. WE SPEAK ALSO OF ASCII COMPATIBLE ENCODING. ANY REFERENCE YOU HEAR TO ENCODING SYSTEMS SIMPLY MEANS THE WAY A USER EXPECTS TO SEE IS TRANSLATED INTO THE LESS -- INTO THE FAR MORE CRYPTIC THING THAT IS COMFORTABLY -- YES, VINT. INTERRUPTION.
>>VINT CERF: I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU IN MID SENTENCE, CARY, BUT I THINK IT'S PROBABLY THE CASE THAT USERS DON'T WANT TO SEE EITHER THE ASCII CODES OR THE UNICODES. THEY WANT TO SEE THE GLYPHS INTO WHICH THOSE HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED FOR VIEWING PURPOSES. YOU DON'T EVER WANT TO SEE THE ACTUAL NUMERIC CODES.
>>CARY KARP: SORRY. THERE I AM BEING ABSOLUTELY UNCLEAR.
THE UNICODE THING IS THIS GRAND TABLE WITH SQUIGGLES IN ONE COLUMN AND NUMBERS IN THE OTHER COLUMN AND IT IS THE SQUIGGLES THAT PEOPLE EXPECT TO SEE. OKAY? FINE.
THE WAY IN WHICH THE ENCODING IS DONE, THE MEANS BY WHICH A NAME IS PREPARED FOR ACTUAL REGISTRATION IN THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM OR ANY OPERATION USING THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM, IS CALLED NAME PREP. THAT'S IT. THAT'S THE WHOLE BATTERY OF BUZZWORDS THAT NEED TO BE HEARD.
VINT DESCRIBED A NUMBER OF SITUATIONS THAT GENERATE NEED FOR THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE HAVING TODAY. I ACTUALLY WON'T REVIEW THEM. THAT WAS THE MAIN SUBSTANCE OF MY INTRODUCTORY PRESENTATION. BUT I WILL LEAVE IT AT THAT, AND WE WILL START NOW WITH THE FOUR PREPARED PRESENTATIONS THAT WE HAVE, AND I'LL LEAVE IT TO THE INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES.
THE FIRST PRESENTATION IS BY THE CHINESE DOMAIN NAME CONSORTIUM, AND ALL I HAVE NOTED IN FRONT OF ME IS THAT THERE IS A PRESENTATION TOPIC. SO I LOOK FORWARD, TOGETHER WITH YOU, TO FINDING OUT THE FURTHER DETAILS.
>>LI GUANGHAO: THANK YOU FOR THE CHAIR. I AM GUANGHAO LI FROM THE CNNIC. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. IT IS MY PLEASURE TO GIVE THE PRESENTATION ON THE CDNC'S PERSPECTIVES OF THE IDN TLDS.
CDNC IS SHORT FOR CHINESE DOMAIN NAME CONSORTIUM. ITS MISSION IS TO COORDINATE -- LET ME BRING THIS A LITTLE CLOSER.
IS TO COORDINATE IN COOPERATION OF CHINESE DOMAIN NAMES AND IT WAS ESTABLISHED IN MAY 2000. IT'S INDEPENDENT NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. MEMBERS INCLUDE CNNIC, HK NIC, MO NIC, TWNIC AND SG NIC.
THE PASSWORD OF CDNC, INCLUDING LIKE COMPOSE AND REGISTER, THE CHINESE LANGUAGE TABLE AND THE CNNIC, SIMPLIFIED CHINESE. AND TWNIC, THE TRADITIONAL CHINESE.
CDNC RECOGNIZES THE PAST EFFORTS AND INPUTS MADE BY ALL THE ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING IETF, THE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY, ICANN, AND REGISTRIES, LINGUISTICS, AND APPLICATION DEVELOPERS AND ET CETERA. AND WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT ICANN HAD POSTED IDN GUIDELINE 2.0 AND THE COMMITMENT TO FURTHER IMPROVE IT INTO A V3 OR A PCP.
WE HAVE SOME FACTS AND ANALYSIS ON WHY DO WE WANT IDN TLDS. REGISTRY DON'T USE THE IDN WORLD DUE TO THE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY PROVIDES QUESTION THAT KIND OF SAY.
BY THE YEAR 2005, THERE ARE OVER 820 MILLION INTERNET USERS ARE NON-NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS, AND IT REPRESENTS ABOUT 65% OF ALL INTERNET USERS IN THE WORLD.
AND EVEN IN THE U.S., WHICH START THE INTERNET, THERE ARE 45 MILLION RESIDENTS ARE NOT ENGLISH SPEAKERS. AND WE ESTIMATE 15 MILLION CAN'T SPEAK ENGLISH AT ALL AND 8.4 MILLION DON'T EVEN READ ENGLISH.
AND IT'S ESTIMATED THAT AT LEAST 27 MILLION AMERICANS DO NOT -- ONLY ACCESS THE INTERNET IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE RATHER THAN ENGLISH.
AND THERE'S SOME FACTS ACCORDING TO THE CDNC MEMBERS.
ACCORDING TO THE CNNIC'S STATISTICS, THERE ARE 103 MILLION INTERNET USERS. ALMOST ALL OF THEM ACCESS THE INTERNET IN CHINESE. AND OVER 70% OF THEM ARE CHINESE ONLY USERS, WHICH IS THEY DON'T ACCESS WEB SITES IN LANGUAGE OTHER THAN CHINESE AT ALL.
AND ACCORDING TO THE TWNIC'S STATISTICS, 75% OF THE WEB SITES ENCODED WAS IN THE TRADITIONAL CHINESE. AND FROM THE 2000 TO NOW, THE VOLUME OF TRADITIONAL CHINESE DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION TAKES ABOUT HALF OF THE NEW REGISTRATIONS.
AND WHY DO WE TALK ABOUT THE IDN TLDS? PAUSE THE CURRENT SYSTEM, WE CONSIDER IT'S A HANDICAPPED SYSTEM. IT ONLY SUPPORTS THE ASCII TLDS, AND IT DOES NOT SUPPORT IDN TLDS, WHICH MEANS USERS HAVE TO SWITCH BETWEEN LANGUAGES WHILE TYPING IN DOMAIN NAMES. IT IMPOSES MUCH OF THE TROUBLES AND COMPLICATIONS ONTO THE USER'S SHOULDER, WHAT THEY USE TO ACCESS THE INTERNET RESOURCE. AND THE OUTCOME IS THE POWER OF THE INTERNET BEING SHACKLED.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TRYING TO PUSH FORWARD THE IDN TLD, WE CONSIDER THE THINGS ALREADY. THERE ARE MANY OPPORTUNITIES WE HAVE TO CONSIDER, WHICH IS THE GLOBAL AWARENESS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERNET. MOST COUNTRIES AND ECONOMIES REALIZE THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT THAT THE INTERNET HAS ON THEIR SOCIETY, ECONOMY, AND THEIR CULTURE.
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS REALIZE IT'S AN IMPORTANT MEANS TO PRESERVE THE DIVERSITY, CULTURE OF THE WORLD.
AND THE MARKET DEMANDS ARE THE DEMAND GROWS STRONGER AND STRONGER. THE CCTLDS ARE GROWING STRONG, WHICH IS THE .EU ARE THE SECOND LARGEST REGISTERED DOMAIN IN THE WORLD, JUST RIGHT BEHIND THE .COM.
WE GET LOTS OF FEEDBACK FROM THE REGISTRANTS AND REGISTRARS. THEY ARE ASKING FOR THE FULLY INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME REGISTRIES.
THE TECHNOLOGY IS PROVEN AND THE TECHNICAL FORCES ARE READY. MANY COUNTRIES, REGIONS, AND THE TLD REGISTRIES HAVE SET UP TEST BEDS FOR IDN TLDS. AND THE RESULTS, WE CONSIDER IT OPTIMISTIC.
WE HAVE THE GUIDELINES, RFCS, WHICH ARE LIKE -- YOU ALL KNOW THE WORD, JUST PUBLISHED BY ICANN, THE IDN GUIDELINE 2.0, AND WE HAVE MANY TECHNICAL STANDARDS IN PLACE AND ARE WIDELY ADOPTED BY THE TLD MANAGERS.
IT'S APPROVED THAT IT WILL NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE CURRENT DNS SYSTEM.
EVEN ON THE LAST MEETING IN LUXEMBOURG, THE BOARD RESOLUTION SAID ICANN IS COMMITTED TO THE FURTHER STUDY OF THE IDNS IN THE TLD SPACE AND COMMITS TO FACILITATING VENUES IN WHICH IDN CAN BE DISCUSSED AND ENCOURAGE THE VENUES TO FURTHER ENCOURAGE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IDNS.
AND HERE, CDNC WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE SOME PRINCIPLES AND SUGGESTED STRATEGIES TO IMPLEMENT THE IDN TLD.
THE PRINCIPLES. THE FIRST ONE WILL BE SUPPORTED BY THE CORRESPONDING CCTLD LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR THE REGISTRIES OR AUTHORIZED AGENCIES SELECT THEIR OWN CHOICE OF WHAT MULTILINGUAL CHARACTER SET TO BE USED AS THE IDN CCTLD.
AND PRINCIPLE TWO IS TO CLEARLY STATE THE NECESSITY, PROS AND CONS FOR IMPLEMENTING INTERNATIONALIZED CCTLDS IN EACH PROPOSAL THAT'S SUBMITTED TO ICANN.
THIRD IS TO REGISTER AND OPERATE THE INTERNATIONALIZED CCTLDS IN THE ROOT DNS SERVER IN THE FORM OF IDNA PUNYCODE. WHICH IS THE CHAIR JUST MENTIONED. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON PUNYCODE?
AND THE STRATEGY TO IMPLEMENT. SET PRIORITIES TO INTERNATIONALIZE TLDS. WE CONSIDER TO SIMPLIFY THE WHOLE MATTER AND TO ENSURE THE STABILITY OF THE EXISTING NETWORK, WE RECOMMEND TO INTERNATIONALIZE THE TLDS IN THE CCTLD LEVEL FIRST, AND THEN WE CONSIDER THE GTLDS.
IT'S FOR THE CONVENIENT PURPOSE. WE SUGGEST THAT ONLY ONE FORM OF THE LANGUAGE CHARACTER VARIANTS OF INTERNATIONALIZED CCTLD IS ACCEPTED. WE CONSIDER THE USERS WITH ISSUES ON CHARACTER VARIANTS. ONLY ONE FORM OF THE CHARACTER SET SHALL BE CHOSEN FOR IDN USE BY EACH SPONSORED TLD REGISTRY.
WE ALSO SUGGEST THAT ICANN TO FORM AN EVALUATION COMMITTEE ON IDN TLD. THE COMMITTEE SHALL COMPOSE OF A REPRESENTATIVES FROM GNSO, WHICH IS FROM THE GTLD REGISTRY COMMITTEE, AND THE CCNSO. ALSO, IT SHOULD INCLUDE MEMBERS FROM DNS ENGINEERS, IF POSSIBLE, WE WOULD LIKE THE COMMITTEE INCLUDE SOME BOARD MEMBERS OF THE ICANN BOARD.
AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE EVALUATION PROCESS, IT'S TRANSPARENT, OPEN, AND OPEN FOR THE PUBLIC INPUTS.
WE CONSIDER MISSION OF THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE REVIEW THE APPLICANT'S QUALIFICATION, CONSULT AND REQUEST THE ENDORSEMENT WITH THE RELEVANT GOVERNMENT OR THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES. AND TO DRAFT THE TEST BED EVALUATION REPORT.
THE FIRST MISSION IS TO REVIEW THE APPLICANT'S QUALIFICATION. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PROPOSAL SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY THE CORRESPONDING CCTLD REGISTRY OR THE GOVERNMENT ACCREDITED INSTITUTE OR AGENCY WHICH MEETS THOSE CRITERIAS.
IT'S A CLEAR STATEMENT INDICATES THE DEMAND OF IDN TLD ON THAT SPECIFIC TLD -- CCTLD MARKET. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE INSTITUTE STAFFING WITH ADEQUATE TECHNICAL FORCES, HAVING BROAD SUPPORT FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR THE LOCAL INTERNET COMMUNITY.
AND POSSESSING SUFFICIENT FINANCIAL RESOURCE, EQUIPMENT, AND HAVE THE PROPER OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCES.
AND MISSION, TWO, IS TO CONSULT AND REQUEST THE ENDORSEMENT WITH THE RELEVANT GOVERNMENT OR THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY.
THE COMMITTEE SHOULD CONSULT IDN CCTLD PROPOSAL WITH ITS CORRESPONDING GOVERNMENT OR THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES.
AND ALSO, THE COMMITTEE SHOULD REQUEST THE SPONSOR TO PROVIDE APPROVAL DOCUMENTARIES ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT BEFORE ITS APPROVAL.
AND THIRD MISSION IS TO DRAFT THE TEST BED EVALUATION REPORTS. IT SHOULD SET THE STANDARDS AND CONDUCT FULL SCALE EVALUATION ON THE PROPOSED INTERNATIONALIZED CCTLD DURING ITS INITIAL OPERATION, THEN SUBMIT THE EVALUATION REPORT TO ICANN BOARD FOR ITS FINAL APPROVAL.
IT SHOULD ALSO, THE APPLICANT SHOULD ONLY OFFICIALLY LAUNCH THE REGISTRATION SERVICE AFTER GETTING APPROVAL FROM THE ICANN BOARD.
IF THE REPORT SHOWS THAT THE PERFORMANCE IS NOT ELIGIBLE, THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE SHOULD REJECT THE APPLICATION AND ASK THE APPLICANT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENT AND RESUBMIT THE PROPOSAL AFTERWARDS.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM WILL BECOME MORE FRIENDLY TO THE NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING USERS WHILE THE IDN TLD IS FULLY SUPPORTED IN VARIOUS INTERNET APPLICATIONS.
WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE IDN TLD SHOULD SUPPORT THE DAILY COMMUNICATION AND BOOST THE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ECONOMY.
AND FINALLY, WE BELIEVE THE IDN TLD WILL HELP TO PRESERVE THE CULTURE DIVERSENESS OF THE WORLD AND PROTECT SPECIAL INTERESTS OF PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT REGIONS.
AND THAT'S OUR PRESENTATION. AND ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
YES.
>>MATT HOOKER: I HAVE ONE COMMENT. IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR PROPOSAL CORRECTLY, THE INDIVIDUAL NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF EACH COUNTRY WHO SPECIFY THE CHARACTER CODE OR CHARACTERS USED WHICH WILL BE USED IN THE PUNYCODE TRANSLATION, (INAUDIBLE) WEB SITES THAT WILL BE ACCESSED --
>>VINT CERF: EXCUSE ME, CAN I INTERRUPT ONE MOMENT?
>>CARY KARP: I NEED TO INTERRUPT.
THESE ARE THE KEY ISSUES THAT WE WISH TO DISCUSS TODAY, AND WE WANT TO DEFER ANY DISCUSSION THAT WILL APPLY TO ALL THE PRESENTATIONS UNTIL THEY HAVE ALL BEEN MADE. SO IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU.
EXACTLY WHAT YOU ASKED WILL BE ANSWERED BY EXACTLY THE PERSON YOU EXPECT TO ANSWER IT A FEW MOMENTS FROM NOW.

>>VINT CERF: CARY, ONE OTHER OBSERVATION. IT WILL BE REALLY HELPFUL TO OUR SCRIBES IF YOU CAN COME AND USE THE MICROPHONE WHEN YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. THIS IS TO FACILITATE GETTING THE SCRIPTS AND THINGS.
>>CARY KARP: YET ANOTHER REASON TO DEFER ALL INPUT FROM THE FLOOR. WE HAVE HOURS AT OUR DISPOSAL. AND I HOPE IT WILL PROVE TO BE INSUFFICIENT. BUT THERE ARE THREE MORE PRESENTATIONS, AND THEN WE'LL START.
FOUR PRESENTATIONS.
>> ERIN CHEN: GOOD AFTERNOON, I AM ERIN CHEN FROM TWNIC.
THE CDNC PROPOSAL, THAT'S THE CONSENSUS OF THE MEMBERS OF CDNC. TWNIC IS ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF CDNC, SO TWNIC SUPPORTS THIS KIND OF CONSENSUS AND PROPOSAL.
ACCORDING TO TWNIC'S STATISTICS, MORE THAN -- THERE ARE MORE THAN 14 MILLION INTERNET USERS, AND MAJORITY OF THE TRAFFIC LANDS IN LOCAL WEB SITE. AND THE LOCAL WEB SITE ENCODING TRADITIONAL CHINESE IS FAR MORE THAN ENGLISH. THERE IS ABOUT 75% OF WEB SITES ENCODED IN TRADITIONAL CHINESE. TWNIC HAVE THE PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE ON SECOND LEVEL IDN. SO AS THE PROPOSAL OF CDNC, I THINK IF ICANN CAN HAVE AN ADMINISTRATION MECHANISM TO LET THE CURRENT CCTLD TO DO SOME TEST BED FOR THEIR IDN TLD, I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY HELP TO LET ICANN AND TO LET THE PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THE TECHNICAL ISSUES EVALUATION, AND TO UNDERSTAND THE USERS' EXPERIENCE. THAT'S ALL.
>>CARY KARP: THANK YOU. AND THEN WE WILL PROCEED WITH THE PRESENTATION ABOUT THE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES PILOT PROJECT.
>>ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
GOOD DAY, EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN. I AM THE DIRECTOR OF SAUDINIC, WHICH I LOOK AFTER THE .SA REGISTRATION, AND I AM ALSO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE OF THE ARABIC DOMAIN NAME PILOT PROJECT.
BEFORE I START I WOULD JUST LIKE TO THANK ICANN FOR ORGANIZING THIS IDN WORKSHOP, AND ALSO HAVING ME FOR THE SECOND TIME.
THE AGENDA FOR MY PRESENTATION WILL BE IN FIVE POINTS. I'LL START WITH INTRODUCTION, AND THEN SOME INFORMATION ABOUT ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, AND THEN I'LL HIGHLIGHT SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE PILOT PROJECT OF ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, AND THEN SOME COMMENTS ON THE ICANN GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING IDN, AND THEN WE'LL END UP WITH OUR CONCLUSIONS.
JUST TO LET YOU UNDERSTAND OUR COMMUNITY NEEDS, I'LL GIVE YOU TWO EXAMPLES. THIS IS JUST ONLY TWO EXAMPLES. WE HAVE A LOT OF EXAMPLES WHY WE REALLY NEED ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES. IN SCHOOLS, WHEN CHILDREN HAVE BEEN ASKED TO ACCESS ONE OF THE MOST WELL-KNOWN NEWSPAPER IN OUR REGIONS, IT WAS CALLED SHARQALAWSAT. THESE STUDENTS WOULD HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT TIME TO REALLY TYPE IT IN ASCII-BASED DOMAIN NAMES BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A NUMBER OF THINGS FOR THE SPELLING.
THE SAME THING, IN SAUDI ARABIA WE HAVE E-DEPOSIT PROGRAM CALLED, IN ARABIC, YASSER, WHICH MEANS MAKE IT EASY, BUT ACTUALLY IT'S NOT EASY TO TYPE THE DOMAIN NAMES ON LATIN CHARACTERS BECAUSE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF VARIATIONS TO TYPE IT. SO EVEN THE PROBLEM IS CALLED EASY, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT EASY TO WRITE IT DOWN. THAT'S REALLY STRANGE ENOUGH.
AND THIS IS BECAUSE THE DOMAIN NAMES, WHICH IS BASED IN ASCII CHARACTERS, IS INCAPABLE OF REPRESENTING THE ARABIC CHARACTERS. THIS IS BECAUSE WE HAVE PROBLEM FROM PRONUNCIATIONS AND SPELLINGS. SO THEREFORE, HAVING FULL DOMAIN NAMES IS GOING TO ENCOURAGE THE ARABIC USERS TO USE THE INTERNET.
HERE ARE SOME STATISTICS. SOME OF THEM, THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT OLD, BUT WILL GIVE YOU INDICATIONS.
THE PENETRATION OF INTERNET IN THE ARAB REGIONS IS VERY LOW. AND THIS IS DUE TO A NUMBER OF OBSTACLES, SOME OF THEM DUE TO THE LANGUAGE BARRIER. AND ONE OF THEM IS THE DOMAIN NAMES ITSELF. IT'S USED IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGE.
I'LL GIVE YOU SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. WE HAVE 28 CHARACTER IN THE LANGUAGE USED. WE WRITE FROM RIGHT TO LEFT RATHER THAN FROM LEFT TO RIGHT. WE USE DIACRITICS ON THE WORDS TO CHANGE THE MEANINGS AND PRONUNCIATION. TWO SETS OF NUMERALS ARE USED IN THE ARAB WORLDS CURRENTLY, AND ABBREVIATION IS NOT COMMON USED IN THE LANGUAGE ITSELF.
TO HAVE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, WE HAVE TO COVER FOUR AREAS. ONE OF THEM IS THE LINGUISTIC ISSUES SO WE COULD END UP WITH ACCEPTED CHARACTER SETS.
THE SECOND AREA IS HAVING THE STRUCTURE FOR DOMAIN NAMES OR FOR ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, SO CCTLDS OR THE GTLDS IN ARABIC LANGUAGE.
THE FOURTH ONE IS HAVING THE TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS WHICH WILL ALLOW USING THE ARABIC CHARACTERS ON DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM WHICH IS BASED ON ASCII, ASCII CHARACTERS.
AND THE FOURTH AREA IS TO SUPPORT THE LANGUAGE ON THE ROOT SERVERS. SO TO HAVE IDN ROOT SERVERS WHICH WILL SUPPORT THE ARABIC LANGUAGE.
WE USED SOME METHODOLOGIES TO BOOST OUR CONTRIBUTIONS IN THIS AREA. WE STARTED WITH IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEMS, AND THE AREA WE CAN CONTRIBUTE. WE CAN'T REALLY CONTRIBUTE IN ALL THESE AREAS, SO WE FIND THE AREA THAT IS REALLY SUITABLE FOR US TO CONTRIBUTE.
THEN WE PARTICIPATED AND INITIATED A NUMBER OF GROUPS, AND WE ARE CLOSELY COORDINATING WITH MINC AND A NUMBER OF TASK FORCES, THE LOCAL CCTLDS, FOR EXAMPLE, WE STARTED COOPERATING WITH GCC CCTLDS UNTIL WE NOW HAVE FULL COOPERATION WITH ALL THE CCTLDS OF THE ARAB COUNTRIES.
AND ALSO, WE DID SOME WEB SURVEYS WITH RESPECT TO USING THE ARABIC LANGUAGE TO GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE USERS. AND WE PUBLISHED A NUMBER OF REPORTS AND SCIENTIFIC PAPERS IN THIS AREA.
ALSO, WE MET SOME LINGUIST EXPERTS SO WE COULD KNOW REALLY WE ARE DOING THE RIGHT PATH WITH RESPECT TO THE LANGUAGE.
AND WE DID SOME TEST BEDS, AND I WILL DISCUSS THIS ONE IN MORE DETAIL LATER ON.
SO LOOKING INTO THESE FOUR AREAS, WE COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE FIRST AND SECOND ONE, WHICH IS THE LINGUISTIC ISSUE, BECAUSE THIS IS OUR LANGUAGE, IT'S EASY TO CONTRIBUTE IN IT. AND ALSO REQUEST RESPECT TO THE ARABIC TLDS.
WITH THIS ONE, AFTER WE CREATED A LINGUISTIC COMMITTEES AND MET THE LINGUISTS AND PUBLISHED PAPERS AND SO ON, WE END UP DRAFTING AN INTERNET DRAFT IN WHICH WE DEFINED THE ACCEPTED CHARACTER SET FOR THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. AT THE SAME TIME WE DEFINED THE ARABIC CCTLDS FOR THE 22 ARABIC COUNTRIES WHICH ARE A MEMBER OF THE ARABIC LEAGUE.
WITH RESPECT TO THE THIRD AREA, WHICH ARE THE TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, IT HAS BEEN COVERED PARTIALLY BY THE IETF RFCS, AND WHAT IS REMAINING ACTUALLY IS TO HAVE IDN ROOT SERVERS THAT SUPPORT THE ARABIC LANGUAGE, WHICH IS -- THAT'S WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR.
AND SINCE THIS AREA HAS NOT BEEN REALLY PROVIDED FOR US, WE HAVE STARTED TO DO SOME TEST BED SO WE COULD REALLY SHOW HOW SUPPORTING ARABIC LANGUAGE BEING DONE.
WE STARTED WITH THE FIRST LEVEL, WE STARTED THESE TESTS LIKE COUNTRY-BASED INDIVIDUALLY. EACH COUNTRY TRY TO TEST THE IDN, AND THAT WAS DONE BY LIKE AN ARABIC TO ENGLISH, INITIALLY. AND WE FOUND THAT VERY, VERY INCONVENIENCE FOR THE USERS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO SWITCH FROM RIGHT TO LEFT TO LEFT TO RIGHT TO TYPE THE DOMAIN NAMES, ARABIC NAMES ON DOT COM OR DOT NET OR DOT SA, SO IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE THOSE TWO LANGUAGES TOGETHER.
THE SECOND LEVELS OF TESTING IN MARCH 2004, DURING THE GCC CCTLD GROUP MEETINGS, WE AGREED TO HAVE THE BY PROJECT FOR THE ARABIC LANGUAGES AMONG THE CCTLDS, AND I DID A PRESENTATION ON THIS FOR THE LAST KUALA LUMPUR IDN WORKSHOP, AND WE DID THAT BY PROJECT IN THREE PHASES. WE TEST THE ARABIC DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM ITSELF BY BUILDING ALTERNATE ROOT SERVERS, AND ALSO WE DEVELOP SOME POLICIES AND REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, AND ALSO WE DID SOME PUBLIC AWARENESS.
AND BECAUSE OF THE SUCCESS OF THIS PROJECT, THIS MUCH HAS BEEN EXPANDED TO COVER NOW ALL THE 22 COUNTRIES WHICH ARE A MEMBER OF THE ARABIC LEAGUE.
SO IN MAY 2005, IN THE SECOND MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON ARAB DOMAIN NAMES IN CAIRO, WE AGREED TO EXPAND THE GCC PROJECTS TO COVER ALL THE ARAB LEAGUE MEMBERS AND RENAME IT TO BE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES PILOT PROJECT.
AND IT IS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE ARABIC LEAGUE.
THE MISSION OF THE PROJECT IS TO HAVE -- TO IMPLEMENT A TEST BED FOR ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES IN THE ARAB WORLD SO IT COULD GAIN THE EXPERIENCE AND DO SOME TESTING, FIND THE PROBLEMS, DEVELOPING SOME TOOLS AND SO ON.
CURRENTLY THE PARTICIPANTS ARE OPEN FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE ARAB LESION.
THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT IS OPEN.
SO UNTIL WE HAVE A WORLDWIDE, LIKE, AN IMPLEMENTATION OR RECOGNITION OF ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, THIS PILOT PROJECT WILL CONTINUE.
SO IT CAN BUILD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN THAT AREA.
WE HAVE TWO COMMITTEES ON THIS PROJECT, ONE IS THE STEERING COMMITTEE, WHICH SUPERVISES THE PROJECT AND MANAGE THE PROJECT.
AND THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE, WHICH PROVIDES THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR THE PARTICIPANTS.
THE DELIVERABLES, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF DELIVERABLES TO BE DONE.
MOST OF THEM, THEY HAVE BEEN FINISHED, AND SOME OF THEM, IT'S A CONTINUOUS WORK.
HERE ARE SOME OF THE PARTICIPANTS WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED.
NOW WE HAVE ABOUT SEVEN COUNTRIES PARTICIPATING ON THE PROJECT CURRENTLY.
WE HAVE TWO ALTERNATE ROOT SERVERS, ONE IN SAUDI ARABIA AND ONE IN UNITED ARAB EMIRATES.
WE DEVELOPED SOME POLICY DOCUMENTS RELATED TO ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, LIKE FOR ENTITIES TO PARTICIPATE, FOR HOW TO WRITE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES AND SO ON.
AND ALSO WE DEVELOPED SOME TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS.
SO FOR PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATE FOR ISPS, IF THEY WANT TO PARTICIPATE, FOR USERS THEMSELVES, HOW CAN THE USER ACCESS ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES.
ALSO, WE DEVELOPED A NUMBER OF TOOLS FOR CHECKING THE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, DNS CHECKER HOST, AND EVEN EDITORS FOR ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES.
NOW, USERS IN THESE PARTICIPANT COUNTRIES CAN EASILY TYPE THE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES IN ARABIC, AS YOU CAN SEE.
AND IF SOMEONE HERE SPEAKS ARABIC, THEY WILL REALLY APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ARABIC NAMES WHICH IS WRITTEN IN ARABIC CHARACTERS AND THE ONE WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO THOSE WHICH IS WRITTEN IN ENGLISH.
THIS SITE THAT I AM SHOWING, THIS IS ONE OF THE POPULAR SITES IN SAUDI ARABIA.
THIS IS FOR THE STOCK MARKET IN SAUDI ARABIA.
AND IT'S CALLED IN ENGLISH TADAWUL.
WE WILL HAVE VERY DIFFICULT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S VERY POPULAR, VERY DIFFICULT TO TYPE IT DOWN BECAUSE OF THE SPELLING.
SO HAVING IT IN ARABIC, IT BECOMES VERY EASY FOR USERS TO REALLY ACCESS IT.
SOME OF THE OBSTACLES THAT WE ARE FACING NOW WITH THESE PROJECTS, ONE, WE FEEL THAT INTERNATIONAL BODIES DO NOT REALLY TRULY UNDERSTAND OUR NEEDS.
AND THIS WILL BE EXPLAINED IN THE NEXT SLIDE.
BECAUSE CURRENTLY, WITH THE IDN GUIDELINES OF ICANN, THEY PROVIDE US WITH 50% SOLUTION.
THEY GIVE US ARABIC DOT ENGLISH.
AND THIS IS NOT REALLY WHAT WE NEED.
SO THAT'S WHY WE SAID TRULY NOT UNDERSTAND OUR NEEDS.
AND NOT HAVING THE IDN ROOT SERVERS IS REALLY A BIG OBSTACLE FOR US.
BECAUSE THE ARABIC LANGUAGE IS NOT ONLY USED BY THE USER IN THE ARAB COUNTRIES, BUT IT IS USED BY MANY PEOPLES AROUND THE WORLD.
SO WE CAN'T REALLY REACH THESE PEOPLE, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE IDN ROOT SERVERS.
ALSO, LIKE BROWSER VENDORS WHO HAVE NOT IMPLEMENTED THE IDNS, WE HAVE PROBLEM WITH THEM.
IN OUR REGION, MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER IS VERY POPULAR.
MOST OF THE USERS ARE USING MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER.
AND SINCE IT DOES NOT SUPPORT IDN CURRENTLY, THEIR VERSION 6, THIS IS LIKE AN OBSTACLE FOR US TO EXPAND IT TO THE USERS.
ALSO COORDINATING WITH THE LOCAL ISPS TO SUPPORT OR TO WORK ON THE PROJECT ALSO IS A PROBLEM, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO MODIFY THEIR DNS SERVERS TO BE PART OF THE PROJECT.
>>TINA DAM: YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO GO.
>>ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN: WITH RESPECT TO THE ICANN GUIDELINES, WE FEEL THAT THEY ARE STILL WORKING WITH SOLUTIONS WHICH IS IDN.ENGLISH, THAT IS, FOR OUR PURPOSES DOES NOT, LIKE -- YOU KNOW, IS NOT SUITABLE FOR OUR LANGUAGE, WHICH IS REALLY WRITTEN FROM RIGHT TO LEFT.
AND WE FIND THIS SOLUTION IS ONLY 50% SATISFACTION TO US.
ALSO, LIKE FOCUSING ON IDN.ENGLISH INTRODUCES A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH USING MULTIPLE LANGUAGES ON THE SAME LABELS.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE INTRODUCING NEW TERMINOLOGY.
ONE IS CALLED POLY-IDN, AND ONE IS CALLED MONO-IDN.
POLY-IDN MEANS REPRESENT AN INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME IN WHICH EACH LABEL AND THE DOMAIN NAME CAN BE EXPRESSED USING DIFFERENT LANGUAGES.
THIS IS LIKE IDN.ENGLISH.
THAT'S WHERE ICANN IS TRYING TO IMPLEMENT, LIKE HAVING, YOU KNOW, LIKE ARABIC TO CHINESE OR CHINESE TO ARABIC OR IDN TO ENGLISH, WHATEVER.
THE OTHER TECHNOLOGY IS MONO-IDN, WHICH REPRESENTS INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAMES IN WHICH ALL LABELS IN THE DOMAIN NAMES ARE EXPRESSED USING THE SAME LANGUAGE CHARACTER SET, WHICH, LIKE, ARABIC.ARABIC, OR CHINESE.CHINESE.
THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT WE WANT.
IF I WANT DOMAIN NAMES FOR MY USERS, IT'S HARDLY THAT I WANT TO MIX LANGUAGES.
IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT WILL BE LIKE IN ONE LANGUAGE.
AND THIS IS REALLY WHAT WE WANT.
IN CONCLUSION, THAT MONO-IDNS SHOULD BE SUPPORTED IN THE CCTLDS SO THAT THE CCTLD MANAGER SHOULD BE ENABLED TO GIVE THE ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT MONO-IDN AND DEVELOP THEIR LANGUAGE GUIDELINES AND SHARE THEM WITH ICANN.
ICANN MAY CONTINUE IN THEIR EFFORTS TO SUPPORT POLY-IDN AND SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS.
AND HITTING THE PROPOSAL FROM THE CHINESE DOMAIN NAME CONSORTIUM, WE SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL, PARTICULARLY THE FOUR POINTS.
I DO NOT WANT TO REPEAT IT BECAUSE OF TIME.
WE FULLY SUPPORT THESE POINTS.
IN THE END, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PLEASE, LET US HELP US TO BE PART OF THE INTERNET.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

(APPLAUSE.)
>>CARY KARP: OKAY.
WE WILL CONTINUE.
PRESENTATION IDNS.NET.

>>S. SUBBIAH: CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME?
SURE.
MY NAME IS SUBBIAH, SINCE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO INTRODUCE OURSELVES.
I AM ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF IDNS.NET.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF MY TALK, IT'S WORTH KNOWING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MY BACKGROUND, BECAUSE MY TALK IS GOING TO TALK MOSTLY ABOUT SORT OF A LONG-TERM PERSPECTIVE OF WHERE IDN HAS GONE.
APART FROM BEING ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO CO-INVENTED THE NOTION OF SORT OF MODERN IDN IN 1997/'98, BEING A PROFESSOR AT TWO UNIVERSITIES, AND SO ON, AND ALSO BEING THE PERSON PROBABLY WHO COINED THE TERM "IDN" IN THE FIRST PLACE IN 1997/'98, I -- IN '97/'98, WE -- I APPROACHED PERSONALLY ICANN CEO, ICANN CHAIRMAN, AT THAT TIME VARIOUS PEOPLE, AND WAS POLITELY TOLD TO GO AWAY.
SAID, EVERYBODY SHOULD LEARN ENGLISH.
THAT WAS THE KIND OF FEEDBACK WE GOT IN '97, '98, '99.
AND WE'VE COME A VERY, VERY, VERY LONG WAY WHEN VINT IN HIS TALK FINALLY SAYS, YOU KNOW, LOOK, MAYBE IT'S TIME TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THIS.
AND I THINK IT'S TAKEN TIME, BUT I THINK WE ARE GETTING THERE.
AND MY TALK IS GOING TO SHOW IN THE FIRST FEW YEARS, IN '99, IN 2000, IN -- AROUND TOWARDS THE END OF 2000, THOSE FIRST COUPLE OF YEARS, BECAUSE THERE WAS REALLY NO INTEREST FROM ICANN AT THE TIME, AND ALSO INITIALLY THERE WAS NO INTEREST FROM IETF AS WELL.
THEY STARTED WORKING WITH US AND EVENTUALLY THERE WERE WORKSHOPS THAT BECAME THE STANDARD MANY YEARS LATER.
BUT DURING THAT PERIOD, SINCE THERE WAS NO INPUT FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD, OUT IN ASIA, WHERE THIS THING REALLY GOT STARTED, A NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS STARTED.
ONE WAS AN ASIAN TEST BED THAT WENT ON FOR A YEAR.
A NUMBER OF THE NICS PARTICIPATED, CHINESE, JAPANESE, KOREAN. SO THAT'S WHY THEY GOT A HEAD START.
IT WAS A YEAR-LONG THING THAT WAS REALLY SUCCESSFUL.
AND THAT LED TO INTEREST -- IN ORDER TO COORDINATE THIS GROUP AT THAT TIME THERE WAS A GROUP CALLED MINC THAT SORT OF SORT OF FORMED, A NONPROFIT GROUP. AND FATTAL IS THERE, AND SEVERAL MINC BOARD MEMBERS ARE HERE.
PRESENTLY, I'M A MINC BOARD MEMBER AS WELL.
TO FOSTER IDN WHEN NOBODY ELSE HAS, SORT OF A NONPROFIT ANGLE.
IN FACT, A NUMBER OF THE MINC PEOPLE, MINC BOARD MEMBERS WENT ON TO BECOME ICANN BOARD MEMBERS AND PUT IN INPUT.
THAT'S THE BACKGROUND.
SO THERE WAS A PERIOD OVER A COUPLE OF YEARS BEFORE ICANN ITSELF GOT SERIOUSLY INVOLVED IN IDN, THERE WAS A PERIOD WHERE FULL IDN TLDS WERE LAUNCHED ALL OVER THE WORLD, PARTLY THROUGH THE SORT OF TEST BEDS WE WERE INVOLVED IN WITH VARIOUS COUNTRIES AND PARTLY THROUGH OUR OWN COMPANY, IDNS.NET THAT WAS FORMED OUT OF THIS, OUT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE, AND ALSO OTHER COMPANIES THAT STARTED UP THAT MAY NO LONGER EXIST, SO HAVE MERGED SINCE THEN, ALSO LAUNCHED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE VARIOUS COUNTRIES FULL IDNS.
SO FULL IDNS WERE ACTUALLY LAUNCHED.
THE VERY FIRST THINGS THAT WERE LAUNCHED WERE FULL IDNS AS EARLY AS LATE '99 IN CHINESE AND SEVERAL OTHER LANGUAGES IN 2000, BEFORE THE SORT OF HYBRID TWO DIFFERENT LANGUAGE, POLY GOT STARTED.
SO LATE 2000 WITH VERISIGN AND SORT OF UNDER THE ICANN STEWARDSHIP AS A TEST BED.
SO I JUST WANTED TO REVISIT THAT AND POINT OUT WHAT IS THE STATUS.
I AM TAKING A VERY GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE HERE, I AM THINKING IN TERMS OF '97, '98, A COUPLE OF MY FRIENDS, ONE OF THE REAL INVENTORS OF THIS, WE LOOKED AT -- ONE OF THE PROPOSAL'S NOTIONS OF IDN, WHERE ARE WE SINCE THEN TO NOW, THAT'S THE PERSPECTIVE I WANT TO SHOW IN THIS, JUST HISTORICAL FACTS.
AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF SUCCESS.
IT HAS A LONG WAY TO GO, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF SUCCESS.
AND, FRANKLY, WE'RE IN A PLACE WHERE, UNLESS WE ALL COOPERATE AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT -- AND I'M GOING TO BE VERY FRANK, HOPEFULLY, IN THE PANEL DISCUSSION AS WELL -- THEN THIS IS THE JUNCTURE TO DO IT.
WE'VE REACHED THIS POINT WHERE GROUPS HAVE STARTED DOING THEIR OWN THINGS AND SOME HAVE EVOLVED TO A POINT WHERE WE NEED COMMON COORDINATION IF NOTHING ELSE.
IF WE DON'T DO THAT NOW, I THINK UP TILL NOW IT WAS OKAY TO LET THINGS GO IN DIFFERENT WAYS.
BUT I THINK WE HAVE REACHED A POINT WHERE WE WILL HAVE TO START DOING SOMETHING IN A CONCERTED WAY TOGETHER.
OTHERWISE, I THINK WE'LL GO THROUGH A PERIOD OF SOME DIFFICULTY POSSIBLY.
THAT'S -- NOW I'D LIKE TO START WITH MY FIRST SLIDE.
AND, AGAIN, I THINK THIS WAS ALREADY DESCRIBED MANY TIMES.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, ONE IS A HYBRID IDN.
IDN.ASCII, IF YOU WILL, OR POLY, IF YOU MIX UP LANGUAGE.
HISTORICALLY, THE REAL REASON WHY WE HAD MULTILINGUAL.ENGLISH, ENGLISH WAS SPECIAL AT THE END BECAUSE THEY ALREADY ISSUED TLDS.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT POLY, ARABIC.CHINESE, THAT MAY HAPPEN, WHO KNOWS.
HISTORICALLY, ENGLISH WAS THERE BECAUSE THEY ISSUED TLDS.
THEN THERE'S THE FULL IDN, WHICH IS IDN.IDN.
IN FACT, PEOPLE ALSO CALL IT ML.ML, MULTILINGUAL.MULTILINGUAL.
AND THEN FULL INTERNATIONALIZED E-MAIL ADDRESSES.
IN FACT, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME LAUNCHES OF SORT OF IDN E-MAILS, FULL AND HYBRID, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL.
IN 2000 AND 2001, LIMITED ONES.
I THINK E-MAIL WILL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE DOMAIN NAMES SITUATIONS GETS TOTALLY RESOLVED.
FROM A PURELY GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE, NOT WORRIED ABOUT POLICIES, BUT WHAT IS POSSIBLE, IF YOU'RE PREPARED TO TAKE THE ENGINEERING RISKS AT EVERY LEVEL, THEN, ACTUALLY, THERE ARE THREE METHODS.
ONE IS, YOU KNOW, ICANN ITSELF, YOU KNOW, DEALS WITH THE ROOT ITSELF, AND INTRODUCES AN IDN TLD OR, IN THE CASE OF HYBRID THINGS, YOU KNOW, ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN, WHICH HAS ALREADY HAPPENED IN THE HYBRID IDN.ENGLISH.
BUT BARRING THAT, THERE ARE REALLY ONLY TWO RESOLUTION METHODS, MAYBE SOMEONE CAN DREAM UP SOMETHING MORE, BUT THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE HAVE CONSIDERED.
ONE IS THE PLUG-IN ROOT, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN DOING WITH THE MULTILINGUAL.ASCII SO FAR, DISTRIBUTE PLUG-INS, EITHER ENABLE BROWSERS LIKE EVENTUALLY FIREFOX, I THINK, HAS DONE IT, BUT EITHER WITH A PLUG-IN OR BUILT IN.
OR THE OTHER ONE IS RESOLVING AT THE ISP LEVEL, WHOEVER IS PROVIDING THE DNS SERVICE TO THE END USER WOULD SO-CALLED PATCH IN DIFFERENT WAYS OF DOING IT.
BUT THE IDEA IS TO GET THE ISPS INVOLVED, PERHAPS GLOBALLY OR JUST THOSE THAT INVOLVE, SAY IN ARABIA, THE ARABIC ISPS, THOSE WHO ARE REALLY COMMITTED TO IT.
NOW, THE -- IN TERMS OF NONCOMMERCIAL DEPLOYMENT SINCE THAT TIME, SO THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT RESOLUTION MECHANISMS, AND WHAT'S THE STATUS OF SORT OF NONPROFIT, NONCOMMERCIAL MEANING TEST BEDS IN THE EARLY DAYS.
FROM MARCH TO JULY '98, THIS WAS DONE IN THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE, THIS WAS A REAL TEST BED, THERE WERE CONFERENCES IN ASIA, A NUMBER OF CONFERENCES ORIGINALLY IN TAIWAN, AND ALSO THE CHINESE FOLKS.
WE MET A NUMBER OF TIMES IN '99/2000 -- '99, THROUGHOUT '99S AND TESTED THESE THINGS.
THIS WAS ALL DONE IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC NETWORKING GROUP WHICH IS THE ORGANIZATION THAT FOR MANY YEARS HAS BEEN AROUND, INTERNET AGENCIES THAT TALK TO EACH OTHER IN ASIA, QUITE A LARGE GROUP.
SINCE, YOU KNOW, THEN IN -- AFTER -- TOWARDS LATE '99, WHEN THERE WAS SORT OF COMMERCIAL LAUNCHES STARTED, THERE WERE -- THE EARLY LAUNCHES IN ASIA EVEN RESULTED IN TESTING RESULTED IN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF NAMES IN TERMS OF NONCOMMERCIAL TESTING.
AND AGAIN THERE ARE ALSO NONCOMMERCIAL TESTING OF VARIOUS FORMS OF INTERNATIONALIZED E-MAIL ADDRESSES.
AGAIN, IN JULY '98 TO SEPTEMBER '98 WAS THE FIRST SORT OF -- AT LEAST FROM THE END USER POINT OF VIEW, VISUAL KOREAN E-MAIL ADDRESS WAS USED AND MAILED AROUND TO EACH OTHER AROUND ASIAN NICS AND SO ON.
LATER, THERE WAS MORE TESTING IN '98 AND '99 AND HUNDREDS MORE NAMES REGISTERED.
WE'RE LOOKING AT ZERO MULTILINGUAL TO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS AT THIS POINT.
I JUST HAVE A LIST -- A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST TWO OF OR THREE SLIDES, EXTENDED SLIDE.
IT SHOWS YOU DATES FROM THAT POINT ON WHERE WE WENT FROM HUNDREDS OF NAMES TO THOUSANDS AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS AND PERHAPS REACHING ON THE ORDER OF A MILLION OR TWO NOW, IN TERMS OF NAMES OF ANY KIND OF IDN THAT WERE LAUNCHED BY WHICH COUNTRY AND I'M SAYING LANGUAGE, BUT REALLY WHAT I MEAN THERE IN THAT COLUMN IS CLEARLY SCRIPT.
AND SO THERE'S A DATE, A COUNTRY, A LANGUAGE, THERE'S THE TYPE, WHICH IS WHERE THERE'S IDN.IDN OR IDN HYBRID.
IN FACT, INITIALLY, WHEN WE WERE INVOLVED IN INVENTING THIS, WE NEVER EVEN THOUGHT OF THE HYBRID.
WE THOUGHT OF IT AS, YOU KNOW, MULTILINGUAL PEOPLE SAYING IN OUR OWN LANGUAGE IDN.IDN.
THE PROPOSAL CAME TO US LATER THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO HYBRIDS.
ANYWAY, IN THE VARIOUS ORGANIZATION, EARLY ON, BECAUSE IDN WAS THE ONLY COMING DOING IT AT THAT TIME, IT WAS I-DNS.NET.
MANY OF THESE LAUNCHES WERE IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE THEN-MINISTERS IN THOSE COUNTRIES OR ISPS OR SO ON AND SO FORTH.
MY OWN LANGUAGE IS TAMIL, AND THAT WAS LAUNCHED IN MARCH, IT WAS A SECOND LANGUAGE.
IT WAS LAUNCHED IN A FULL IDN.IDN BACK WITH THE CHIEF MINISTER (INAUDIBLE) 70 MILLION PEOPLE.
IT WAS DONE.
THERE WERE VERY FEW USERS AT THE TIME.
AND THERE WERE THOUSANDS OF NAMES ISSUED AT THAT TIME.
AND IT'S STILL FUNCTIONAL.
THEN WE ALSO LAUNCHED CHINESE.CHINESE AT SOME POINT.
AND THEN LATER ON, THE -- WITHIN -- THAT WAS A SORT OF IN THE TAIWAN MARKET.
BUT LATER ON, THE CHINESE MARKET, ALSO CNNIC AND ON SO LAUNCHED CHINESE.CHINESE AS WELL, WHICH SHOULD BE IN THE NEXT SLIDE.
THEN THE HYBRID NAMES STARTED COMING UP WITH VERY SIGNED LAUNCHING, THE MULTILINGUAL.COM. AND THIS IS -- AND THEN ONCE ICANN GOT INVOLVED IN THIS AND MULTILINGUAL.ASCII BECAME POPULAR, -- EXCUSE ME, BEFORE THAT, THIS NOTION OF LAUNCHING IN MULTILINGUAL.MULTILINGUAL CONTINUED IN SEVERAL OTHER COUNTRIES.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE RUSSIA, KOREA, AND ISRAEL.
OTHER COMPETITORS GOT IN AND LAUNCHED IN SOME OF THESE CASES.
AND THEN, EVENTUALLY, ICANN BLESSED THE NOTION BEYOND TEST BED OF DOING IDN.ASCII.
AND AT THAT POINT, AROUND ABOUT 2003, THE -- THERE WAS A LOT MORE OF THESE HYBRID DOMAIN NAMES, MULTILINGUAL DOMAIN NAMES GOING OUT, YOU KNOW, IDN.CN, IDN.KR, SO ON.
RECENTLY, '03, '04, '05, WE'VE DONE LOTS MORE ON DOT INFO, DOT CE, AND SO ON.
THAT'S IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE SEEING SINCE 1999 TO NOW.
SINGAPORE JUST LAUNCHED AND HUNGARY, CHILE, THIS IS ALL IDN -- THE HYBRIDS.
IN MY LAST COUPLE OF SLIDES NOW.
SO WHAT'S THE SORT OF SUMMARY OF THE GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ON ALL OF THIS?
IF YOU SAY HOW MANY DOMAIN NAMES OF ALL TYPES -- I'M TALKING ABOUT THE EARLY IDN.IDNS, SOME OF THEM ARE STILL FUNCTIONAL IN COUNTRIES, YOU KNOW, IN CHINA AND SO ON.
AND THE -- THERE'S OVER TWO MILLION HAVE BEEN MENTIONED, MY ESTIMATE, INCLUDING THE SORT OF VERISIGN IDN.COMS THAT WERE SOLD EARLY ON AND ALL OF THAT.
NOT ALL OF THEM MAY HAVE BEEN RENEWED, BUT ABOUT 2 MILLION IS MY GUESS.
ALL THESE NUMBERS ARE MY ESTIMATES.
TOTAL, LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING.
POSSIBLY OVER 50 LANGUAGES, BUT MOST OF -- CONCENTRATED ON A HANDFUL.
AND 90% OF IT MIGHT JUST HAVE BEEN IN CJK, CHINESE, JAPANESE, KOREAN, THEY KIND OF USE OVERLAP SCRIPTS AND SO ON.
AND ABOUT A MILLION OF THEM MAY HAVE BEEN OVER THE TEST BEDS OVER THIS TIME.
AND AFTER SOME TIME, BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTIES, I THINK THE REGISTRATION NUMBERS DROPPED --
>>TINA DAM: THREE MINUTES TO GO.
>>S. SUBBIAH: SINCE THEN THEY'VE PICKED UP.
RECENTLY, A LOT OF IDN.JP, TW, THOSE HYBRID THINGS.
THOSE HAVE PICKED UP MOSTLY IN ASIAN NICS.
OF THE IDN.IDN ONES, YOU KNOW, EARLY ON, CHINESE.CHINESE WAS ONE OF THE NUMBERS THAT REGISTERED A LOT EARLY ON.
AND THEY TAPERED OFF OVER TIME.
BUT RECENTLY THEY'VE BEEN GROWING AGAIN.
GOING BACK TO A SMALL BASE -- I WOULD SAY -- I'LL COME TO THAT IN A MINUTE.
OTHER LANGUAGE, IDN.IDNS ARE VERY -- IN THE TENS OF THOUSANDS.
BUT THEY'VE OSCILLATED AROUND THAT POINT.
NOW, IN TERMS OF RESOLUTION, WHERE ARE WE?
I WOULD SAY THAT RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE ABOUT 70 MILLION USERS WHO WILL PROBABLY HAVE ACCESS TO BROWSER-BASED -- THIS MAY NOT BE COMMON KNOWLEDGE, I WOULD SAY -- WHO HAVE A BROWSER-BASED RESOLUTION.
I WOULD SAY IN THE CATEGORY OF LESS THAN ONE MILLION IS SAFARI AND OPERA AND SO ON.
IN THE ONE TO 10 MILLION RANGE -- I MAY BE GETTING IT SLIGHTLY WRONG, THERE ALREADY IS A BUNDLE.
BUT IN THE CATEGORY OF OVER 50 MILLION, IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO, THERE'S BEEN QUITE A LOT OF PLUG-INS DISTRIBUTED WITHIN MAINLAND CHINA THAT HANDLE IDN.IDN.
AND I WOULD SAY IT'S SOME NUMBER LIKE 50 MILLION OR IN EXCESS OF THAT.
OKAY.
THE -- IN TERMS OF ISP SERVER-BASED RESOLUTION, WELL, MY ESTIMATE IS ABOUT 85 MILLION USERS TODAY.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, ELSEWHERE, ALL THE COUNTRIES, ABOUT 5 MILLION, BUT IN KOREA THERE MAY BE ABOUT 10 MILLION, PARTLY THROUGH MY COMPANY AND SO ON.
AND IN CHINA, MY ESTIMATE IS THAT BECAUSE OF THERE THE CHINESE.CHINESE TEST BED OUT THERE, THERE'S POTENTIALLY ABOUT 70 MILLION OR MAYBE AROUND THAT NUMBER, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S -- MANY OF THEM -- THE KEY ISPS HAVE ALREADY DONE IT.
SO MY TOTAL GLOBAL RESOLUTION ESTIMATE IS ABOUT 115 MILLION USERS TODAY, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW -- AND THE BULK OF IT BEING CHINA THAT HANDLES BOTH HYBRID AND FULL, FULL.
AND THEN IN KOREA, AGAIN, THAT IS BOTH HYBRID AND THE FULL, YOU KNOW.
AND ELSEWHERE, IT'S ABOUT MAYBE 15 MILLION TOTAL, AND IT'S THE OVERLAP OF THE VARIOUS PLUG-INS ESSENTIALLY, I WOULD SAY THE HYBRID -- LARGELY INTENDED FOR THE HYBRIDS, BUT SOME FOR THE FULL.
NOW, THE FINAL SUMMARY SLIDE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, IDN FROM -- AS A SORT OF AN IDEA IN THE MODERN SENSE, PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE, BUT IN TERMS OF ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION AND THE FOLLOWING UNICODE IN A BIG WAY, THAT SERIOUSLY STARTED IN '97/'98 IN SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY WITH ME BEING INVOLVED.
BUT SINCE -- THERE ARE ABOUT 2 MILLION CUMULATIVE PAID IDN REGISTRATIONS.
SOME PEOPLE DIDN'T RENEW.
THAT NUMBER IS NOT TOO FAR DIFFERENT FROM WHEN ICANN WAS ESTABLISHED, THE SAME TIME FRAME, 98/99, THAT TYPE OF TIME FRAME.
AT THE TIME, THERE WERE ONLY SEVERAL MILLION, FOUR OR FIVE MILLION NAMES OR SOMETHING.
THERE IS REAL INTEREST.
WE'VE COME FROM ZERO TO 2 MILLION REGISTRATIONS.
>>TINA DAM: 15 SECONDS.
>>S. SUBBIAH: WHEN VIEWED THIS WAY, IDN I DON'T THINK IS IN ITS INFANCY, IT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG WHILE.
BUT EXCEPT FOR THE SORT OF DEPLOYMENT OF FULL IDNS AS TESTED WITHIN CHINA, I'D SAY THAT EVERYWHERE ELSE, THERE'S BEEN A WIDESPREAD LACK OF RESOLUTIONS.
IT'S NOT THE DEMAND; IT'S NOT THE INTEREST.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY.
THANK YOU.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>CARY KARP: AND THEN TO WRAP UP THIS SEGMENT OF THE WORKSHOP, VERISIGN.
>>PAT KANE: THANK YOU, CARY.
MY NAME IS PAT KANE, I AM THE DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND POLICY IN VERISIGN'S NAMING SERVICES BUSINESS UNIT.
UNTIL RECENTLY, I WAS THE PRODUCT MANAGER OF COM AND NET AND HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN INVOLVED IN THE IDN TEST BED AND THE IDN PRODUCT AT VERISIGN SINCE THE LAUNCH IN NOVEMBER OF 2000.
TODAY I AM GOING TO PRESENT TO YOU THE DNAME WHITE PAPER THAT VERISIGN HAS PUT TOGETHER.
BEFORE I DO THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE TWO OF MY COLLEAGUES, BOTH MATT LARSON AND CHUCK GOMES, WHO WERE KEY CONTRIBUTORS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS WHITE PAPER.
CLEARLY, THERE IS MUCH DEMAND FOR IDNS AND, IN GENERAL, THE ABILITY FOR END USERS TO EXPERIENCE THE INTERNET IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE, IN THEIR OWN CHARACTERS, SCRIPTS, ET CETERA.
IN A SINGLE ROOT, THERE'S ONLY REALLY TWO WAYS THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THAT.
ONE IS TO CREATE NEW NAME SPACE, THAT IS, TO PUT AN IDN REPRESENTATION OR A PUNYCODE REPRESENTATION INTO THE ROOT ZONE, OR MAP THAT NAME SPACE, MAP THE ASCII WORLD USING THE TLDS THAT WE HAVE TODAY INTO REPRESENTATIONS THAT ARE OTHER CHARACTERS AS WELL.
THIS PROPOSAL, THE DNAME PROPOSAL, IS ABOUT THE MAPPING PROCESS, MAPPING THE ASCII TLDS TO A REPRESENTATION THAT WOULD BE IN LANGUAGE OR IN CHARACTER SETS FOR COMMUNITIES AROUND THE WORLD.
IT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT PREVENT THE ISSUANCE OR THE CREATION OF A TLD THAT HAS A SOLE PURPOSE OF ADDRESSING A COMMUNITY THAT DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH A LATIN-BASED SCRIPT OR LANGUAGE.
SO DNAME IS A RESOURCE RECORD THAT WAS -- THAT HAS BEEN DEFINED RFC 2672 AND BEEN AROUND SINCE AUGUST OF 1999, SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN THROUGHOUT FOR A WHILE.
IT'S GONE THROUGH A LOT OF PROCESS WITH THE IETF.
IT IS A STANDARDS TRACK PROTOCOL.
THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONFUSION AROUND WHETHER IT IS CONSIDERED EXPERIMENTAL.
THERE IS A CASE AROUND IPV6 TO WHERE USE OF DNAME HAS BEEN CONSIDERED EXPERIMENTAL.
BUT THAT REALLY DOESN'T APPLY TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IN TERMS OF MAPPING TLDS.
WHAT DOES DNAME DO, ACTUALLY MAPS ONE DOMAIN TO ANOTHER.
IN THE EXAMPLE THAT WE'RE USING HERE WITH THE SPRINT AND NEXTEL MERGER.
ANYTHING THAT COMES IN AS SPRINT, IT'S REALLY NEXTEL WE WOULD RESOLVE IT AND MAP IT THAT WAY.
IT IS DIFFERENT THAN A CNAME WHERE A CNAME ACTUALLY ALIASES ONE SINGLE DOMAIN TO ANOTHER.
SO IT DOESN'T DO AN ENTIRE NODE; IT DOES A SINGLE DOMAIN.
DNAME SUPPORT IS REQUIRED ONLY IN A ZONE'S AUTHORITATIVE SERVER.
SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO PERMIT THE MAPPING TO OCCUR WITHIN A SPECIFIC ZONE, YOU ONLY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DO DNAMES WITHIN THAT AUTHORITATIVE NAME SERVER.
WHAT THE DNAME RFC CALLS FOR IS THE SYNTHESIS OF A CNAME RECORD IF THE RESOLVER DOES NOT RECOGNIZE DNAMES, SO THAT IT WOULD GO BACK TO THE RESOLVER WITH A CNAME AND THEN IT WOULD ALLOW IT TO RESOLVE FOR THE END USER.
SO THE PROPOSAL IS TO USE THE DNAME TO ENABLE INTERNATIONALIZED TLDS, MAP THE PUNYCODE STRINGS FOR THE REPRESENTATION OF WHETHER IT BE .DE OR DOT COM OR .CN TO THE ACTUAL ASCII IN THE ZONE FILE.
SO THE EXAMPLE HERE IS A COM EQUIVALENT IN HANGUL.
THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IN THE ROOT ZONE. THIS WOULD END UP MAPPING EVERYTHING THAT COMES IN WITH THIS XN DASH DASH, ET CETERA, TO END IN DOT COM.
THERE'S NO LIMIT TO THE NUMBER OF DNAMES THAT YOU COULD USE.
THIS IS AN ILLUSTRATED EXAMPLE OF HOW IT WOULD LOOK.
SO IF YOU CAME IN AS A HANGUL REPRESENTATION OR A CHINESE REPRESENTATION OR AN ARABIC REPRESENTATION OF DOT COM, WHATEVER THAT WOULD BE DEFINED AS, IT WOULD MAP IT TO COM AND THAT WOULD RESOLVE JUST AS IT DOES IN DOT COM TODAY.
SO WHAT ARE THE TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED IN THE USE OF A DNAME?
WELL, THE ROOT NAME SERVERS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE CAPABLE OF RUNNING DNAME.
TODAY, NOT ALL ROOT SERVERS ARE CAPABLE OF HANDLING A DNAME.
WITHIN SIX TO 12 MONTHS, THERE WILL BE A DNSSEC DEPLOYMENT TO ALL THE ROOT SERVERS.
WHEN THAT HAPPENS, ALL OF THE ROOT SERVERS THAT WILL BE -- ALL THE ROOT SERVER OPERATORS THEN WILL BE DNAME -- WILL BE DNAME CAPABLE AS BIND 9 AND NSD WILL ALREADY HAVE THE ABILITY TO HANDLE DNAMES.
A BIG CONCERN IS HOW MUCH TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE GENERATED BY THE USE OF DNAMES.
SO WHEN YOU SYNTHESIZE A CNAME AT THE DNAME -- AT THE ROOT LEVEL, THERE'S GOING TO CREATE MORE LOAD AND MORE TRAFFIC AT THE ROOT SERVER.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT ANYTIME WE TALK ABOUT ADDING ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC TO THE ROOT SERVERS, WE HAVE TO STUDY IT VERY, VERY CAREFULLY.
NOW, WITH THE ANYCAST DEPLOYMENT THAT'S GOING ON, I THINK THERE'S ABOUT 100 ANYCAST ROOT SERVERS OUT THERE TODAY, I THINK THAT WE MAY HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DO THAT.
BUT, AGAIN, WE CERTAINLY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TEST IT.
I KNOW THAT WITHIN J ROOT, WE HAVE 20 ANYCAST INSTANCES OF J ROOT TODAY AND WE SEE A HANDFUL OF QUERIES AND WE THINK THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HANDLE SOME OF THE TRAFFIC THAT WE WOULD SEE FROM A CNAME.
BUT, OF COURSE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE TESTED.
THERE'S A QUESTION AROUND RECURSIVE NAME SERVER MEMORY UTILIZATION TO CACHE THE SYNTHESIZED CNAMES.
BUT SINCE CNAMES HAVE A TTL OF ZERO, THERE SHOULD BE NO MEMORY ISSUES AT ALL.
THIS IS A DIAGRAM.
I'M NOT GOING TO WALK THROUGH THE DIAGRAM.
IT'S IN THE WHITE PAPER.
IF YOU WANT TO DOWNLOAD THE WHITE PAPER, IT IS AVAILABLE ON THE ICANN WEB SITE.
THE TECHNICAL ISSUES, I THINK, ARE PROBABLY FAIRLY EASY TO OVERCOME.
THE ISSUES ARE REALLY GOING TO BE AROUND THE POLICY AREAS.
THIS IS WHERE THE GNSO AND THE CCNSO CAN PLAY A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN HELPING INTERNATIONALIZED TLDS ROLL OUT.
SOME OF THE AREAS THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED AS CONCERNS ARE, WHAT IS THE SELECTION AND APPROVAL PROCESS FOR DNAME ENTRIES.
SHOULD A REGISTRY BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN EQUIVALENTS?
IS IT A COMMUNITY THAT HAS TO DO THAT?
WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF IRELAND TO THE CHINESE REPRESENTATION OF IRELAND IF THEY WANT TO HAVE A CHINESE IDN WITHIN IRELAND?
OR DOES CHINA HAVE THE RIGHTS TO THE CHINESE VERSION OF IRELAND, ET CETERA?
ARE THE EQUIVALENTS BASED UPON SYNONYMS, ARE THEY TRANSLATIONS, OR ARE THEY TRANSLITERATIONS?
AND ANY POLICY THAT IS PUT TOGETHER SHOULD ADDRESS TLD EQUIVALENT CONFLICT.
ONE TLD MAY WANT TO USE THE SAME REPRESENTATION IN A SCRIPT OR A LANGUAGE THAT ANOTHER TLD MAY WANT TO.
SO HOW DO WE PROCEED WITH HANDLING THOSE KINDS OF CONFLICTS?
ANOTHER AREA TO TALK ABOUT IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. I THINK THE DNAME MAY ACTUALLY REDUCE IP CONCERNS IN TERMS OF REPRESENTATION WITHIN A TLD. SINCE IT'S MAPPED, IT'S NOT A NEW DOMAIN SPACE, BUT WE CERTAINLY HAVE TO INVOLVE THE IP COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS COMMUNITIES EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION, THERE SHOULD BE NO ADDITIONAL ISSUES AROUND CYBERSQUATTING WITH THE USE OF DNAME, AGAIN SINCE IT MAPS.
BUT WE MAY NEED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE WITHIN THE EXAMPLE WHERE ALTERNATE ROOTS END UP USING THE SAME TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN REPRESENTATION IN SCRIPT THAT THE TLDS IN THE SINGLE ROOT WOULD LIKE TO USE AS WELL. SO THERE MAY BE A PROCESS WE HAVE TO ADDRESS FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION THERE. AND ALSO THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS, WOULD THEY WANT TO INFLUENCE THE SELECTION OF DNAME EQUIVALENTS? I THINK YES, SO HOW DO WE INVOLVE A GOVERNMENT AS WELL.
SO WHAT ARE THE DNAME BENEFITS? ENSURES DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXISTING TLDS AND LOCAL LANGUAGE REPRESENTATIONS. AGAIN, THAT DOESN'T PREVENT US FROM INTRODUCING NEW DOMAIN SPACE FOR NON-ASCII OR NON-LATIN BASED REPRESENTATIONS. IT ALSO HELPS US REDUCE END USER CONFUSION. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COULD OCCUR THAT I THINK ABOUT WITHIN THE .COM SPACE IS IF THERE IS A .COM REPRESENTATION THAT'S A TRANSLITERATION IN A MARKET THAT IS NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING THAT THE .COM COULD BE CONFUSING TO AN END USER WHEN THEY TYPE SOMETHING IN, AND THEY COULD ACTUALLY GO SOMEPLACE ELSE.
SO DNAME ACTUALLY LESSENS THAT BECAUSE IT MAPS IT INTO THE SAME .COM OR .DE OR .INFO SPACE.
WE ARE ABLE TO LEVERAGE EXISTING RESOURCES TODAY. THIS RFC IS PUBLISHED, IT'S OUT THERE, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON IT.
AND IT UNIFIES TLD EQUIVALENTS. SO BASICALLY THERE IS A MAPPING THAT SAYS THESE ARE THE WAYS THAT A TLD IS REPRESENTED IN LANGUAGE ACROSS MANY LANGUAGES OR SCRIPTS.
A QUESTION THAT CAME UP YESTERDAY IN THE PRE-MEETING WAS DOES THE MAPPING HAVE TO TAKE PLACE ON THE SERVER SIDE? DOES IT HAVE TO TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE DNS? AND THERE ARE PROPOSALS OUT THERE THAT SAY NO, THAT IT SHOULD TAKE OR COULD TAKE AND IT SHOULD TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE CLIENT.
THERE ARE ADVANTAGES TO THAT. I MEAN IT CERTAINLY ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR MAKING ANY MODIFICATIONS TO DNS. WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT LOADING THE ROOT SERVERS. BUT WHAT IT DOES DO IS IT REQUIRES ACTION FROM THE APPLICATION DEVELOPERS, AND I KNOW THAT MICHEL IS UP HERE ON THE BOARD AND WE CAN ASK HIM ABOUT THIS WHEN WHENEVER I HAVE TAKEN MICHEL TO IDN WORKSHOPS AROUND THE GLOBE HE BECOMES THE PINATA FOR WHY DOESN'T IE HAVE THIS CAPABILITY. SO I'M SURE -- I'M SPEAKING FOR YOU, MICHEL -- THAT HE WOULD SAY NO, LET'S NOT DO THAT. BUT IT ALSO MAY LIMIT THE FLEXIBILITY IN THE INTRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL MAPPINGS. THERE MAYBE THINGS WE WANT TO ACT UPON QUICKLY THAT I DON'T THINK WE WOULDN'T WANT TO MAKE THE APPLICATION DEVELOPERS RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING THAT AND CREATE NEW REVS OF SOFTWARE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
(APPLAUSE.).
>>CARY KARP: I THINK THAT THE FULL SPECTRUM OF APPROACHES TO THE BASIC PROBLEM HAS BEEN ILLUSTRATED HERE, AND JUST IN CASE THE TERM DNAME AS WAS USED IN THE LATTER PRESENTATION HAS CAUSED ANY CONFUSION, DNAME IS SOMETHING THAT WAS CONCEIVED, AND NOW I NEED TO HAVE THIS CONFIRMED, DNAME WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS CONCEIVED TO PROVIDE A MIGRATION PATH FOR AN ELABORATE SUBDOMAIN STRUCTURE MIGRATING AND ONE DOMAIN TO ANOTHER. AND IT'S AN APPLICABILITY TO ENABLE AN ENTIRE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN TO MAP INTO ANOTHER IS SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES TESTING. SO AS WE DISCUSS WAYS TO PROCEED, ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO CONSIDER IS WHETHER DNAME IN FACT WILL SERVE THE PURPOSE THAT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED IN THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION. OTHERS HAVE CLEARLY ARTICULATED THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE AND THAT'S SIMPLY THE ENTRY OF A PUNYCODE, TO USE THAT TERM, STRING INTO THE ROOT OF THE DNS.
SO WE ARE LOOKING AT TWO ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER AS -- IN COMPARISONS TO EACH OTHER AND INDIVIDUALLY. AND THE ONE WOULD PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR THE CREATION OF A NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN THAT MIGHT BE PROPOSED BY SOMEBODY WHO DOES NOT ALREADY OPERATE A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN; HOWEVER, IT IS A UNICODE STRING THAT IS THE DESIRED LABEL.
THE OTHER WOULD BE A SITUATION WHERE THE OPERATOR OF A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN WISHES TO MAP THAT DOMAIN INTO SOME OTHER SCRIPT EQUIVALENT, BE IT SYNONYMOUS OR TRANSLITERATED OR WHATEVER, OF THE OPERATOR'S ORIGINAL LABEL, AND IT'S ALSO CONCEIVABLE THAT AN OPERATOR OF A TLD MIGHT WISH TO HAVE AN IDN REPRESENTATION OF THAT LABEL BUT MAINTAIN TWO ENTIRELY SEPARATE ZONES FOR TWO ENTIRELY SEPARATE CLIENT BASES.
SO IF THERE'S ANYBODY ON THE PANEL WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT BRIEFLY ON THAT. PERHAPS IT MIGHT ALSO BE IN ORDER FOR US TO INTRODUCE THOSE OF THE PANELISTS WHO ARE NOT -- WHO HAVEN'T HELD PRESENTATIONS.
I SUPPOSE YOU KNOW WHO I AM. TO MY RIGHT IS -- OKAY. MICHAEL EVERSON, WHO IS -- HE CALLS HIMSELF THE TOKEN LINGUIST. I REGARD HIM AS THE LINGUIST SUPREME. HE, IN ANY CASE, IS THE ONE WHO IS PERPETUALLY NUDGING US INTO THE DIRECTION OF LINGUISTIC REALITY.
RAM HAS A MICROPHONE THERE. TELL THEM WHO YOU ARE.
>>RAM MOHAN: RAM MOHAN, THE CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER FOR AFILIAS, AND VERY INTERESTED AND INVOLVED IN THE IDN AREA FOR A WHILE.
>>CARY KARP: AND MICHEL.
>>MICHEL SUIGNARD: MY NAME IS MICHEL SUIGNARD. I WORK AS A SENIOR PROGRAM MANAGER AT MICROSOFT, ALSO THE ISO 10606 PROJECT EDITOR. AND ISO10606 IS BASICALLY THE ISO SIDE OF UNICODE, SO WE GET INVOLVED IN THAT. AS WELL, I AM A UNICODE CONSORTIUM TECHNICAL DIRECTOR SO I CAN TALK ON BEHALF OF UNICODE, IF NEEDS BE.
>>CARY KARP: OKAY. NOW, IF -- AGAIN, THE APPROACHES THAT HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED IN THE VARIOUS PRESENTATIONS CAN ALSO BE SEEN AS BEING STANDARDS BASED. THERE IS A RIGOROUS FORMALISM THAT LEADS TO HAVING A STRING ENTERED INTO THE ROOT OF THE DNS. THE CREATION, IF YOU WILL, OF A NEW TLD. AND THERE ARE ANY NUMBER OF REASONS FOR WISHING THAT PROCESS TO BE EXPEDITED AT A GREATER RATE, A FASTER RATE THAN IT IN FACT CAN BE.
AND THERE ARE ALTERNATE APPROACHES. THERE ARE NONSTANDARDS BASED ALTERNATIVES TO ENTERING A NEW STRING IN THE -- I HESITATE TO USE THE TERM, BUT THE ESTABLISHED SINGLE ROOT SERVERS.
AND ONE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF ADOPTING A LOCAL APPROACH IS THAT IT TENDS TO ISOLATE THE COMMUNITY THAT'S BEING VERY WELL SERVED AS A SEPARATE COMMUNITY FROM THE BROADER GLOBAL COMMUNITY. AND THERE ARE PROBABLY AN INFINITE NUMBER OF THINGS TO BE SAID ABOUT THE RELATIVE MERITS OF BEING A MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY OR BETTER SERVING A LOCAL CONSTITUENCY. AND I THINK THAT ALSO HAS TO BE DISCUSSED RATHER THOROUGHLY BEFORE WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHERE TO GO NEXT, WHAT TO DO NEXT.
OKAY.
>>RAM MOHAN: I HAD A COUPLE OF CLARIFICATIONS THAT I WANTED TO BRING ACROSS HERE BEFORE WE GOT INTO ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS.
I HEARD -- IN SOME OF THE PRESENTATIONS I HEARD CERTAIN TERMS BEING USED, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ALL UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY MEAN.
ONE OF THE PRESENTERS SAID THAT RESOLUTION OF IDNS CAN BE DONE ONE OF TWO WAYS, EITHER IN A PLUG-IN OR IN A BROWSER.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, RESOLUTION IS DONE AT THE NETWORK LAYER. IT'S A DNS ISSUE. AND IT TYPICALLY MEANS HERE IS A NAME, GIVE ME AN IP BACK FOR IT.
AND THAT'S NOT WHAT A PLUG-IN OR A BROWSER ACTUALLY DOES.
SO I WANT TO KEEP THAT -- LET'S TRY AND NOT USE THE WORD "RESOLUTION" WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TRANSLATION OFF A PARTICULAR REPRESENTATION. HOW IT LOOKS ON YOUR SCREEN, TRANSLATING THAT INTO SOMETHING THAT CAN BE SENT ACROSS ON THE DNS.
OKAY? SO THAT'S THE FIRST THING.
THE SECOND THING THAT I'M VERY CONFUSED ABOUT IS I HEARD VARIOUS FOLKS TALKING ABOUT MONO IDNS, POLY IDNS, HYBRID IDNS, FULL IDNS. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IDN TLD. THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG THINGS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. AND WHETHER -- I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY WE NEED TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN MULTIPLE LABELS, WHETHER THE LABELS ARE IN ASCII OR IN IDN, BECAUSE THE REAL FOCUS HERE, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IS ON IDN AT THE TLD LEVEL.
SO IT'S .IDN, RATHER THAN ASCII.IDN OR IDN.IDN.

>>CARY KARP: ANY OTHER OF THE PANELISTS WANT TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO SET UP MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE WITH THE HOUSE?
>>S. SUBBIAH: I CAN RESPOND TO THAT. IT WAS MY TALK THAT RAM WAS POINTING OUT. IT IS TRUE, THE RESOLUTION IS NOT ACTUALLY HAPPENING AT THE (INAUDIBLE) LEVEL IN THIS CASE. BUT WHAT I MEANT TO SAY IS ACTUALLY SOFTWARE HAS TO BE INTRODUCED, AND EITHER IT'S GOING TO BE AT THE PLUG-IN LEVEL OR AT THE ISP LEVEL. AND THOSE ARE THE TWO CHOICES GOING FORWARD. IT'S LOOSE LANGUAGE. THAT'S ONE.
SECONDLY, THE REASON WHY, I THINK, PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT HYBRID AND FULL AND SO ON, I THINK IT'S PARTLY BECAUSE WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE IDNS TLD AT THE END, AND WE ARE GRATEFUL TO BE HERE TO TALK ABOUT IT, BUT WE'LL BE POINTING OUT AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, AND PERHAPS ALSO AL-ZOMAN, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE HISTORY OF WHAT HAPPENED SO FAR. SO IN THAT CONTEXT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE HYBRID AND THE FULL. AND IN TERMS OF POLY, WHICH I THINK IS REALLY, IN MY MIND IS GOING BEYOND ENGLISH, DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF IT, DIFFERENT LANGUAGES ALTOGETHER, THAT'S UP FOR DEBATE.
PERSONALLY, FOR MYSELF, I THINK RIGHT FROM DAY ONE WHEN WE CONCEIVED ABOUT THIS OR THOUGHT ABOUT THIS IN '97 OR '98 AND SO ON, WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT THAT EVERY DOMAIN NAME SHOULD REALLY BE IN ONE LANGUAGE, BOTH THE TLD SIDE, IF YOU CHOSE RUSSIAN, THEN, WELL, DOT CYRILLIC, AND IN FRONT OF IT WILL ALSO BE CYRILLIC. THAT MEANS IT WILL ALL BE COHESIVELY THE SAME IN LANGUAGE. IT WAS NEVER THOUGHT IN ANY OTHER REAL DIRECTION. I THINK IT WILL BE PREFERABLE FOR LANGUAGE COMMUNITIES. AND I THINK IT'S TRUE. AND IT ALSO LESSENS THE HOMOGRAPHIC ISSUE A LOT CONSIDERABLY WHEN YOU STICK TO JUST THE SAME LANGUAGE ON BOTH SIDES, AND THE SPOOFING ISSUE BECOMES A LOT LESS.
>>CARY KARP: VINT.
>>VINT CERF: FIRST OF ALL, I FOUND THESE PRESENTATIONS VERY HELPFUL, SO I WANT TO THANK THE PRESENTERS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO PREPARE THEM AND TO DELIVER THEM.
IT OCCURS TO ME THAT WE COULD EASILY LIMIT OUR THINKING ACCIDENTALLY GIVEN THE VARIOUS EXAMPLES THAT WERE PUT UP ON THE SCREEN BEFORE US AND NOT RECOGNIZE THAT THINGS ARE MORE COMPLICATED THAN THEY SEEM.
I HOPE YOU DON'T MISUNDERSTAND THE SUDDEN REEMERGENCE OF THE SKEPTIC, BUT WHAT I AM GOING TO SUGGEST TO YOU IS THAT EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF DOMAIN NAMES THAT ARE DRAWN STRICTLY FROM A SINGLE SCRIPT, THAT THE WAY IN WHICH WE USE DOMAIN NAMES CAN EASILY PLUNGE US INTO A POLY IDN KIND OF ENVIRONMENT. I'M NOT SURE I'M USING THAT WORD CORRECTLY.
WHAT I MEAN IS A SERIES OF DIFFERENT DOMAIN NAMES, EACH OF WHICH MIGHT BE DRAWN FROM A DISTINCT SCRIPT. IT CAN HAPPEN IF WE'RE HAVING MULTI-LINGUAL INTERACTIONS IN E-MAIL WHERE THE DISTRIBUTION LISTS ARE DRAWN FROM E-MAIL ADDRESSES THAT HAVE -- THAT ARE MADE UP OF SCRIPTS FROM DIFFERENT LANGUAGES.
AND IF I'M DESTROYING THE TERMINOLOGY HERE, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
BUT WE KNOW TODAY THAT WE INTERACT WITH PARTIES FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD. SO IT'S EASY TO IMAGINE A SITUATION WHERE WE NEED TO INTERACT WITH PARTIES WHOSE DOMAIN NAMES WE NEED TO KNOW. AND WHAT I -- I THINK WE NEED TO REMIND OURSELVES OF WHEN WE DO THE CASE ANALYSIS IS THAT EVEN IF WE SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF GETTING THE DOMAIN NAME TO WORK WHEN IT'S ALL ARABIC OR ALL RUSSIAN OR ALL URDU OR ALL TAMIL, IS THAT WE MAY STILL FIND -- OUR SOFTWARE MAY STILL BE CONFRONTED WITH AN INSTANCE WHERE E-MAIL COMES FROM MULTIPLE PARTIES AND THEY EACH REPRESENTED THEIR E-MAIL ADDRESSES IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES.
SO YOU COULD SAY, WELL, LET'S RULE THAT OUT, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SCENARIO OF USE THAT WE TEST OUR SOLUTION AGAINST IS REALISTIC.
THE SECOND OBSERVATION I'D MAKE IS THAT WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL NOT TO IMAGINE THAT THE SOLUTION -- SORRY, THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE DOMAIN NAME, EVEN IF IT'S ALL FROM ONE UNIFORM SCRIPT, IS SOLELY TO REFER TO A DOMAIN NAME IN A WEB ENVIRONMENT.
SO SOME OF THE EXAMPLES THAT PEOPLE THINK OF WHEN THEY LISTEN TO IDN PRESENTATIONS IS, OH, YEAH, I'M CLICKING ON A URL, AND IT ALL MAKES SENSE BECAUSE I CAN SEE IT IN THIS ONE SCRIPT.
THAT'S NOT THE ONLY APPLICATION IN WHICH DOMAIN NAMES MAY SHOW UP.
SO ONE OF THE TESTS THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO APPLY IN ANALYZING THE VARIOUS CHOICES THAT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED IS TO ASK FOR WHICH SCENARIOS WILL THESE SOLUTIONS WORK WELL AND COMFORTABLY, AND FOR WHICH SCENARIOS WILL THEY NOT? THAT MIGHT HELP GUIDE US AS TO WHICH ONES WE IMPLEMENT FIRST, WHICH ONES WE DO THE MOST, PROVIDE THE MOST BENEFIT. BUT I THINK WE ALSO WILL HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES AND WHAT KINDS OF SURPRISES WILL USERS ENCOUNTER WHEN SOME OF THESE THINGS APPEAR UNEXPECTEDLY IN SCENARIOS THAT WERE NOT GUIDING THE INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION.
THIS IS NOT ARGUING THAT WE SHOULDN'T DO ANYTHING. IT'S JUST IF WE DO SOMETHING, WE SHOULD BE AS AWARE AS POSSIBLE OF WHAT THE VARIOUS SIDE EFFECTS COULD BE.
>>CARY KARP: MICHAEL.
>>MICHAEL EVERSON: YEAH, I'M -- I'M NOT SURE. I WAS THINKING THAT -- I WAS WONDERING IF EVERYONE HERE UNDERSTOOD THE JUSTIFICATION FOR HAVING FULL IDN IN AN ENTIRE URL OR ENTIRE LOCATOR.
IDN IN A SINGLE SCRIPT.
I WAS SORT OF -- I WAS SORT OF PUT OFF BY YOUR -- THE TWO OF YOU HAD DISTINCTIONS, ONE CALLED A POLY IDN AND MONO IDN AND THE OTHER WAS IDN.ASCII AND THEN IDN.IDN.
AND I THINK WE'RE PAST THAT NOW. I THINK ICANN, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND, ESPECIALLY FROM THE PRE-WORKSHOP MEETING WE HAD YESTERDAY, WE ALL REALLY DO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THAT WE HAVE IDN THROUGH THE WHOLE THING. SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY USEFUL TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN POLY IDN AND MONO IDN, I MEAN TO USE THESE TERMS.
I THINK IN MY OWN OPINION THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RIGHT-TO-LEFT SCRIPTS, WHICH WOULD BE ARABIC, HEBREW, A WEST AFRICAN SCRIPT, CHIEFLY FOR MODERN USES IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL BECAUSE IF YOU, AS I HAVE, IF YOU ACTUALLY TRY TO TYPE THESE THINGS IN, IT GOES IN ALL SORTS OF DIRECTIONS AND IT'S JUST A NIGHTMARE AND IT MUST BE REALLY, REALLY HARD FOR THE USERS.
BUT I THINK THAT WE HAVE COME TO -- THIS IS MY SECOND OF THESE MEETINGS WHERE WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IDN. I WAS IN LUXEMBOURG AS WELL. AND I HAVE SEEN A VERY DEFINITE MOVEMENT OF THIS ORGANIZATION TOWARD THE DIRECTION THAT WE NEED TO GET TO, AND I THINK THAT THINGS ARE WELL IN HAND.
I JUST WANTED TO SORT OF SAY THAT.
>>ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN: YEAH. JUST BECAUSE -- WHY WE INTRODUCE THESE TWO TERMS. JUST BECAUSE WE PROVIDED OR PARTICIPATED IN THE WORKSHOP IN KUALA LUMPUR ABOUT ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, AND WE WERE FOLLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT OF IDN IN ICANN, AND WE SEE THE VERSION 2 OF IDN GUIDELINES, AND STILL THEY ARE ONLY PUSHING FOR IDN DOT ENGLISH, IF YOU WISH. AND THAT'S WHY WE WANTED TO CLARIFY, THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE WANT IS IDN.IDN. AND TO NOT LET PEOPLE BE CONFUSED, WHEN I SAY IDN.IDN, IT COULD BE LIKE ANY LANGUAGES.
WHAT WE WANT ACTUALLY IS ONE LANGUAGE TO ONE LANGUAGE. LIKE ARABIC.ARABIC, THE SAME THING. THAT'S WHAT WE WANT.
>>CARY KARP: VINT'S HAND WAS UP FIRST BUT MICHAEL WANTS TO EXCHANGE. OKAY.
>>MICHAEL EVERSON: THE BIG DEAL ABOUT THE 2.0 REVISION WAS THAT IT, FOR THE FIRST TIME, INTRODUCED THE CONCEPT OF SCRIPT INTO THE WHOLE THING. WITHOUT HAVING DONE THAT, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO MOVE ON TO TLD TO IDN. SO I MEAN THAT'S WHY IT WAS -- WE ARE ALL AWARE THAT IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO GET TO WHERE WE NEED TO GET, BUT IT IS THE STEP WE NEEDED TO BE IN ORDER TO GET THERE.
>>CARY KARP: AND THERE, IN FACT, IS EXPLICIT REFERENCE IN THAT DOCUMENT FOR THE NEED TO DO EXACTLY THIS. SO THERE ARE NO GUIDELINES ABOUT HOW TO DO IT, BUT THE NEED IS, I THINK -- OR AT LEAST IT WAS OUR INTENTION, CLEARLY, TO INDICATE THAT.
VINT.
>>VINT CERF: SO LET ME ALSO SAY THAT I AM VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT IF I AM USING A PARTICULAR LANGUAGE AND I WANT TO CONTINUE USING THAT IN MY INTERACTIONS WITH THE NET THAT IT'S QUITE UNDERSTANDABLE THAT I WOULD WANT THAT SAME -- LET ME SAY SCRIPT INSTEAD OF LANGUAGE FOR JUST A MOMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO USE THE SAME SCRIPT ESSENTIALLY THROUGHOUT MY INTERACTION, INCLUDING ALL THE PARTS, ALL THE LABELS OF A DOMAIN NAME, INCLUDING THE TOP LEVEL.
PART OF THE REASON THAT YOU ENDED UP WITH THAT ODD HYBRID WHERE THERE WAS LIMITED ASCII AT THE TOP LEVEL HAD TO DO WITH THE OTHER SIDE EFFECT OF PUTTING IN A FULL IDN ELEMENT AT THE TOP LEVEL, AND THAT WAS THE POTENTIAL CREATION OF ANOTHER TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN.
WHAT WE ALL KNOW IS THE CREATION OF DOMAINS IS TURNING OUT TO BE HARDER THAN I CERTAINLY THOUGHT. THERE'S A LOT OF ELEMENT OF ANALYSIS AND SOMETIMES CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH CREATING NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.
THE DNAME IDEA MIGHT ESCAPE SOME OF THAT DIFFICULTY, BUT IN THE LONG RUN I ANTICIPATE THAT THE CREATION OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS WILL STILL REQUIRE THE EXERCISE OF A FAIR AMOUNT OF MACHINERY.
I THINK LOOKING BACK ON IT, THE IDEA THAT WE COULD USE EVEN A SINGLE SERIES OF -- SINGLE SCRIPT UP TO BUT NOT INCLUDING THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN WAS A VERY WEAK DIRECTION TO GO IN FROM THE STANDPOINT OF USER INTERFACE AND SIMPLICITY.
SO ALTHOUGH THAT WAS DICTATED BY A CONCERN OVER THE POLICY FOR THE CREATION OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, I THINK WE HAVE GOTTEN PAST THAT. I HAVE ANYWAY.
I HAVEN'T GOT PAST FIGURING OUT WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES TO CREATE NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. AND I THINK IT'S VERY HELPFUL TO LOOK AT THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES THAT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED TO FIND LIMITS TO THE INSTANTANEOUS CREATION OF LARGE NUMBERS OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. TO BE UTTERLY TRIVIAL AND SILLY ABOUT IT IF WE TOOK ALL 250 OF THE EXISTING TLDS AND WE HAD TO CREATE IN 20 DIFFERENT LANGUAGES REPLICAS OF ALL OF THEM, WE WOULD BE CREATING A THOUSAND TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS MINUS THE ONES THAT ALREADY EXIST.
THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE -- OH, I'M SORRY. IT'S EVEN WORSE THAN THAT. IT WOULD BE 5,000 OF THEM.
THAT WOULD BE A HUGE POTENTIAL WORKLOAD AND MANAGEMENT PROBLEM FOR ICANN.
NO ONE IS PROPOSING THAT. AND I AM USING THIS AS AN EXTREME EXAMPLE OF WHERE WE DON'T WANT TO END UP BY ACCIDENT.
SO THE POLICY MECHANISM FOR CREATING NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS IS ONE OF THE PROBLEM CHILD, PROBLEM AREAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS THAT USE IDNS.
AND WE NEED TO WORK ON THAT PROBLEM AS WELL.
THAT LEADS TO ME SUGGEST THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN A PATH OF INVENTING TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS IN IDN FORMATS THAT WE SHOULD DO SO IN A REASONABLY LIMITED FASHION INITIALLY, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE STILL NOT SURE WHAT ALL THE DETAILS ARE OF GENERAL CREATION OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. MAYBE WE CAN HAVE THE RULE THAT ALLOWS US TO DO SOME OF THEM AS PART OF A CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT.

>>CARY KARP: I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP FOR THE FLOOR IN A MOMENT BUT I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, VINT, ACTUALLY.
THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO THINGS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED. THE ONE IS ACTION THAT WILL REQUIRE THE CREATION OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, HOWEVER THAT MECHANISM MIGHT BE INVOKED. AND THE OTHER IS DOING THINGS THAT MAKE IT SEEM AS THOUGH A NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN HAS BEEN CREATED.
AND WHERE ON THE SCALE OF SINFULNESS IS DOING THAT? IS ART IN SOLVING THE PROBLEM A LEGITIMATE APPROACH?
>>VINT CERF: ARE YOU ASKING THE INTERNET EVANGELIST TO RULE ON THE QUESTION OF SIN?
(LAUGHTER.)
>>CARY KARP: YES.
>>VINT CERF: I SEE. I DON'T HAVE MY ECCLESIASTICAL ROBES ON SO I'M NOT SURE I CAN RESPOND.
IF WE AVOID THE LITERAL CREATION OF A NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN, THEN IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU AVOID WHATEVER ALL THE POLICIES AND MECHANICS AND EVERYTHING ELSE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
WHAT I DON'T KNOW IS WHETHER THE SOLUTIONS SUGGESTED FOR THAT PURPOSE, LIKE THE DNAME CASE, INTRODUCE OTHER PROBLEMS THAT I DON'T -- IT'S THE FIRST TIME I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR WAY OF USING DNAME. SO I HAVEN'T THOUGHT THROUGH, IN MY OWN HEAD, THE VARIOUS SCENARIOS IN WHICH THESE OBJECTS MAY APPEAR AND THEN WE INTERACT WITH THEM.
BUT IF WE AVOID THE PROBLEM OF CREATING NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS LITERALLY, THAT IS TO SAY PUTTING NEW THINGS IN THE ROOM, THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY MAKE THINGS EASIER. I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO BE MISUNDERSTOOD AS ARGUING THEREFORE, WE SHOULDN'T TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE OTHER SOLUTIONS, BUT IT MIGHT MAKE THINGS EASIER TO DO AS AN INITIAL STEP.

>>CARY KARP: ARE THERE ANY SPECIFIC COMMENTS FROM THE PANEL ON ANY OF THIS OR IS IT TIME NOW TO OPEN THE MIKE?
OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE. I MIGHT AS WELL DO A SPEAKER LIST. RAM WANTS TO MAKE A FINAL REMARK. ANYBODY ELSE?
OKAY, RAM.
>>RAM MOHAN: I GUESS ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE IS I DON'T READ CHINESE BUT WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD IS THAT .COM AND .NET IS AVAILABLE IN THE CHINESE REPRESENTATION AND IT'S AVAILABLE NOT ONLY IN A TEST BED BUT IS AVAILABLE FOR SALE.
AND SO I'M NOT SO SURE THAT THERE ISN'T ACTUALLY AN IMPLIED UNDERLYING THING HERE FOR IDN TLD. YOU KNOW, TLD MULTIPLIED BY NUMBER OF SCRIPTS THAT WE WANT IT REPRESENTED IN. BECAUSE WHAT SEEMS TO BE HAPPENING IS SOME PROCESS BY WHICH SOME TLDS ARE ALREADY BEING OFFERED IN VARIOUS SCRIPTS AND LANGUAGES AROUND THE WORLD TODAY.
SO I'M NOT SO SURE THAT I -- THE PREMISE THAT THERE IS NOT A PROPOSAL FOR IDN TLD IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES IS NOT ALREADY HERE, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION IS ALREADY MOVING THAT DIRECTION.
>>CARY KARP: ALL RIGHT.
YOU, INDEED, DO HAVE FIRST DIBS AT THE MICROPHONE.
STEP UP TO IT, PLEASE.
FOR THE TRANSCRIPTION, PLEASE ALSO STATE YOUR NAME, AND JUST QUEUE UP BEHIND THE MICROPHONE.
THERE IS NO SPEAKERS' LIST OTHER THAN IS IMPLICIT IN THE ORDER IN WHICH YOU FIGHT FOR TERRITORY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE AISLE HERE.
BILL MANNING.
>>PAT KANE: IF I CAN JUST SAY ONE THING QUICKLY.
COM AND NET DOES REGISTER SIMPLIFIED CHINESE NAMES TODAY AND WE'RE NO LONGER IN A TEST BED.
>>RAM MOHAN: I'M SORRY.
I WAS TALKING ABOUT DOT COM AND DOT NET, NOT IDN.COM AND IDN.NET, BUT DOT COM AS IT'S AVAILABLE TODAY IN A CHINESE REPRESENTATION.
>>PAT KANE: OKAY.
>>MATT HOOKER: HI, I'M MATT HOOKER.
AND I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE.
IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE THAT CERTAIN NATIONS OR COUNTRIES MAY ACTUALLY CONSIDER STARTING THEIR OWN INTERNET UNLESS WE INTRODUCE A FULL RANGE OF THE UNICODE CHARACTER SET INTO THE ROOT SYSTEM, IN MY OPINION.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FACING.
AND THAT WOULD BE DISASTROUS, I THINK.
THE PROMISE OF THE INTERNET IS THAT EVERY PERSON, EVERY INDIVIDUAL ON THE PLANET CAN COMMUNICATE WITH EVERY OTHER INDIVIDUAL ON THE PLANET EFFORTLESSLY, QUICKLY, AND FREE OR AS CLOSE TO FREE AS POSSIBLE.
AND IT'S A BEAUTIFUL THING THAT COULD BRING THE ENTIRE PLANET TOGETHER.
SO I WOULD URGE THE BOARD OF ICANN TO CONTINUE AND, IN FACT, INCREASE THE RAPIDITY WITH WHICH IT WILL INTRODUCE A PUNYCODE OR UNICODE CHARACTER SET INTO THE ROOT SERVERS.
I THINK THAT'S THE PROPER SOLUTION.
AND, OF COURSE, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME HOMOGRAPHIC ATTACKS AND THAT KIND OF THING.
BUT THESE ARE RELATIVELY WELL MORE OR LESS KNOWN AND WE CAN FOCUS EFFORTS ON DIMINISHING THEIR IMPACT OR ON KNOWING WHERE THESE KINDS OF ATTACKS MAY HAPPEN.
AND I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST SOMETHING THAT HAS GREATER RELEVANCE WHICH I HAVE BEEN SUGGESTING TO THE ICANN COMMUNITY AND BOARD SINCE 1998 OR '99.
AND THAT IS TO CONSIDER -- I THINK JON POSTEL HAD IT RIGHT.
THERE SHOULD BE EITHER DOT NOTHING, YOU KNOW, NO DIFFERENTIATIONS, OR AN INFINITE NUMBER.
AND I'M, OF COURSE, IN FAVOR OF THE HAVING NO DOT COM, DOT NET.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO BACK AND ERASE THESE THINGS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THE FULL INTERNATIONAL UNICODE CHARACTER SET OF EVERY LANGUAGE, EVERY WRITTEN LANGUAGE, WE CAN'T DEAL WITH SPOKEN LANGUAGES, JUST WRITTEN LANGUAGES, THEN WE COULD JUST HAVE THE CHARACTER STRING IN WHATEVER LANGUAGE IT IS BE THE DOMAIN ITSELF, WITHOUT A DOT ANYTHING.
AND THAT WOULD RESOLVE A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU'RE NOW SUGGESTING.
IF YOU REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT IT -- I KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF RESISTANCE TO THIS, AS THERE ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
BUT THAT'S THE POINT I WISH TO MAKE.
AND EVEN IF THAT -- THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE YEARS TO FIGURE OUT THAT ONE.
I UNDERSTAND.
BUT REGARDLESS OF THAT ISSUE, LET'S PLEASE GET THE INTERNATIONAL CHARACTER -- UNICODE CHARACTER SET IN THE ROOT SYSTEM.
I THINK SO THAT PEOPLE IN CHINA, IN JAPAN, IN THE COUNTRIES WHERE THEY SPEAK ARABIC, THEY DO NOT SEPARATE AND START THEIR OWN LITTLE INTERNETS, WHICH IS BEING THREATENED, I BELIEVE.
THANK YOU.
>>CARY KARP: BEFORE YOU LEAVE THE MICROPHONE, TO CLARIFY THIS, DO YOU REALLY MEAN THE ENTIRE UNICODE CHARACTER SET OR DO YOU MEAN THAT SEGMENT OF THE CHARACTER SET THAT IS NECESSARY TO REPRESENT WRITTEN LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD?
>>MATT HOOKER: THAT SEGMENT OF THE CHARACTER SET WHICH IS NECESSARY TO REPRESENT THE WRITTEN LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD.
AND OF COURSE IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE FROM AN EIGHT-BIT SYSTEM TO A 32-BIT OR 64-BIT SYSTEM.
AND, YOU KNOW, THIS MAY TAKE YEARS TO DO.
BUT WE HAVE TO GET GOING ON IT.
>>CARY KARP: OKAY.
DO ANY OF THE PANELISTS WANT TO RESPOND BRIEFLY TO THIS?
>>PAT KANE: ANOTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO SUGGEST IS THAT WE DID A FOCUS STUDY GROUP KOREA.
AND THE CONTEMPORANEOUS, WE GAVE THEM SOME OPTIONS AROUND HANGUL.HANGUL DOMAIN NAMES AND WE WERE COMPLETELY LAUGHED OUT OF THE STUDY GROUP FOR THAT PARTICULAR REASON.
THEY SAID WE DON'T NEED A DOT HANGUL.
IN KOREAN THERE IS A PRODUCT CALLED DOT HANGUL DOMAIN NAMES THAT THEY HAVE DONE A VERY GOOD WAY OF MARKETING.
AND THE END USERS BELIEVE IT IS A KEY WORD SYSTEM BUT IT'S JUST THAT WAY THIS THEY EXPERIENCED IN JUST THE NAME.
AND SO IT WAS VERY -- IT'S FUNNY THAT YOU SUGGEST THAT, BECAUSE WE DID GET LAUGHED OUT OF THE ROOM.
>>MATT HOOKER: I MIGHT NOT HAVE MADE MYSELF CLEAR.
I'M SUGGESTING THE UNICODE THAT REPRESENTS THE WRITTEN LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD BEFORE THE DOT, NOT AFTER THE DOT.
AND THEN I'M FURTHER SUGGESTING THAT WE COME UP WITH A NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN WHICH IS NO TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN AT ALL.
AND THAT REQUIRES A LOT OF CONSIDERATION.
BUT THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME.
>>CARY KARP: YOU ALWAYS GET PRIORITY.
OKAY.
>>VINT CERF: I'M SORRY.
I SHOULD NOT.
I'LL YIELD --
>>CARY KARP: INDEED, INDEED.
>>VINT CERF: I JUST WANT TO OBSERVE THAT I THINK THAT SUGGESTION IS THE MORAL EQUIVALENT OF AN ENTIRELY FLAT DOMAIN NAME SPACE, WRITTEN ENTIRELY IN UNICODE.
I THINK WE'D HAVE TO DO SOME SERIOUS HOMEWORK TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO IMPLEMENT SUCH A SYSTEM.

>>S. SUBBIAH: I WOULD -- I WAS GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT TO THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER'S COMMENTS, NOT ABOUT THE TECHNICAL ASPECT OF THE SOLUTION, BUT SORT OF THE GLOBAL STATEMENT THAT HE MADE ABOUT THE WORLD SHOULD BE A BEAUTIFUL PLACE.
NOW, WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT IT WAS VERY, VERY CLEAR -- AND I'LL BE VERY FRANK.
BACK IN '98, '99, WHEN WE THOUGHT OF THIS, HOW TO DO THIS, WE NEEDED MONEY.
WE WENT TO VCS, SAID WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS IN ASIA.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO TELL A VENTURE CAPITALIST THAT YOU WANT X MILLION DOLLARS TO DO THAT.
BUT YOU WANT TO CREATE THIS, YOU WANT THE UNITED NATIONS, PEOPLE WANT THEIR LANGUAGES, BUT HAS THERE BEEN PROGRESS.
WHEN WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT FIRST, WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT, BALKANIZATION OF THE INTERNET.
THAT MIGHT HAPPEN, BECAUSE DIFFERENT GROUPS, THERE WAS NO CLEAR ORGANIZATION, IT WAS VERY CLEAR IN '97/'98, THAT WAS ONE REASON NOT TO RAISE MONEY, JUST LET THE WORLD DO IT WHENEVER THEY FELT LIKE IT.
WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT VERY CLEARLY AND SAID, OKAY, BUT LET'S SEE WHAT'S HAPPENED SINCE THEN, SEVEN, EIGHT YEARS, AND PEOPLE -- THE REASON I ENDED UP FOCUSING ON HYBRID IDNS INSTEAD OF FULL IDNS IS BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT'S HAPPENED.
DURING THIS PERIOD -- WE CAN TALK ABOUT ALL THE NEGATIVE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TRY AND DO THINGS IN THE FUTURE AND ALL THAT. BUT THERE HAVE BEEN POSITIVE THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED.
THE WORLD HAS BECOME A MORE IMPORTANT PLACE.
I REMEMBER WHEN MINC GOT STARTED, AND SOON AFTER THAT WE HAD CDNC -- I BELIEVE THERE WERE INSTANCE WHEN THE CHINESE AND THE TAIWANESE COULDN'T WORK.
BUT NOW THEY GOT TOGETHER AND TODAY THEY'RE PRESENTING.
AFTER THAT WAS CJK, THAT WAS THE MODEL FOR IDN, CHINESE, JAPANESE, KOREAN.
AND THAT THEY WERE VERY -- THAT HAS WORKED OUT NOW.
THEY HAVE WORKED OUT A DEAL BETWEEN THEMSELVES.
SO GROUPS ARE WORKING OUT.
IT'S NOT TOTALLY ABOUT THIS -- GROUPS GETTING TOGETHER.
THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY.
>>CARY KARP: RAM.
>>RAM MOHAN: MICHAEL AND I WERE JUST CHATTING.
I THINK IT'S A REAL FOLLY TO SUGGEST THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERY WRITTEN LANGUAGE IN THE WORLD HAS TO BE THERE.
YOU KNOW, I AM NOT SO SURE THAT WE WANT TO NECESSARILY REPRESENT HIEROGLYPHICS WITH ALL THE SPECIAL CHARACTERS THAT ARE THERE.
SO IT'S JUST A BAD IDEA.
>>BILL MANNING: THREE OR FOUR POINTS.
>>CARY KARP: YOUR NAME.
>>BILL MANNING: OH, MY NAME -- IN WHICH LANGUAGE?
(LAUGHTER.)
>>BILL MANNING: BILL MANNING.
I'M NOT ALWAYS SURE SOMETIMES.
FIRST OF ALL, PAT, I'D LIKE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DNAME THING.
I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT VERISIGN PUT THE WHITE PAPER TOGETHER.
A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ABOUT DNAME.
IT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED FOR EASILY RENUMBERING AN IPV6 SPACE SO YOU COULD HAVE, ESSENTIALLY, THE LOWER PART OF YOUR SPACE BE THE SAME AND YOU JUST RENUMBER YOUR PROVIDER.
WE'VE USED IT IN RENUMBERING FROM ONE IPV6 SPACE TO ANOTHER, IPV6.INT, DOT ARPA.
THAT'S BEEN ONGOING FOR SEVERAL YEARS.
AND IN 2001, IN AT LEAST ONE OF THE TEST BEDS I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH, WE DID THE DNAME EXPERIMENT WITH THE JAPANESE.
AND THAT -- SO IT'S BEEN KNOWN TO WORK AND THERE HAVE BEEN FAIRLY LONGSTANDING TESTS RUNNING WITH DNAME.
SO IT WORKS WELL.
TWO, AS SOON AS YOU START ENCODING OR ALLOWING MULTIPLE ENCODINGS, THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT -- THERE ARE NO DNS POLICE THAT ARE GOING TO COME STOP ME FROM DOING PER-LABEL ENCODING.
THIS IS WHAT SOME PEOPLE CALL POLY WHATEVER IT IS, POLYMULTILINGUAL.
SO I CAN HAVE ONE PART OF MY LABEL BE ASCII, I CAN HAVE ONE PART OF MY LABEL BE BIG5, I COULD HAVE ANOTHER PART OF MY LABEL BE UNICODE WITH A 16-BIT AND ANOTHER ONE BE UNICODE 32.
AND IF I START MIXING THOSE AND I EXPECT ONE TO BE CHINESE, ONE TO BE ARABIC, ANOTHER ONE TO BE ROMAN, YOU CAN'T STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING ONCE YOU START -- ONCE YOU OPEN IT UP.
BECAUSE THERE ARE NO POLICE TO PREVENT THAT.
HANG ON A SECOND.
NUMBER THREE HERE IS THAT THERE WAS A GOOFY IDEA THAT I BLAME CHUCK FOR, WHO WILL SPEAK SHORTLY AFTER THIS.
AND ONE OF THE AIDS TO SORT OF UNIVERSAL UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE IS A COMMON BASE, A SIMPLE, COMMON BASE, AND FOR MANY YEARS, ASCII WAS IT.
SINCE THERE ARE SOME PROBLEMS WITH THIS, PERHAPS WE SHOULD JUST PUT ALL OF THE DOMAIN NAMES OR THE DOMAIN LABELS AS HEX CHARACTERS AND FORCE EVERYONE TO LEARN HEX.
LANGUAGES EVOLVE.
AND SO ONCE YOU -- AND, RAM, THIS TALKS TO YOUR POINT THAT YOU AND MICHAEL WERE TALKING ABOUT, IS THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO START RESTRICTING WHAT IS ALLOWED, THEN YOU HAVE A BODY THAT DETERMINES WHAT IS A LEGITIMATE LANGUAGE AND YOU WILL HAVE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE DISENFRANCHISED AND WILL GO CREATE THEIR OWN.
SO THOSE ARE MY THREE POINTS.
THANK YOU.
OH, MICHAEL, YOU WANTED TO THROW DARTS.
>>MICHAEL EVERSON: YEAH.
I MEAN, UTF-8 AND 16 ARE ENCODING FORMS OF UNICODE AND THEY ARE ENTIRELY EQUIVALENT.
SO IT SHOULDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER.
AS LONG AS YOUR PARSER IS UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS UTF TEXT AND THAT IT CAN DETERMINE WHAT THE ENCODING FORM IS, THEY ARE EQUIVALENT AND THERE IS NO DISTINCTION.
>>BILL MANNING: FOR MOST THINGS, THAT'S TRUE.
BUT FOR SOME PART OF THAT, I THINK THAT'S NOT TRUE.
ANYONE ELSE?
>>MICHEL SUIGNARD: I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE POINT ABOUT ENCODING ON THE DNS SPACE.
THE ONLY THING WE CAN DO IS WE SEE 7 BIT.
THE ONLY REPRESENTATION YOU CAN DO TO REPRESENT BEYOND 7 BIT IS IDN.
AND IDN USES IN PUNYCODE, AND IT'S DIRECT TRANSFORMATION FROM THE UNICODE REPERTOIRE.
THERE'S NO WAY TO HAVE BIG5 OR -- YOU CAN ONLY DO UNICODE AS A REPERTOIRE AS THE ENCODING GOES FROM WHATEVER YOUR APPLICATION IS ENCODING AND WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO THE DNS NAME SPACE, IF YOU WANT, YOU WENT FROM PUNYCODE AND THEN YOU HAVE JUST SEVEN BITS.
THERE'S NO DISCUSSION ABOUT DIFFERENT ENCODING SYSTEM.
THE ONLY THING YOU CAN PLAY WITH IS, OBVIOUSLY, HAVING DIFFERENT CHARACTER SETS, IF YOU HAVE A SET OF CHARACTERS IN EACH OF THE LABEL, IT'S PERFECTLY TRUE THAT TODAY YOU CAN PUT, YOU KNOW, CHINESE IN ONE LABEL, CYRILLIC IN ANOTHER LABEL, (INAUDIBLE) ON ANOTHER ONE.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT PREVENTS YOU TO DO THAT.
BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ENCODING FORMS.
>>BILL MANNING: OKAY.
I WAS -- I SPEAK FROM PROBABLY MORE OF A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE AS SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY GOES AND MANIPULATES ZONE FILES.
AND I SEE WHAT PEOPLE TYPE IN OR HOW THOSE LABELS ARE ENCODED.
AND SO TECHNICALLY, IT'S POSSIBLE TO DO ALL KINDS OF BIZARRE THINGS IN THE DNS.
AND HOW THOSE ARE EXTRACTED AND REPRESENTED TO APPLICATIONS I THINK IS PART OF THE IDN ISSUE.
SO, ANYWAY.
BUT THERE IS A BIG LINE.

>>CHUCK GOMES: MY NAME IS CHUCK GOMES FROM VERISIGN.
I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS AND SOME COROLLARY QUESTIONS WITH THOSE TO HELP CLARIFY THEM.
AND THE FIRST ONE REALLY RELATES TO THE IDN GUIDELINES THAT HAVE JUST BEEN REVISED AND WILL BE REVISED AGAIN.
BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WITH, I THINK, THE TWO MAIN IDEAS THAT WERE PUT ON THE TABLE TODAY, THE PUNYCODE IN THE ROOT TLD, AS WELL AS THE DNAME APPROACH, IT SOUNDS TO ME, BECAUSE THOSE ARE BOTH BASED ON STANDARDS, THAT IF WE WERE TO DO EITHER ONE TODAY, THE GUIDELINES AS THEY EXIST TODAY AND AS THEY MAY BE REVISED WOULD PROBABLY STILL APPLY.
THERE MAY BE SOME NEED FOR NEW GUIDELINES RELATING TO EITHER SOLUTION.
BUT IS THAT A CORRECT ASSUMPTION?
I KNOW SEVERAL OF YOU ARE ON THAT COMMITTEE.

>>CARY KARP: ACTUALLY, THE SECOND SESSION DURING THIS WORKSHOP IS GOING TO BE FOCUSING SPECIFICALLY ON THIS STUFF.
SO IF WE CAN DEFER THAT QUESTION UNTIL FURTHER DISCUSSION.
>>CHUCK GOMES: THAT'S GOOD.
MY SECOND QUESTION IN THE EXCELLENT PRESENTATION DONE BY MR. AL-ZOMAN, THE TERM WAS USED AS AN IDN ROOT SERVER.
WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY THAT?
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT JUST PUTTING IDNS IN THE ROOT?
OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A SEPARATE ROOT SERVER?
I WASN'T CLEAR IN TERMS OF THAT.
AND MAYBE OTHERS CAN RESPOND TO THAT, TOO.
>>ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN: WHAT I MEANT IS THE CURRENT IDN -- THE CURRENT ROOT SERVERS SUPPORT IDN.
THAT'S WHAT I MEANT.
>>CHUCK GOMES: OKAY.
SO YOU WEREN'T REALLY TALKING ABOUT A SEPARATE ROOT SERVER, BUT, RATHER, UP -- INSERTING IN THE ROOT WHAT'S NEEDED TO SUPPORT THEM.
THANK YOU.

>>MARK DAVIS: I'M MARK DAVIS.
THE -- I FIRMLY AGREE WITH WHAT PAT SAID.
I THINK THE CHIEF ISSUE THAT'S GOING TO BE FACED HERE IS GOING TO BE A POLICY ISSUE MORE THAN A TECHNICAL ISSUE.
AND GETTING AT WHAT VINT ALLUDED TO IS, IF THERE IS A RESTRICTION OF THESE INTERNATIONAL TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN DOMAIN NAMES TO BEING SYNONYMS IN SOME SENSE TO WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS, THEN IT DOES DELINEATE -- I MEAN, IT DOES NARROW THE SCOPE OF THE POLICY ISSUE QUITE SUBSTANTIALLY.
BUT THERE IS STILL A POLICY ISSUE.
THE POLICY ISSUE IS, WHO GETS KOREA?
WHO GETS CONGO?
ET CETERA.
SO THAT THERE WILL BE SOME POLICY ISSUES THAT DO NEED TO BE DECIDED.
AND THE -- IT DOES NARROW IT SOMEWHAT.
BUT IT -- IT STILL LEAVES A POLICY ISSUE.
I DO SUGGEST THAT IT'S PROBABLY A GOOD FIRST STEP IF WE'RE LOOKING TOWARDS HAVING A NARROWER FOCUS AT THE BEGINNING TO KEEP FROM RUNNING INTO PROBLEMS IF THAT IS TAKEN, IF THE GOAL IS INITIALLY TO LIMIT TO SIMPLY SYNONYMS OF EXISTING TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.
BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT REALLY DOES OPEN UP A VERY, VERY LARGE PANDORA'S BOX.

>>CARY KARP: ERIN.
>>ERIN CHEN: ABOUT THIS POLICY ISSUE, WHO GETS MAYBE ARABIC, WHO GETS MAYBE KOREA, I THINK IN THE PROPOSAL OF CDNC, WE PROPOSED THE CCTLD SET A PRIORITY, BECAUSE WE THINK THE CCTLD -- CURRENT CCTLD CAN SET THE PRIORITY TO HAVE IDN TLD, THAT'S A CLEAR RULE IN THE CURRENT STANDARD ISO 3166.
SO THAT'S THE POINT THAT WHY WE PROPOSED PRIORITY FOR CCTLD.
SO I THINK THIS IS OUR PROPOSAL WHICH IS JUST A KIND OF POINT, A KIND OF VIEW.
MAYBE OTHERS HAVE OTHER KIND OF VIEWS.
SO I JUST CLARIFY ABOUT THIS.
>>MARK DAVIS: PERHAPS I CAN RESPOND TO THAT.
THE ISSUE IS BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN OWNERS, OKAY?
IT'S NOT -- IF YOU -- IT IS, AFTER ALL, STILL ONE NAME SPACE.
AND SOMEBODY IS GOING TO GET A PARTICULAR STRING THAT'S GOING TO GO WITH ONE -- ONE OF TWO OR THREE OR FOUR PEOPLE.
IT'S STILL A SINGLE NAME SPACE AND IT'S STILL -- THERE WILL BE CONFLICTS THAT ARISE.
AND THERE NEEDS TO BE A DISPUTE MECHANISM TO ALLOW THAT TO BE DONE, EVEN IF IT'S LIMITED TO SYNONYMS.

>>VINT CERF: SO THIS IS WHERE WE GET INTO ONE OF THESE HORRIBLE MULTIPLICATION PROBLEMS.
LET ME IMAGINE FOR JUST A MOMENT -- I'M TRYING TO DO ONE OF THESE GADONKIN EXPERIMENTS.
-- I AM -- I AM A GERMAN SPEAKER, I AM HERE IN VANCOUVER, AND I WANT TO MAKE REFERENCE TO SOMETHING IN DOT COM, BUT I'M IN CANADA, AND I -- OH, I'M SORRY, LET'S -- THAT'S A GTLD.
LET'S TRY THE OTHER CASE, WHERE IT'S A CCTLD.
SO I'M IN CANADA, AND I'M EXPECTING DOT CA FOR A LOT OF REFERENCES.
BUT WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT WE MAKE REFERENCE NO MATTER WHERE WE ARE IN THE WORLD, WE MAKE REFERENCE TO MANY, MANY DIFFERENT TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.
OUR INTERACTIONS, WHETHER THEY'RE E-MAIL OR WITH THE WEB, TAKE US TO VIRTUALLY EVERY TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN.
SO EVEN IF I WOULD PREFER TO INTERACT WITH THE NETWORK IN GERMAN, FOR EXAMPLE, OR TO MAKE IT HARDER, LET ME PICK ANOTHER LANGUAGE WITH A DIFFERENT SCRIPT, SITTING HERE IN CANADA, IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT I WOULD HAVE THE CONVENIENCE OF MAKING REFERENCE IN CYRILLIC TO A DOMAIN NAME WHICH IS ACTUALLY IN CHINA SOMEWHERE, BECAUSE THE CCTLD.CN, OR THE OPERATOR OF DOT CN, CNNIC, MAY HAVE ONLY REPRESENTED OTHER TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS IN CHINESE AS WELL AS THE ASCII, BUT NOT IN CYRILLIC.
SO WHAT I'M PROBABLY NOT DOING A VERY GOOD JOB OF THIS, BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO SUGGEST TO YOU IS THAT FOR THE VARIOUS CASES WHERE A PARTICULAR LANGUAGE SPEAKER IS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD AND WANTS TO INTERACT SOLELY IN THAT LANGUAGE WITH THE NETWORK, IT ISN'T CLEAR TO ME THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THAT VISION IF WE CHOOSE TO DO THE RESTRICTION THAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING.
THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE RESTRICTION.
IT IS ONLY AN ARGUMENT THAT SAYS DON'T GET YOUR -- DON'T SET YOUR EXPECTATIONS TO BE INCOMMENSURATE WITH WHAT A REASONABLE SET OF RESTRICTIONS MIGHT PROVIDE.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>>MARK DAVIS: THAT'S NOT EXACTLY QUITE WHAT I WAS SAYING.
>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
>>MARK DAVIS: WHAT I WAS SAYING --
>>VINT CERF: I WASN'T ACCUSING YOU OF ANYTHING.
SO, ANYWAY, GO AHEAD.
>>MARK DAVIS: I THINK WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY WAS THAT THERE ARE TWO SEPARABLE ISSUES.
ONE IS ARE THERE RESTRICTIONS IN TERMS OF THE NAME SPACE, IN TERMS OF WHAT IS ALLOCATED.
THERE'S REALLY A VERY SEPARATE ISSUES AS TO WHETHER THOSE ARE ALIASES OR NOT.
>>VINT CERF: OH, ABSOLUTELY.
>>MARK DAVIS: AND IF THEY'RE ALIASES, THEN YOU CAN SAY WHATEVER YOU HAVE, IF YOU HAVE DE, HOWEVER YOU HAVE A SET OF ALIASES TO THAT, YOU COULD ALWAYS CONCEIVABLY HAVE ASCII AS -- I MEAN, DE, IF IT'S A TRUE ALIAS, DE WOULD ALWAYS WORK, AND, ESSENTIALLY, EVERY KEYBOARD HANDLES ASCII.
YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO TYPE THE REST OF THE URL, THOUGH, THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET TO.
SO IT MAY BE ONLY A PALLIATIVE MEASURE.
BUT THERE REALLY ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.
AND WHETHER IT'S ONLY SYNONYMS, WHICH IS A KIND OF A POLICY ISSUE, AND THEN WHETHER THEY'RE ALIASES, WHICH IS BOTH POLICY AND TECHNICAL AND DEFINITELY HAS AN IMPACT ON THE WAY IN WHICH PEOPLE CAN USE THESE.
OKAY.

>>CARY KARP: ACTUALLY, I'D LIKE TO COMMENT JUST BRIEFLY ON WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE, VINT.
AND I CAN READILY ENVISION A SITUATION WHERE A FOREIGN OFFICE IN A COUNTRY ADVISES TRAVELING -- CITIZENS TRAVELING ABROAD ABOUT WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO BE ABLE TO VISIT THE HOME SPACE.
AND I CAN ALSO EASILY ENVISION A SITUATION WHERE ANYONE TRULY WISHING TO EXPLORE THE FURTHER REACHES OF THE INTERNATIONALIZED NAME SPACE WILL NEED TO KNOW HOW TO TRANSCEND THE PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY A KEYBOARD.
SO THERE'S LOTS OF EXCITING WAYS TO MEET THE NEW CHALLENGES.
>>LI GUANGHAO: I HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON THAT.
TO MY POINT, IT'S LIKE TALKING ABOUT INTERNATIONAL -- THE IDNS, INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES, WHICH WOULD MOST OF THE TIME BE MULTILINGUISTIC DOMAIN NAMES, LOCALIZED INSTEAD OF INTERNATIONALIZED.
AND I THOUGHT THERE'S A -- THERE'S A BIG NEED, BIG COMMAND, LIKE WHEN PEOPLE GO IN NOW AND TRY TO COME BACK AND VISIT THAT -- USING THE IDN, VISIT THAT DOMAIN NAME OR THE URLS.
AND THERE'S ANY DEMANDS ON THAT, WE BELIEVE, LIKE, ANY IDN SOLUTIONS HAS TO BE SUPPORT FROM THE BROWSER, AT THE BROWSER SIDE, EVEN RIGHT NOW THE IDN.ASCII TLDS, THERE HAS TO BE SOME SUPPORT FROM THE BROWSER SIDE.
AND WE DO SEE THERE ARE SOME SOLUTIONS OUT THERE, LIKE THE MOZILLA.
AND WE DO SEE MICROSOFT SUPPORTING THE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE INPUT METHOD.
SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PROBLEM, LIKE, EVEN I'M CHINESE, THEN I COME OUT TO CANADA AND TRYING TO TYPE A CHINESE DOMAIN NAME AND WORRY ABOUT IT'S NOT GOING THROUGH; RIGHT?
BECAUSE I HAVE THE INPUT METHOD THAT I CAN CHOOSE FROM FROM WINDOWS BUILT IN, AND I CAN HAVE, LIKE, THE BROWSER THAT SUPPORTS THE IDNS.
SO I DON'T HAVE ANY WORRIES TO LOG ON TRYING TO ACCESS AN IDN URL.
AND THAT'S MY POINT, YEAH.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: HI.
MY NAME'S BRUCE TONKIN, FROM MELBOURNE I.T.
I ALSO AGREE WITH THE LAST SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR, THAT I THINK WE DO NEED TO VERY CLEARLY SEPARATE THE POLICY DECISION FROM THE DIFFERENT IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS FOR THAT POLICY.
ONE QUESTION -- ONE THING I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT AS WE INTRODUCE THESE THINGS INTO THE IDNS IS REALLY GET THE BENEFIT OF THE EXPERIENCE OF THE CCTLDS AND OTHERS THAT HAVE DONE SOME TRIALS.
AND I AGREE ALSO WITH VINT THAT WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT IT FROM A USER PERSPECTIVE.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION WHICH IS A POLICY QUESTION, AND I'LL JUST -- I'M JUST INTERESTED IN THE ANSWERS FROM THE ARABIC AND CHINA AND KOREA.
BUT IF I'M THE USER -- AND WE'LL TAKE THE ARABIC ONE FIRST -- IF I AM A USER AND I HAVE AN ARABIC SCRIPT, YASSER IN ARABIC AND IT'S .SA CURRENTLY.
IS YOUR EXPECTATION TO THE USER THAT IF YOU INTRODUCED A DOT ARABIC IN THE ROOT ZONE, IF I TYPE YASSER.SA AND SOMEONE ELSE TYPES YASSER-- THIS IS YASSER IN ARABIC -- DOT ARABIC, DO THEY GO TO THE SAME PLACE OR CAN THEY BE DIFFERENT PLACES?

>>ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN: WE FIRST IMPLEMENTED THE ARABIC.SA, BUT IT WASN'T ACCEPTED BY THE USERS.
BECAUSE WE HAVE DIFFICULTY OF WRITING LEFT TO WRITE.
SO WE ARE -- WENT BACK ON THAT ONE, WE DIDN'T CONTINUE THAT.
SO WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS ARABIC TO ARABIC.
AND CURRENTLY, CURRENTLY, WE ATTACH THAT DOMAIN NAME TO THE ACTUAL WEB SITE WHICH IS POINTED BY THE ASCII DOMAIN NAMES.
BUT THEY COULD HAVE THE DIFFERENT WEB SITES FOR THE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES AND THE ENGLISH DOMAIN NAMES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: RIGHT.
SO THE DNS RECORDS ARE THEN COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT.
>>ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND YOU MIGHT CHOOSE TO POINT THEM TO THE SAME PLACE, BUT THEY ARE INDEPENDENT.
AND IS THAT THE WAY YOU THINK IT SHOULD WORK?
>>ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN: I THINK YES.
I THINK YES.
BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE SOME NEEDS FOR THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO HAVE THEIR WEB SITE, WHICH IS NOT REPRESENTED ON THE ASCII SPACE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
AND CHINA, IN THE CNNIC, WHAT'S ENVISAGED THERE?
IN THE CHINESE ENVIRONMENT.
SO IF I HAVE A CHINESE WORD DOT, SAY, CN, AND THEN I HAVE A CHINESE WORD DOT CHINESE IN THE ROOT, SHOULD THAT GO TO THE SAME PLACE OR NOT?
>>LI GUANGHAO: I'M NOT QUITE FOLLOWING YOUR QUESTION.
YOU MEAN THE SAME NAMING SPACE OR --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: NO.
IF YOU THINK OF THE DOT, WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THE DOT IS THE SAME.
AND WHAT'S AFTER THE DOT IS EITHER DOT CN OR IT'S DOT CHINESE CHARACTERS.
SO I'M SAYING IF I TYPE IN SOMETHING BEFORE THE DOT IN A CHINESE STRING AND THEN I -- AND I PUT .CN, AND SOMEONE ELSE IN THE ROOM PUTS WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THE DOT EXACTLY THE SAME, SO WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THE DOT'S EXACTLY THE SAME, BUT WHAT'S AFTER THE DOT IS THE SORT OF CHINESE IDN EQUIVALENT, DO THEY GO TO THE SAME PLACE?
>>LI GUANGHAO: OKAY.
THAT DEPENDS ON WHAT MECHANISM YOU ARE USING TO IDN THE TLD.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT THE MECHANISM.
I'M SAYING WHAT SHOULD THE ANSWER BE?
>>LI GUANGHAO: TO ME, IT SHOULD BE DIFFERENT, THOUGH.
I MEAN, IF YOU ARE USING THE DNAME MAPPING, IT WOULD BE THE SAME; RIGHT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S RIGHT.
BECAUSE IT'S A TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF A POLICY AND YOU'RE MAKING A POLICY DECISION FIRST.
SO I'M ASKING ABOUT WHAT'S THE POLICY DECISION.
SHOULD IT GO TO THE SAME PLACE OR SHOULD THE RECORDS BE INDEPENDENT?
SO THE ANSWER EARLIER WAS THAT IT SHOULD BE INDEPENDENT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A CONSENSUS -- I'M TRYING TO SEE EITHER CONSENSUS IN THE WAY PEOPLE ARE DOING THINGS OR THEY'RE VERY DIFFERENT VIEWS.
>>LI GUANGHAO: USE A DIFFERENT MECHANISM TO INTERNATIONALIZE THE TLD, WE HAVE DIFFERENT POLICY ISSUES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR FOR THE USER.
THAT'S WHAT CONCERNS ME.
BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE TO SORT OF IDENTIFY SOME POLICIES THAT GIVE SOME CONSISTENT BEFORE FROM THE USER.
I'M NOT SAYING WHICH WAY THE DECISION SHOULD BE.
I'M REALLY ASKING THE QUESTION WHAT DECISIONS YOU'VE ALREADY MADE.
SO --
>>LI GUANGHAO: WE HAVEN'T MADE ANY DECISIONS, I MEAN --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I WON'T CARRY ON TOO MUCH FURTHER.
BUT I'LL JUST GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF A POLICY DEBATE.
>>VINT CERF: THIS IS -- THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO INTERJECT HERE.
I THINK THAT INDEPENDENCE WILL BENEFIT EVERYONE, BECAUSE IT'S SIMPLICITY IN TERMS OF THE MANAGEMENT.
WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE A PAIR OF DISTINCT TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS WHOSE SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, AND FIFTY FIFTH-LEVEL DOMAINS ARE SOMEHOW TANGLED TOGETHER.
BECAUSE THAT'S HARD TO MAINTAIN.
AND IF WE HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, FOR EXAMPLE, OR DIFFERENT SCRIPTS, ALL OF WHICH ARE TRYING TO BIND A SET OF SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH-LEVEL DOMAINS TO BE THE SAME, YOU CREATE A VERY HARD PROBLEM TO SOLVE.
IT ISN'T NECESSARY TO DO THAT.
THAT'S WHY I LIKE THE ANSWER WITH REGARD TO THE ARABIC CASE.
THESE ARE INDEPENDENT REGISTRATIONS.
WE CAN MAKE THEM GO TO THE SAME PLACE IF WE DECIDE THAT'S USEFUL BY HAVING THEM GO TO THE SAME INTERNET ADDRESS.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO FORCE THAT TO BE THE CASE.
AND I WOULD ADVOCATE STRONGLY THAT THE SIMPLICITY WILL PROBABLY BE BENEFICIAL TO US.
>> EXACTLY, YEAH.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S THE KIND OF QUESTION I'M ASKING.
THANKS, VINT.
>> HONG XUE, MEMBER OF INTERIM AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND ALSO A MEMBER OF PRESIDENT'S IDN ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
OH, THAT'S ENOUGH.
THANKS.
AND, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A VERY BRIEF RESPONSE TO BRUCE'S QUESTION.
ON THE BASIS OF MY VERY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE ON CN REGISTRATION WITH CHINESE DOMAIN NAME.
AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE IS A TENTATIVE REGISTRATION POLICY WHICH IS PROVIDING COMBINED REGISTRATION.
SO IN THE CASE THAT'S RAISED BY BRUCE, THE TWO DOMAIN NAMES WILL BE RESOLVED TO THE SAME PLACE.
SO IT'S NOT A PROBLEM AT THE MOMENT.
BUT THE POLICY IS TENTATIVE.
IT COULD BE CHANGED IN THE FUTURE.
SO LET'S GO BACK TO MY PRESENTATION.
IT'S REALLY INSPIRING TO KNOW THAT THOSE ICANN AND THE VARIOUS CONSTITUENCIES FROM ICANN ARE NOW EMPHASIZING THESE USERS' EXPERIENCES WITH RESPECT TO IDN.
WE'VE HEARD A LOT FROM BUSINESSES AND TECHNICIANS.
BUT THINK OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUNYCODE AND UNICODE AND CANNOT AFFORD TO TRAVEL ALL THE WAY TO VANCOUVER TO VOICE A CONCERN.
IN THIS CASE, ALAC, ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WOULD LIKE TO BE A CHANNEL FOR THOSE NON-ENGLISH-SPEAKING USERS, WHICH TAKE UP ABOUT 65% OF WORLD INTERNET POPULATION.
WE'VE MADE, ACTUALLY, A VERY DETAILED PROPOSAL FOR IDN DEPLOYMENT THAT'S BEEN POSTED ON THE WEB SITE.
AND OUR CHAIR, VITTORIO, POSSIBLY WILL GIVE YOU A VERY DETAILED PRESENTATION OF THAT.
HERE IS JUST A VERY BRIEF ABSTRACT ON THE PRINCIPLES FOR THE ORDERLY AND THE WISE DEPLOYMENT OF IDN IMPLEMENTATION.
THE FIRST PRINCIPLE, I BELIEVE THIS IS FUNDAMENTAL, THAT IS, THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY, WHAT SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED IN IDN IMPLEMENTATION.
WE -- CONSIDERATION FOR CULTURE, DIVERSITY, AND MULTILINGUALISM AND INTERNATIONALIZATION OF INTERNET SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED, INSTEAD OF THE CONCERN FOR ECONOMIC BENEFIT OR TECHNOLOGICAL DESIGN.
AND SECOND PRINCIPLE, THAT IS A PRINCIPLE FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION.
SPECIAL CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF FINAL USERS BY THE END.
THE THIRD PRINCIPLE IS RELATED TO THE SECOND ONE, THAT'S THE PRINCIPLE OF VARIANTS TABLES.
WE BELIEVE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE A VARIANTS TABLE SHOULD BE EMBRACED IN CERTAIN SCRIPTS IDN. AND THIRD PRINCIPLE IS A PRINCIPLE OF BOTTOM-UP.
WE TRUST THAT IT SHOULD BE THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITIES WHO USE CERTAIN SCRIPT SYSTEM THAT DEVELOPED THAT VARIANCE TABLE IN RELATION TO THAT SCRIPT SYSTEM.
NEXT PRINCIPLE IS A PRINCIPLE OF EVALUATION, THAT IS, THE (INAUDIBLE) AND THE PRINCIPLE TO ASSESS THE EXISTING REGISTRATION SERVICES AND OPPORTUNITY TO PROCEED WITH FUTURE REGISTRATION SERVICES SHOULD BE SET UP BY ICANN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
THE LAST PRINCIPLE, THE LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WE BORROW THE TERM PTP. THAT IS, THERE SHOULD BE A COMPLETE POLICY FOR INTERNATIONALIZATION OF DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM, INCLUDING THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. DEVISED THROUGH SUFFICIENT PUBLIC CONSULTATION IN USER COMMUNITIES AND IN COOPERATION WITH OTHER APPROPRIATE ENTITIES.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S A NICE, SUCCINCT DESCRIPTION OF A SET OF PRINCIPLES.
TWO OBSERVATIONS TO MAKE.
THE FIRST ONE IS THAT THE CREATION OF -- IN SETTING ASIDE THE DNAME TECHNIQUE, BUT THE CREATION OF A NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S AN IDN OR NOT, IS THE SUBJECT OF THE GENERAL QUESTION OF CREATION OF NEW TLDS.
SO THE IDN PROBLEM AT THE TOP LEVEL IS A SUBSET OF THAT. SO WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT WHATEVER RULES WE CREATE FOR THE CREATION OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS AND IDNS NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES THAT WE INVENT FOR THE CREATION OF ANY NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.
SO THAT'S POINT NUMBER ONE. THAT'S NOT IN CONFLICT WITH ANYTHING YOU SAID, I BELIEVE.
THE SECOND PART OF MY REACTION IS A SMALL LITTLE BIT OF ALARM WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT PRIORITIZATION. IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU WANTED SOME OF THE THINGS TO BE PRIORITY INDEPENDENT OF TECHNOLOGY. AND AT LEAST FOR SOME OF US IN THE ROOM, YOU CAN'T DO JUST WHAT YOU WANT BECAUSE SOMETIMES PHYSICS GETS IN THE WAY.
SO SOMETIMES WE CAN DO ONLY AS MUCH AS THE TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS US TO DO.
I'M SURE THAT YOU DIDN'T MEAN TO SUGGEST WE SHOULD DO THINGS THAT THE TECHNOLOGY DOESN'T ALLOW US TO DO, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT OTHER THAN TO PUT ON MY HARRY POTTER HAT AND TO WAVE MY WAND, WHICH DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WORKING TODAY.
>>TINA DAM: HI, MY NAME IS TINA DAM. I HAVE THE FIRST QUESTION, A COUPLE OF COMMENTS FROM THE JABBER ROOM.
SO THE FOLLOWING IS GOING TO BE ON BEHALF OF JOHN KLENSIN WHO, UNFORTUNATELY, WASN'T ABLE TO BE HERE TODAY.
QUESTION: WHETHER PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT ROOT DNAMES COULD BE INSTALLED WITHOUT A REVIEW PROCESS EQUIVALENT TO THAT FOR NEW TLD CREATION, MISSING ONLY THE FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL COMPETENCE EVALUATION.
THE ISSUE WITH CHOICES OF NAMES ARE MUCH THE SAME, AND WORSE, MULTI-LANGUAGE COUNTRIES WOULD PRESUMABLY LIKE TO HAVE SEVERAL OF THEM.
AND ADDING TO THAT COMMENT, JOHN CONTINUES SAYING, VINT, WE KNOW HOW TO IMPLEMENT SUCH A SYSTEM. IT SIMPLY REQUIRES A SEARCH AND NAMING ENVIRONMENT THAT IS SEPARATE FROM THE DNS, LAYERED ON TOP OF IT. IF WE WANTED TO AVOID THE LAWYERS, WE COULD JUST AVOID UNIQUENESS REQUIREMENTS AND LET PEOPLE RESOLVE THINGS THE SAME WAY THEY RESOLVE SUCH AMBIGUOUS REFERENCES AS, QUOTE, "SURF."
AND THE LAST COMMENT FROM JOHN WAS TO YOU, VINT, ON WHAT YOU SAID PREVIOUSLY ABOUT LOCALIZATION. A FEW COMMENTS BACK.
JOHN SAYS, WHAT VINT IS SAYING NOW IS ONE OF IF NOT THE KEY ARGUMENTS FOR LOCALIZING THIS WHOLE BUSINESS. RATHER THAN TRYING TO PUSH IT OFF ON THE DNS, RFC 4185 AND ALL OF THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ANY RESPONSES TO THE FIRST QUESTION FROM THE PANEL OR....
>>VINT CERF: DO YOU REMIND US WHAT THE FIRST QUESTION WAS?
>>TINA DAM: SURE. THE FIRST QUESTION WAS WHETHER PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT ROOT DNAMES COULD BE INSTALLED WITHOUT REVIEW PROCESS EQUIVALENT TO THAT FOR NEW TLD CREATION, MISSING ONLY THE FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL COMPETENCE EVALUATION.
>>VINT CERF: OKAY. I WILL REACT TO THAT. THE ANSWER IS NO, I DON'T THINK THAT YOU COULD JUST ARBITRARILY ALLOW PEOPLE TO PICK DNAMES WITHOUT SOME KIND OF REVIEW OR SOME SET OF RULES THAT HAVE BEEN AGREED AHEAD OF TIME AS TO WHAT NAMES ARE PERMITTED.
WE'VE ALREADY LEARNED THAT ANYTIME YOU INTRODUCE A NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN, SOMEONE WILL HAVE AN OPINION, SOME POSITIVE, SOME NEGATIVE. AND THOSE MATTERS HAVE TO BE AT LEAST RESOLVED.
>>CARY KARP: DON'T THE TWO APPROACHES HAVE, IN COMMON, THE FACT THAT THEY REQUIRE NEW RRS TO BE ENTERED INTO THE ROOT? SO PUTTING NEW LINES IN THE ROOT ZONE FILE IS AN ACTION WHETHER THEY ARE DNAME OR DNS RECORDS.
>>VINT CERF: YES, ALTHOUGH WHAT JOHN IS GETTING AT IS IT'S ONE THING TO SIMPLY PUT SOMETHING INTO THE ROOT AND MAKE SURE YOU FOLLOW ALL THE RULES BEFORE YOU DO IT, IT'S ANOTHER THING TO HAVE IT APPEAR TO BE A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN.
WHETHER IT WAS A SYNONYM OR NOT, THE ACTUAL STRING IS OF SOME VALUE OR INTEREST TO PARTIES. I JUST -- SOME OF YOU WILL HAVE SPENT TIME IN THE GAC MEETINGS LEARNING THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE MEMBERS OF THE GAC REACT TO VARIOUS AND SUNDRY PROPOSED TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.
SENSITIVITIES ABOUT GEOGRAPHIC REFERENCES AND THINGS OF THAT SORT, TO SAY NOTHING OF TRADEMARKS AND OTHERS, WILL REQUIRE SOME CONSIDERATION BEFORE THOSE ENTRIES GET MADE IN THE ROOT.
MECHANICAL ACTION OF PUTTING THINGS IN THE ROOT DRAWS ON WHAT CARY WAS REFERENCING, WHICH IS ANYTHING YOU DO TO THE ROOT REQUIRES SOME CARE.
JOHN'S POINT IS THAT THIS PARTICULAR THING WILL REQUIRE MORE MECHANISM AND APPARATUS THAN THE TYPICAL "I'M JUST MAKING A CHANGE TO THE ROOT."

>>PAT KANE: AND VINT, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO SUGGEST WITH GETTING THE GNSO AND CCNSO INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS.
>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: THANK YOU. VITTORIO BERTOLA, AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
SO I THINK I -- WELL, FIRST I WANTED TO MAYBE EXPAND A LITTLE ON THE ISSUE YOU WERE COMMENTING ABOUT, WHAT YOU WERE SAYING BEFORE. SO I THINK ONE OF THE MAJOR MISTAKES THAT HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE LAST YEARS AT ICANN, AT LEAST, SINCE THIS PROCESS BEGAN IS TO SEE THIS PROCESS MAINLY FROM THE BUSINESS AND ENGINEERING POINT OF VIEW.
SO I MEAN, ENGINEERS HAVE HAD FUN INVENTING THIS PUNYCODE TRANSLATION MECHANISM AND LEARNING IT AND BUSINESS PEOPLE HAVE TRIED TO IMAGINE WAYS TO SELL MORE AND MORE DOMAIN NAMES. BUT I THINK IF YOU WANT TO MAKE SOMETHING THAT WORKS, ACTUALLY, YOU HAVE TO EXAMINE IT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE FINAL USER.
AND SO I THINK WE SHOULD REALLY TAKE ON BOARD MANY OF THE OBSERVATIONS THAT WERE MADE BY THE PANELISTS. FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE FACT THAT YOU REALLY NEED TO BE ABLE TO TYPE EVERYTHING WITH JUST ONE KEYBOARD IN A NON-ENGLISH LANGUAGE OR NON-ENGLISH SCRIPT.
SO INCLUDING HTTP AND THE SLASHES AND WHATEVER.
SO I KNOW THAT MIGHT NOT BE SO EASY TO DO IMMEDIATE, BUT YOU HAVE TO START THINKING HOW CAN WE DO THAT.
I DON'T THINK YOU CAN EXPECT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO STILL LEARN TO USE ROMAN CHARACTERS JUST TO TYPE HTTP.
I THINK, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS SHOULD REFLECT IN A NUMBER OF THINGS.
SO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT THE INTERACTION OF IDN TLDS CONCERNED ME A LITTLE IN THE FACT THAT IT MIGHT BE PERCEIVED THAT WE WERE THERE BEFORE AND WE CREATED OUR ENGLISH TLDS AND NOW OTHER PEOPLE COME AND WANT TO CREATE THEM IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGES, AND WE SAY GO AWAY, THE INTERNET IS FULL.
SO THAT'S NOT HOW YOU SHOULD POSIT. I AGREE YOU SHOULD HAVE A PROCESS SO IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF ADDING ONE ENTRY IN THE ROOT ZONE FILE, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE DANGEROUS TO SAY THAT THE SAME DEGREE OF REVIEW THAT'S NECESSARY TO ADD THE .DOG FOR THE LEVEL OF THE DOGS SHOULD BE USED TO ALLOW FOR LOCATION OF .CHINA AND CHINESE CHARACTERS. I THINK YOU HAVE TO FIND THE RIGHT LEVEL OF MEASURE SO YOU DON'T PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
AND I GUESS THE SAME APPLIES TO OTHER ISSUES, FOR EXAMPLE. SHOULD WE SUPPORT IN GTLDS ALL THE POSSIBLE SCRIPTS? AND I THINK YES. I MEAN, IF I'M VIETNAMESE AND I EXPECT TO GET THE VIETNAMESE LANGUAGE DOMAIN NAMES AND GTLDS, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO SO. NOT MAYBE BECAUSE I AM AN INTERESTING MARKET FOR THE REGISTRIES DO I GET DOMAIN NAME IN MY OWN SCRIPT.
SO AT LEAST WE SHOULD CONSIDER THESE ISSUES, BUT WE SHOULD DO SO STARTING FROM THE USER AND REGISTRANT POINTS OF VIEW RATHER THAN WHAT'S IMMEDIATELY IN THE SHORT TERM CONVENIENT IN BUSINESS TERMS OR IN TECHNICAL ENGINEERING TERMS.
AND MY LAST CONSIDERATION WOULD BE, WELL, I THINK ONE MAJOR THING THAT THE INTERNET DID FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD WAS TO START LETTING PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD REALLY TALK TO EACH OTHER AND HAVE -- MAKE BUSINESS TOGETHER AND KNOW EACH OTHER. SO I THINK THE INTERNET REALLY BROUGHT DIALOGUE AND RECIPROCAL KNOWLEDGE. AND I AM EXTREMELY WORRIED BY THE FACT, BY THE NUMBERS WE HAVE SEEN IN THE PRESENTATION ABOUT INTERNET PENETRATION IN PARTS OF THE WORLD. AND I THINK ONE OF THE MAJOR CAUSES OF THAT IS THE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY HAS FAILED TO CREATE A SIMPLE WAY FOR THESE USERS TO USE THE INTERNET COMPLETELY IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE.
AND I THINK THAT IF WE CAN DO THAT, THIS WILL BRING MANY MORE USERS FROM THESE PARTS OF THE WORLD INTO THE INTERNET, AND IN TURN, THIS WILL CREATE A DIALOGUE, THIS WILL CREATE A KNOWLEDGE AND IT WILL CREATE INTEGRATION AND PEACE.
SO I THINK ON THIS VERY SPECIFIC MATTER ICANN HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO THE INTERNET COMMUNITY AND TO THE GLOBAL WORLD, MORE IMPORTANT PERHAPS THAN ANYTHING WE HAVE TO DO HERE.
SO I WOULD STRESS I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY AND WE RESPOND TO IT VERY PROMPTLY.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I? LET'S SEE, FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO CLAIM THAT I OPENED THIS MEETING UP BY REMINDING EVERYONE THAT IT'S THE USER EXPERIENCE THAT'S IMPORTANT HERE.
SECOND, I FEEL COMPELLED TO SAY THAT THIS IS NOT SIMPLY A MATTER OF MAKING A DECISION. IF YOU THINK THAT THE BOARD OR THAT I AM SOMEHOW STANDING IN THE WAY OF GETTING IDNS DONE BECAUSE ALL I HAVE TO DO IS SAY YES, THERE IS A WHOLE BUNCH OF MECHANICAL STUFF THAT HAS TO ACTUALLY WORK. IT'S CALLED SOFTWARE. AND YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH SOFTWARE IS PROBABLY NOT TOO DIFFERENT THAN MINE. IT DOESN'T ALWAYS DO WHAT YOU EXPECT IT TO DO.
THE WAY PEOPLE USE THE NETWORK NOW WHERE THEY SHARE INFORMATION, THEY FORWARD E-MAILS TO EACH OTHER THAT HAVE URLS IN THEM, THOSE URLS ARE, IN THE SCENARIO THAT YOU WERE DESCRIBING, COULD SHOW UP IN ANY OF A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT REPRESENTATIONS.
AND AT THE VERY LEAST, WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE SIDE EFFECTS OF THAT KIND OF EXCHANGE. WILL I HAVE THE CONVENIENCE I HAVE TODAY OF FORWARDING A URL AND BEING ABLE TO CLICK ON IT NO MATTER IN WHAT LANGUAGE I AM INTERACTING.
SO ALL I AM SAYING LET'S BE CAREFUL TO NOT MISUNDERSTAND THAT THIS ISN'T JUST A TRIVIAL MATTER OF SIMPLY SAYING YES, AND HERE'S HOW IT WOULD WORK.
>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: IF I MAY JUST ADD, I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT. I THINK THIS REALLY REQUIRES NOT JUST OPERATIONAL CHANGES OR POLICIES AT THE DNS LEVEL BUT ALSO POSSIBLY AT THE OPERATING SYSTEM LEVEL. EVEN IF I THINK ALMOST ALL OPERATING SYSTEMS, AT LEAST IN THE PCS, NOT MAYBE IN PORTABLE DEVICES, ARE ALREADY UNICODE READY TODAY. THIS IS JUST ONE MORE REASON FOR ICANN MAYBE TO TAKE THE LEAD AT THE BROADER LEVEL. SO TRY TO INVOLVE -- I'M REALLY HAPPY WE HAVE SOMEONE FROM MICROSOFT HERE AND I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT WAY. SO YOU HAVE TO INVOLVE PEOPLE MAYBE FROM THE W3C, MAYBE FROM THE MAIN SOFTWARE VENDORS, AND PUT EVERYONE AT THE TABLE SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND HOW TO OVERCOME THESE PROBLEMS AS WELL.

>>ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN: JUST TO ADD INFORMATION HERE HOW, THE ARAB USERS HAVE DIFFICULTY USING ARAB NAMES, MANY USERS ARE USING GOOGLE TO LOOK AT LOCATIONS. THEY CANNOT TYPE IN DOMAIN NAMES. THEY JUST GO TO GOOGLE, LATIN AND ARABIC, AND THEY ARE WISHING THAT THE DOMAIN NAME THEY WANT IS ONE OF THE THOUSANDS OF RESULTS OF THE GOOGLE. SO THEY CANNOT HARDLY TYPE THE DOMAIN NAMES IN ENGLISH TO FIND THE DOMAIN NAMES, EVEN IF THE CONTENT IS IN ARABIC.
>>MICHAEL EVERSON: CAN WE ALL REMEMBER THAT TEN YEARS AGO HUGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE IN THE WORLD DIDN'T HAVE ANY ACCESS TO THE INTERNET AT ALL? AND WE ARE WAY BETTER OFF NOW THAN WE USED TO BE.
AND COMMITTEES LIKE THIS, ORGANIZATIONS LIKE ICANN, ARE ADDRESSING THE ISSUE.
SO COMPLAINING DOESN'T REALLY HELP US GET TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE.
WE'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK. WE'RE DOING THE RIGHT WORK. WE'RE FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT. AND WE'RE GOING TO GET THE SOLUTION THAT'S REQUIRED.
I JUST WANT EVERYONE TO REMEMBER THIS.
>>VINT CERF: AMADEU.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: THANKS. AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL, DOMAIN NAME USER IN DIFFERENT CAPACITIES ACCORDING TO MOMENTS OF THE DAY.
FIRST, A DISCLAIMER. I HAVE BEEN, AND STILL I AM, FOR MANY YEARS I HAVE BEEN VERY RELUCTANT TO ALL THIS ISSUE OF IDNS NOT BECAUSE I AM AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE. QUITE THE CONTRARY, I HAVE A SPECIAL SENSIBILITY FOR ALL THOSE LANGUAGES THAT ARE NOT ENGLISH, WHICH BY THE WAY IS MY FIFTH LANGUAGE.
BUT I STILL -- AT LEAST I KNOW WHY I HAVE BEEN SO RELUCTANT, IS SIMPLY BECAUSE I WAS AND I STILL AM COMPLETELY UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND ALL THE CONSEQUENCES. AND THE FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN IS, YOU KNOW, A COMMON HUMAN FEATURE.
THE QUESTION IS THAT THE WORLD SHOULD NOT WAIT FOR POOR LITTLE AMADEU, OR NOT SO LITTLE, TO UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING ABOUT IDN BEFORE WE DO SOMETHING. SO EVEN IF I AM AFRAID OF SOME UNKNOWN CONSEQUENCES, MY LACK OF ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND ALL THE CONSEQUENCES, I THINK THERE IS A REAL NEED FOR ALL THE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT WERE NOT THERE TEN YEARS AGO BUT NOW THEY ARE THERE, THAT THEY HAVE LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS TO USE THE INTERNET IN THE WRITING SYSTEMS THEY ARE USED TO, OR THE ONLY ONES THEY KNOW.
HAVING SAID THAT, WHICH IS MY MAIN PRINCIPLE, I WOULD LIKE ALL THIS DISCUSSION HAVING A LITTLE MORE REALISM. LET ME SAY HOW I MEAN WITH THAT.
FIRST, WE ARE USING THE EQUATION LANGUAGE EQUAL WRITING SYSTEM EQUAL GOVERNMENT EQUAL CCTLD, AND THIS MIGHT BE TRUE IN SOME LIMITED NUMBER OF CASES. SOME OF THEM VERY IMPORTANT. BUT IT'S FAR FROM BEING EVEN THE AVERAGE CASE.
LANGUAGE ARE THINGS, THEY MIGHT BE SPOKEN IN ONE OR MANY CCTLDS. ONE CCTLD MAY HAVE ONE OR MANY LANGUAGES, EACH OF THEM HAVING DIFFERENT OR THE SAME WRITING SYSTEM, AND, YOU KNOW, ONE LANGUAGE CAN BE SPOKEN IN ONE AREA UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF ONE GOVERNMENT OR 40 OF THEM.
SO THERE IS NOT THIS QUESTION THAT THIS GOVERNMENT WILL DECIDE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS LANGUAGE WITH THIS CCTLD AND SO FORTH. ON THE OTHER SIDE, WE TALK ABOUT THE USER EXPERIENCE, BUT I HEAR ONLY, YOU KNOW, POWER AND MONEY. THESE ARE HUMAN MATTERS, HUMAN THINGS THAT MAKE LIFE (INAUDIBLE). BUT ON ONE SIDE, BE SURE TO SAY THIS IS MY INTERNET AND I DON'T WANT THE OTHER ONES TO PEEP INSIDE. EVEN IF THAT'S A LITTLE BIT SEPARATED FROM THE REST OF THE INTERNET, MUCH BETTER. THE OTHER SIDE IS THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO THERE AND GET SOME MONEY FROM PEOPLE, THEN WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES.
LET'S SEE DOING IT IN A REALISTIC WAY. BECAUSE WE START SAYING WHAT HAPPENS IF EACH CCTLD IN THE WORLD TRIES TO HAVE ALL LANGUAGES. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE. PERHAPS WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT CHARACTER SETS IN WRITING METHODS.
SO LET'S SEE, THERE ARE 170 LIVING LANGUAGES THAT ARE THE LANGUAGES ARE WRITTEN, THEY HAVE BIBLIOGRAPHY AND THEY HAVE SPECIALIZED VOCABULARIES, THAT MEANS THE ONES MOST USED IN WRITTEN FORM AND USE THE DNS IN WRITTEN FORM. OF THIS 170, OVER 100 USE THE LATIN SCRIPT.
THE PROBLEMS THAT WE ARE CREATING ARE ARTIFICIAL PROBLEMS, YOU GO LANGUAGE BY LANGUAGE. IF YOU COULD USE LATIN SCRIPT, 100 OF THESE 170 MOST SPOKEN LANGUAGES WOULD HAVE ALL PROBLEMS SOLVED AT THE CCTLD LEVEL.
SECOND, IN TOTAL WE HAVE IN THESE 170 LANGUAGES IN 60391 34 DIFFERENT SCRIPTS FOR DIFFERENT WRITING SYSTEMS.
SO AT MAXIMUM, WE WOULD PERHAPS NEED TO ASK GTLDS WHETHER THEY WOULD LIKE OFFERING THEIR TLD IN THESE 34 WRITING SCRIPTS, BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED TO TURN THAT INTO GERMAN AND SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE AND CATALAN, BECAUSE ALL OF THEM USE EXACTLY THE SAME WRITING LANGUAGES AND SUBSET OF CHARACTERS THAT CAN BE EASILY ACCOMMODATED TOGETHER.
SO WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBERS WE WERE TALKING BEFORE. IT'S MUCH LESS.
BUT IF WE DO THAT, THERE SHOULD BE A COMPLETE ANALYSIS. NO MATTER WHICH SCRIPT YOU TYPE IN, YOU SHOULD GET THE SAME ANSWER, IF THAT'S TRANSLITERATION, TRANSLATION, TRANSPOSITION, OR WHATEVER YOU USE BETWEEN OBJECTS, ALPHABETS, GRAPHICS OR WHATEVER.
NOW FOR THE CCTLDS, OUT OF THE 240-SOMETHING, OVER 150 HAVE ONLY LANGUAGES USING ONLY LATIN SCRIPT. SO IT'S MUCH LESS THE INTEREST FOR HAVING IDN AT TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN THAN WE ARE PRETENDING HERE. AND AMONG THOSE, CHINA AND ESPECIALLY INDIA ARE HUGE LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY. MANY OTHERS, THEY HAVE ONE OR TWO SCRIPTS. AND SOME LANGUAGES THAT ARE MORE OR LESS USE IT IN THE WRITTEN FORM.
SO THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM IS NOT EVERYTHING IS EQUAL. IT'S NOT THE SAME FOR ALL THE CCTLDS, NOT THE SAME FOR ALL THE GTLDS, NOT THE SAME FOR ALL THE LANGUAGES BECAUSE MANY OF THEM SHARE EXACTLY THE SAME WRITING SYSTEM AND THE SAME CHARACTER SET.
AT THE END, IF YOU WANT TO BE REALLY NICE WITH EVERYBODY, AND I THINK WE SHOULD, WE COULD DO A FINAL THING BESIDES THE TWO I MENTIONED, IS JUST CREATING A TLD FOR EACH LANGUAGE IN THE 60391 LIST TO START WITH, AND AS POWER AND MONEY IS IMPORTANT HERE, THE PROPOSAL IS THAT THE REGISTRY SHOULD BE MANAGED BY ALL THE CCTLDS IN WHICH LANGUAGE -- IN WHICH THAT LANGUAGE IS TALKED, AND ALL THE CCTLDS TOGETHER, AND THEY SHARE THE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THAT.
THIS WOULD ADD, YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE DAY, PERHAPS 300 TLDS AND SOME ALIASES OF THE TLDS WITHOUT DUPLICATING THE DATABASES.
IT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS.
THE REAL NEEDS ARE THESE ONES. BUT IF WE TRY TO RESTRICT TO THE 20 MOST SPOKEN LANGUAGES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THE ONLY THING WE WILL CREATE IS MORE SENTIMENT OF EXCLUSION THAN INCLUSION, THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO PREVENT HERE.
THANKS.
>>VINT CERF: CARY ASKED IF I WOULD CARRY ON, SO TO SPEAK, BRIEFLY WHILE HE IS AWAY. SO MICHAEL.
>>MICHAEL EVERSON: ONE OF THE INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT -- WITH REGARD TO THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE CCTLD SUFFIX, ISO 3166 DOES HAVE PROVISIONS IN IT FOR THE TRANSLATION OF IT INTO OTHER SCRIPTS, AND IT MIGHT BE NOT INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS ORGANIZATION, FOR ICANN, TO SET UP A SMALL WORKING GROUP WHICH WOULD WORK WITH DIFFERENT -- YOU KNOW, START WITH CHINA, FOR INSTANCE, SO THAT, FOR INSTANCE, WE HAVE A LOT OF CHINESE IMMIGRANTS NOW IN IRELAND, AND IF THEY WENT TO THE .IE REGISTRY AND WANTED TO HAVE .IRELAND THEN IT WOULD BE PRESUMABLY IN THE PURVIEW OF THE .IE REGISTRY TO CHOOSE TO GIVE THIS TO THEM IF THEY WISHED. BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF A FORMAL TRANSLATION, FORMAL SPECIFICATION FOR HOW TO REPRESENT THE COUNTRY CODES SPECIFIED IN 3166, WE COULD HAVE A LOT OF ERROR. AND I THINK WE SHOULD AVOID THAT KIND OF ERROR.
SO IF THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSES OF THIS, WE SHOULD PROBABLY THINK ABOUT DOING SOMETHING WITH REGARD TO MAKING, AT LEAST FOR THIS ORGANIZATION, A SET OF TRANSLATIONS FOR THESE THINGS AVAILABLE. I SUPPOSE IN FACT IT COULD BE EXTENDED TO ASSIST .COMS OR .NETS OR WHATEVER TO PROVIDE TO THEM REASONABLE EQUIVALENTS SO THEY WON'T HAVE TO MAKE THEM UP ON THEIR OWN. THIS IS JUST A THOUGHT FOR A NEW WORK ITEM. YEA!
>>YOAV KEREN: MY NAME IS YOAV KEREN, I AM THE CEO OF DOMAIN.NET, AN ACCREDITED REGISTRAR OF ICANN FROM ISRAEL. I'M GOING TO GIVE, ACTUALLY, A PRESENTATION LATER ON THIS DAY ON THE THIRD SESSION, BUT THERE ARE A FEW THINGS I WANTED TO COMMENT ABOUT RIGHT NOW.
THE FIRST THING WAS AN IDEA THAT WAS BROUGHT HERE ON THE FLOOR HAVING DIFFERENT SOLUTION THAN WHAT WE ALL TALKED ABOUT TILL NOW FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS, OR SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT YEARS, SOMETHING WITHOUT ANY TLDS, A KEY WORD SOLUTION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I THINK, FIRST OF ALL, A KEY WORD SOLUTION IS ALREADY THERE. WE HAVE GOOGLE, WE HAVE OTHER SOLUTIONS. PEOPLE USE IT, AS MR. AL-ZOMAN SAID, PEOPLE USE GOOGLE FOR ARABIC. IT'S THE SAME IN ISRAEL, THEY USE IT FOR HEBREW BECAUSE THEY CAN'T REACH -- THEY HOPE THE RIGHT DOMAIN NAME WILL COME UP THERE. IT'S THE SAME THING. AND IF WE SEEK FOR A SOLUTION FOR A FEW MORE YEARS, I THINK FIRST THAT WOULD BE WRONG, AND THE OTHER THING, E-MAIL. INTERNATIONAL E-MAIL, THAT WILL BE, FOR MY OPINION, IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE WITH THAT SOLUTION. AND I THINK MY OPINION IS INTERNATIONAL E-MAILS ARE AS MUCH IMPORTANT AS INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES. AND IN ISRAEL, WE -- THE TECHNOLOGY IS THERE. WE LAUNCHED HEBREW DOMAIN NAMES FIVE YEARS AGO. WE LAUNCHED HEBREW E-MAIL ADDRESSES ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO. IT WORKS. THE TECHNOLOGY IS THERE. IT'S POSSIBLE. THERE'S NO REASON FOR SEEKING FOR SOMETHING THAT WILL JUST POSTPONE THESE THINGS FOR MORE AND MORE YEARS.
ANOTHER POINT THAT I WANTED TO ADDRESS IS JUST A GENERAL THING THAT RAM HAS SAID HERE REGARDING NOT HAVING ALL LANGUAGES THERE.
NOW, I AGREE THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE, YOU KNOW, ANY LANGUAGE THAT WAS EVER THERE, USED IN THE WORLD SOMETIME, AS A TLD OR HAVE A TLD FOR IT, BUT I THINK FROM A SOCIAL POINT OF VIEW AND FROM A CULTURAL POINT OF VIEW, WE SHOULD PURSUE AND TRY TO HAVE MOST LANGUAGES, AND THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID IT'S ABOUT MAYBE 34 LANGUAGES TOTAL, THAT WILL HAVE THEIR OWN TLDS. AND THAT'S A REASONABLE NUMBER. AND I'M HAPPY BY THE WAY THAT MICHAEL EVERSON MENTIONED HEBREW, AND I THINK UNTIL NOW HEBREW WAS NOT SO MENTIONED IN PREVIOUS TALKS, AND I'LL TALK ABOUT IT A LITTLE IN MY PRESENTATION LATER. AND THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE ARE VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONES THAT ARE IN THE ARABIC. WE WRITE RIGHT TO LEFT. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, THE CURRENT SOLUTION, IT'S JUST IMPOSSIBLE, AND IT WILL NEVER WORK.
THE LAST THING I WANT TO ADDRESS IS THE POLICY ISSUE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS BROUGHT HERE IS SOLVING IT BY GIVING IT TO CCTLDS. I THINK THAT THE PROCESSES, AND I HOPE THAT ICANN WILL CHOOSE IN THE END, SHOULD BE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO CHOOSING OTHER REGISTRIES FOR OTHER GTLDS. SO HAVING SOME KIND OF A PROCESS, A BID PROCESS IN WHICH CCTLD CAN COMPETE.
NOW, ONE OF THE REASONS FOR IT IS THAT LANGUAGES ARE USED, AS OTHER PEOPLE SAID, ALL OVER THE WORLD, IN OTHER COUNTRIES. HEBREW, FOR EXAMPLE, MOST HEBREW SPEAKERS LIVE IN ISRAEL, BUT THERE ARE ABOUT A MILLION OR TWO LIVING HERE IN THE U.S.
AND OTHERS ALL AROUND THE WORLD.
AND I WANT THESE PEOPLE TO HAVE ACCESS FOR THOSE THINGS.
>>VINT CERF: EXCUSE ME. WE ARE IN CANADA RIGHT NOW.
>>YOAV KEREN: EXCUSE ME, IN CANADA.
>>VINT CERF: THE CANADIANS WORRY ABOUT THAT CONFUSION.
>>YOAV KEREN: SORRY, IN THE U.S.
(LAUGHTER.)
>>YOAV KEREN: OKAY. SO I THINK THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. AND THE LAST THING ABOUT POLICY, MY OPINION IS THAT YOU SHOULD CHOOSE A REGISTRY FOR EACH LANGUAGE, AND ALLOW THAT REGISTRY TO HAVE A PARALLEL TLD FOR EACH GTLD THAT WE HAVE.
SO IT CAN BE EITHER A PHONETIC THING OR SOMETHING THAT IS IN MEANING, SO IF YOU HAVE A .COM, IT CAN BE JUST SOMETHING PARALLEL TO THAT AND ALL THE OTHER GTLDS THAT ICANN APPROVES. THAT'S MY OPINION. THANK YOU.
>>PAT KANE:IF I COULD ASK A QUESTION. YOU ARE SUGGESTING THAT YOU GET A SEPARATE TLD FOR A HEBREW VERSION OF .COM OR .INFO OR .MUSEUM?
>>YOAV KEREN: SURE. THAT'S AN IDN.IDN, AN IDN FOR HEBREW.
>>PAT KANE: UNDERSTOOD.
>>RAM MOHAN: I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION FOR YOU AS WELL. ACTUALLY, TWO FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS.
>>YOAV KEREN: NO PROBLEM.
>>RAM MOHAN:YOU SAID YOU HAD IMPLEMENTED IDNS IN E-MAILS AND IT WORKS. IN YOUR IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCES, HAVE YOU RUN INTO ANY BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY ISSUES, ISSUES WHERE E-MAILS ARE ACTUALLY USED BY APPLICATIONS TO SPARK OFF NEW PROCESSES OR THINGS LIKE THAT THAT DEPEND UPON A STRING THAT COMES BACK THAT DOESN'T -- THAT ISN'T EITHER UTF 8 OR ISN'T AN XN DASH DASH? THAT'S MY FIRST QUESTION, AND THEN I'LL GET TO MY SECOND ONE.
>>YOAV KEREN: FIRST OF ALL, NO. WE DID NOT -- WE ACTUALLY -- THE IMPLEMENTATION WAS NOT SO WIDE. IT WAS USED BY -- WE HAD ABOUT 100,000, 200,000 PEOPLE DOWNLOADING THE CLIENT. AND THE MAIN PROBLEM THAT WE HAD IS THAT THE TECHNOLOGY WAS NOT ABSORBED BY THE ISPS IN ISRAEL YET, AND THEY ARE WAITING FOR US, FOR ICANN, TO DO SOMETHING.
AND ONCE IT'S DONE, IN MY OPINION THIS SHOULD BE PUT IN THE ROOT. THE TLD SHOULD BE PUT IN THE ROOT AND THEN THAT WILL SOLVE OUR PROBLEM.
NOW, REGARDING THE E-MAIL, THE E-MAIL MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS FOR USING IT, BUT I THINK THAT FROM, LET'S SAY, AGAIN, A SOCIAL POINT OF VIEW, THE USE OF E-MAIL WAS THE FIRST KILLER APPLICATION IN THE INTERNET. THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE, USUALLY COMING FROM THE LOWER INCOME GROUPS, THAT DON'T USE THE INTERNET, DON'T USE THE E-MAIL, WHICH WAS THE FIRST THING THAT EVERYBODY USED, BECAUSE OF THIS LANGUAGE BARRIER.
AND HAVING AN E-MAIL IN YOUR OWN LANGUAGE IS MUCH, MUCH DIFFERENT THAN HAVING IT IN ENGLISH.
I THINK THAT IT'S VERY DIFFERENT TO GO TO THAT PLACE. IT MIGHT NOT BE USEFUL FOR ALL E-MAIL APPLICATIONS; OKAY? THERE MIGHT BE SOME PROBLEMS THERE. BUT FOR THE USUAL USE OF E-MAIL, FOR SOMEONE GIVING HIS E-MAIL ADDRESS TO SOMEONE ELSE IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE, IN HIS OWN SCRIPT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN WORK, THAT WORKED FOR US, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE SHOULD GO IN THE FUTURE. I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO RESPOND NOW BECAUSE THERE IS A BASIC PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE HEARD DEFINED IN VARYING TERMS AT LEAST SEVEN TIMES DURING THE COURSE OF THIS SESSION. I ACTUALLY HAVE A LITTLE DEMONSTRATION THAT I'M PREPARED TO DO. IT'S AN IMPLEMENTATION OF JOHN KLENSIN'S APPROACH WHERE THERE'S A TRANSLATION MECHANISM THAT'S USED RATHER THAN ANY OF THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT WE HAVE ALSO HEARD. I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO BE SHOWING IT, BUT THERE IS, IN FACT, A HEBREW.MUSEUM THERE. AND I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL FOR THERE TO BE EVERY SCRIPT IN WHICH IDN REGISTRATION TAKES PLACE IN .MUSEUM ALSO TO BE EXTENDIBLE THROUGH THE TOP LEVEL LABEL.
>>YOAV KEREN: YOU ARE SAYING .MUSEUM IN ENGLISH.
>>CARY KARP: I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE .MUSEUM DOMAIN AND I HAVE AN ASCII STRING, AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A HEBREW EQUIVALENT, AND IT'S REALLY NOT MUCH MY CONCERN WHO OPERATES IT BUT THE POLICIES HAVE TO BE COORDINATED. THAT'S THE REALLY SIGNIFICANT THING. SO I CAN SHOW YOU A FUNCTIONAL HEBREW AND ARABIC AND HANGUL AND CHINESE .MUSEUM USING JOHN KLENSIN'S RECOMMENDED -- I DON'T THINK HE WOULD HAVE RECOMMENDED THE WAY I IMPLEMENTED IT. THE BASIC APPROACH IS HIS. MAYBE I WILL END UP SHOWING IT TO YOU, DEPENDING HOW LONG THIS DISCUSSION CONTINUES.
SO WHEN YOU SAY A CC WHO MAGICALLY OWNS A LANGUAGE SHOULD BE GIVEN THAT LANGUAGE REPRESENTATION OF EACH ONE OF THE GTLD LABELS, THAT, TO ME, IS JUST A BREATHTAKING STATEMENT. AND IT TRIGGERS WHAT I REGARD A NEED FOR SIGNIFICANT DISCUSSION OF ONE OF THE KEY ASPECTS OF ALL OF THIS. INCUMBENT RIGHTS IS WHAT I SUPPOSE WE COULD CALL THEM.
AND DO THEY EXIST? AND IF THEY DO, ARE THEY EMINENT DOMAIN OR HOW DOES THIS ENTER INTO THE DISCUSSION?
RAM.
>>RAM MOHAN: THE OTHER THING THAT I WORRY ABOUT YOUR SUGGESTION THAT CCTLD OWNS A LANGUAGE IS THAT IT SEEMS TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT IN MANY NATIONS AROUND THE WORLD, THE SAME LANGUAGE IS ACTUALLY AN OFFICIAL LANGUAGE.
>>YOAV KEREN: MAYBE I WASN'T UNDERSTOOD.
I SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
I MEANT THAT CCTLDS -- I SAID THAT A REGISTRY -- THERE SHOULD BE A REGISTRY FOR EACH LANGUAGE.
I THINK IT'S MUCH SIMPLER THAN HAVING, LET'S SAY, TOMORROW DOT COM TLD IN HEBREW, A REGISTRY FOR THAT, THEN A DOT NET REGISTRY IN HEBREW, AND A REGISTRY FOR THAT.
I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A REGISTRY FOR EACH LANGUAGE.
>>RAM MOHAN: OKAY.
>>YOAV KEREN: I DID SAY THAT I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE GIVEN IN ADVANCE TO ALL CCTLDS.
NO.
IT SHOULD BE IN A PROCESS WHERE THERE'S A BID AND THE CCTLDS, OF COURSE, CAN BID FOR IT.
BUT I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE OPEN FOR OTHERS -- OTHER COMPANIES OR ORGANIZATIONS OR ANYONE TO BID FOR IT.
>>RAM MOHAN: THAT CLARIFIES IT.
THANK YOU.
I HAVE A FOLLOW-ON TO THAT, THOUGH.
WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN YOU HAVE MULTIPLE LANGUAGES WHERE THE REPRESENTATION OF A PARTICULAR CHARACTER SET, DOT INFO, FOR EXAMPLE, LOOKS EXACTLY IDENTICAL?
THEY'RE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, BUT IT LOOKS EXACTLY IDENTICAL.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE IS ONE CASE -- AND PERHAPS THERE ARE MORE -- WHERE THIS PROPOSAL, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS FALLS DOWN.
SO JUST POINTING IT OUT, NOT REALLY A CHALLENGE, BUT AN OBSERVATION.
>>YOAV KEREN: I THINK MAYBE IT SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, SOLVED MORE IN A TECHNICAL WAY.
>>CARY KARP: MICHAEL.
>>MICHAEL EVERSON: TWO THINGS.
WITH REGARD TO INTERNATIONALIZED E-MAIL, PLEASE BE PATIENT, ONE THING AT A TIME, FOR GOD'S SAKE.
>>YOAV KEREN: I TOTALLY AGREE.
I'M JUST SAYING LET'S NOT FORGET IT.
>>MICHAEL EVERSON: ONE THING, SOMETIMES IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT WHEN PEOPLE GET CONFUSED -- I'M NOT SAYING THAT IN A BAD WAY -- ABOUT LANGUAGE AND SCRIPT.
WHAT INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES PROVIDE IS ADDITIONAL CHARACTERS BEYOND ASCII.
THOSE CHARACTERS BELONG TO SCRIPTS.
AND LANGUAGES MAY PICK AND CHOOSE SOME OF THEM.
SO WHEN I SAY THAT I WANT TO SEE, BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF RIGHT TO LEFT SUPPORT AND THE PROBLEMS THAT THERE ARE BECAUSE OF THE WAY -- WE ALL KNOW HOW THAT GOES -- WHEN I SAY THAT WE NEED TO SUPPORT THE ARABIC AND HEBREW AND ANKOL, I MEAN PASHTO, DARI, WHICH IS PERSIAN.
I MEAN HEBREW, YIDDISH, LATINO, AND N'KO IS JUST FOR N'KO.
>>S. SUBBIAH: I JUST WANTED TO -- FIRST, BEFORE I GET INVOLVED IN THE QUESTION OF THE INCUMBENCY, GIVING RIGHTS, I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT I CAN CONFIRM WHAT HONG XUE SAID EARLIER, THAT AS FAR AS I KNOW, IT IS A TENTATIVE POLICY RIGHT NOW IN THE CASE OF CN -- IN CHINA, IN CNNIC, TO MAP THE TWO TOGETHER, FOR NOW.
AND THAT BRINGS ME ON TO THE INCUMBENCY ISSUE.
I THINK THAT TO FORCE THIS IN EITHER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, THAT THE INCUMBENCY GETS THE RIGHTS AUTOMATICALLY, OR IT WILL BE A FREE-FOR AN ALL, START AGAIN BID, WHATEVER, TO BE DIFFERENT, IT'S YOU'RE TRYING TO FORCE A WHOLE PLETHORA, A WHOLE DIFFERENT -- WE JUST TALKED ABOUT HOW THE WORLD IS DIFFERENT EVERYWHERE.
TO TRY TO FORCE IT DOWN ONE MECHANISM, AND I THINK THAT IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT.
AND WHAT'S GOING TO REALLY WORK IS THAT IN EACH CASES, WHERE, YOU KNOW, THERE SHOULD BE A REVIEW PROCESS, A SORT OF A, YOU KNOW, BIDDING PROCESS OR SOME PROCESS MECHANISM.
BUT WITHIN THAT MECHANISM, YOU KNOW, IN THE CASE -- SOME CASES, THE INCUMBENCY -- IT WILL WORK FOR THE INCUMBENTS TO GET IT.
IN OTHER CASES, IT WILL BE AN OPEN ISSUE. AND THAT WILL DEPEND ON THE REGIONS OF THE WORLD, THE POWER STRUCTURE, AND SO FORTH.
TO END THAT OFF, I HAVE SAID EARLIER THAT THINGS ARE MOVING, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE GETTING TOGETHER.
AND THE BALKANIZATION IS NOT REALLY HAPPENING.
LOCAL LEVELS, PEOPLE ARE GETTING TOGETHER.
FURTHER EXAMPLE OF THAT THAT BRINGS US TO THE INCUMBENCY, I MENTIONED IN THE SLIDES MY OWN COMPANY, LONG BEFORE 2000 AND SO ON, WE LAUNCHED CHINESE FULL DOT CHINESE IN FULL IDNS.
AND AT SOME POINT DOWN THE ROAD WITHIN CHINA, TOO, A TEST BED STARTED FOR THAT.
NOW, OVER THE YEARS, WE'VE ACTUALLY MERGED.
WE'VE WORKED TOGETHER NOW, WE'RE WORKING TOGETHER.
WE'VE DECIDED THAT IT WAS IN OUR COMMON INTEREST TO JUST WORK TOGETHER.
SO THAT'S WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN, I THINK, IN THIS WHOLE -- I THINK THAT'S WHAT IS THE NATURAL FIT FOR THIS, DIFFERENT GROUPS WILL DO DIFFERENT THINGS.
BUT WE NEED TO CREATE A PROCESS FOR THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS TO HAPPEN.
THAT'S ALL.
THAT'S MY VIEW.

>>CARY KARP: VINT.
>>VINT CERF: I JUST WANT TO QUEUE UP A QUESTION FOR MICHAEL.
BUT I THINK WE SHOULD LET THE PEOPLE WHO ARE STANDING HERE GO THROUGH.
>>CARY KARP: RAM HAD REMARKS, I THINK, ALSO SPECIFICALLY, TOO.
>>DAVE PISCITELLO: DAVE PISCITELLO FROM ICANN.
>>RAM MOHAN: DAVE, I HAD ONE FOLLOW-ON COMMENT FROM THE PREVIOUS COMMENT.
GIVE ME JUST A MOMENT.
I JUST WANT TO STATE FOR THE RECORD, WE OPERATE THE DOT INFO REGISTRY IN ASCII, AND WE HAVE REGISTRANTS, TWO MILLION PLUS, WHO HAVE REGISTERED AND TAKEN TIME AND EFFORT TO ESTABLISH THEIR IDENTITY ONLINE USING THE DOT INFO LABEL.
I REALLY WORRY ABOUT CONFUSION.
I WORRY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF WE FOLLOW SOME OF THE SUGGESTIONS AND WE SAY, LET'S TAKE DOT INFO OR ITS EQUIVALENT IN, SAY, TAMIL, AND LET'S PUT IT UP FOR BID AND LET SOMEBODY REGISTER IT OR SOMEBODY BE THE REGISTRY FOR IT AND JUST DO WHATEVER THEY NEED TO DO POLICY-WISE.
I WORRY ABOUT CHAOS AND USER CONFUSION AND THE FACT THAT FOLKS -- REGISTRANTS IN THE DOT INFO DOMAIN NAME IN ASCII MIGHT LEGITIMATELY THINK THAT THEY, NOT OTHERS, SHOULD HAVE THE FIRST DIBS, IF YOU WILL, AT THE SAME -- THE SAME NAME IN THE LABEL IN A TLD -- IN AN IDN.
SO WHILE, YOU KNOW, CARY, YOU WERE SAYING YOU DON'T -- YOU KNOW, IN DOT MUSEUM, YOU'D BE MORE HAPPY TO JUST SEE DOT MUSEUM IN A LANGUAGE AND YOU DIDN'T CARE NECESSARILY SO MUCH AS TO WHO OPERATED IT, I WORRY ABOUT IT, BECAUSE IF -- AND IT'S NOT SO MUCH ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW IT WORKS.
IT'S MUCH MORE ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS SOME LEVEL OF COHERENCE IN HOW THIS ENTIRE SYSTEM WORKS AND NOT HAVE IT SO THAT THE SAME NAME IN MULTIPLE TLDS JUST GOES ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME.
>>CARY KARP: I DID NOT EXPRESS INDIFFERENCE.
THE KEY THING FOR ME IS SHARED POLICY, THAT DOT MUSEUM IS AN INCORPORATION OF SOME POLICY DEFINITION OF WHAT MUSEUM IS.
AND THAT NEEDS TO BE MAPPED ACROSS THE ENTIRE INTERNATIONALIZED DOT MUSEUM SPACE.
THE COMMERCIAL DETAILS OF IT ARE LESS IMPORTANT TO ME.
THEY ARE PROBABLY MORE IMPORTANT TO YOU, YEAH.
AGAIN, THIS IS WHY THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST INTRICATE AND DEMANDING RESOLUTION PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE CONFRONTING US WITH THIS.
>>YOAV KEREN: RAM, JUST SMALL COMMENT ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID.
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU RAISED.
AND I THINK -- BUT THEY ARE SOLVABLE.
WE CAN HAVE A SUNRISE PERIOD ALLOWING ANYONE HAVING A DOMAIN ALREADY IN THE DOT INFO GETTING IT IN ANOTHER -- IN THE PARALLEL IN THE OTHER LANGUAGE.
THIS IS POSSIBLE.
YOU JUST NEED TO FIND THE RIGHT POLICY TO COVER THESE PROBLEMS.
BUT, IN GENERAL, I THINK -- MY OPINION IS THAT IF YOU START HAVING MANY REGISTRIES FOR THE SAME LANGUAGE IN DIFFERENT TLDS, WE'LL END UP WITH HUNDREDS OF REGISTRIES.
I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT ANY ONE OF US WANTS.
>>RAM MOHAN: YEAH, I THINK THE COUNTER TO THAT IS TO HAVE MANY REGISTRIES FOR THE SAME TERM IN MANY LANGUAGES.
AND I'M PRETTY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S -- FROM MY PERSPECTIVE -- AND I -- YOU KNOW, I DO WORK FOR AFILIAS AND WE DO RUN THE DOT INFO REGISTRY.
THE THING THAT WOULD REALLY BOTHER ME IS WE SPEND FOUR OR FIVE YEARS WORKING ON DEVELOPING WHAT EFFECTIVELY BECOMES A FAMOUS BRAND NAME OR FAMOUS NAME THAT IS USEFUL AND IDENTIFIED EVERYWHERE, AND THEN SOMEONE COMES IN AND SAYS, "I OWN THE LANGUAGE, THEREFORE I SHALL TAKE IT OVER."
AND THAT, TO ME, IS A REAL PROBLEM.

>>MICHAEL EVERSON: NO ONE OWNS ANY LANGUAGE.
>>YOAV KEREN: SURE.
YEAH.
THAT'S RIGHT.

>>ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN: LIKE DISCUSSING IDN, GTLDS, I THINK, IN MY PERSPECTIVE IS VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE IDN JUST WITH THE GTLDS.
IT IS VERY SIMPLE IF WE START THE IDN WITH CCTLDS.
SO IF WE HAVE THE EQUIVALENT OF THE CCTLD IN ONE LANGUAGE AND WE USE IT, IT'S MUCH SIMPLER.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE ARE OPERATING THE DOT SA. AND THEN IF WE ARE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO OPERATE THE DOT -- THE ARABIC EQUIVALENT TO SA, THAT WILL BE LIKE SUFFICIENT FOR BEING AS A START POINT.
IF WE GO WITH THE GTLD, WE WILL HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS OF THIS -- WHAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED.
SO I THINK THE PROPOSAL BY THE CHINESE -- YEAH, IT IS REALLY SUGGESTED THAT TO GIVE THE PRIORITIES TO THE ONE EQUIVALENT OF THE CCTLDS IN ONE CHOSEN LANGUAGE, LIKE THE OPERATOR OF THIS CCTLD WILL PROPOSAL THAT I AM GOING TO OPERATE THIS LANGUAGE, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO THE ONE THAT I AM OPERATING.
AND THEN AS, LIKE, A FIRST STEP, IF THIS -- LIKE TEST IS SUCCESSFUL, WE CAN REALLY EXPAND.
RATHER THAN WE TAKE THE HARD PROBLEMS TO SOLVE FROM THE BEGINNING.

>>S. SUBBIAH: I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A FACTUAL POINT.
SOME COULD ARGUE WITH -- THAT IT'S SEMANTICS.
BUT I THINK IT IS REALLY TRUE THAT IN ONE LANGUAGE, THERE HAVE BEEN SORT OF, ESSENTIALLY, COMPETING REGISTRIES FOR THE SAME SEMANTIC NOTION OF OBJECT, WHICH, YOU KNOW, MEANS THE SAME THING ALMOST.
AND I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE -- I SAID A LINGUIST COULD JUMP UP, BUT DOT BIZ AND DOT COM ARE ACTUALLY MORE OR LESS WHAT YOU MIGHT SAY, I THINK JOHN KLENSIN POINTED OUT IN ONE OF HIS ARTICLES THAT, YOU KNOW, SO -- THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE THAT THAT'S NOT -- THAT THAT'S NOT BAD OR TRUE.
BUT IT'S ACTUALLY -- IN ENGLISH, WE HAVE IT MORE OR LESS.
>>CARY KARP: ANOTHER THING THAT NEEDS TO BE INTERJECTED, TOO, IS THERE ARE COUNTRIES WHICH CANNOT FAVOR ONE OF THEIR OFFICIAL LANGUAGES OVER THE OTHER AND WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ASK FOR ONLY ONE.
SO THE THING THAT I FIND SO STRESSFUL IN ALL OF THIS IS THAT THERE ARE CLEAR AND EASY CASES THAT COULD CERTAINLY BE IMPLEMENTED.
AND THEN THERE ARE NIGHTMARE CASES THAT ARE NO LESS JUSTIFIED THAT IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE HOW TO IMPLEMENT.
AND THIS -- WHEN DO WE TAKE THE FIRST STEP?
AT WHAT POINT DO WE NOT NEED TO FEAR EMBARKING UPON A PATH THAT WE CAN'T SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATE ITS FULL LENGTH?
AND IT WOULD BE KIND OF NICE IF WE COULD HAVE SOME SENSE OF AT LEAST THE PARTICIPANTS IN THIS WORKSHOP AS TO HOW SHOULD WE SAY IT?
WHERE DOES RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR AND TRUE URGENT NEED -- HOW DO THEY BALANCE OFF AGAINST EACH OTHER?
WHEN CAN WE ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING WITH EVERYBODY, I'M SURE, IN ABSOLUTE AGREEMENT ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?
>>DAVE PISCITELLO: DAVE PISCITELLO FROM ICANN.
I HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT DIRECTION TO TAKE US, BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT A USER EXPERIENCE FROM BASIC DNS RESOLUTION AS OPPOSED TO WHAT LANGUAGE I'M USING.
AND SO I'M TRYING TO SPIN US BACK TO ALMOST TWO AND A HALF HOURS AGO WHEN WE ACTUALLY HAD SOME PRESENTATIONS ABOUT HOW YOU WERE DEPLOYING IDN.IDN.
AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE UNIQUE ROOT NAME SERVERS WITH SEPARATE ROOT ZONE FILES FROM THE AUTHORITATIVE ROOT ZONE FILE THAT'S GENERATED BY IANA.
AND MY FIRST QUESTION IS, ARE YOU ALL USING DIFFERENT ONES OR ARE YOU ALL USING THE SAME ONES?
SO WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, AN ARABIC REPRESENTATION, A CHINESE REPRESENTATION, AND I KNOW YOU DO KOREA AS WELL.
SO IS THIS, LIKE, ONE SET OF ROOT NAME SERVERS WITH ONE ROOT ZONE FILE OR IS THIS SEVERAL?
>>S. SUBBIAH: I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE GOOD NEWS IS.
YOU CAN LOOK AT IT AS GOOD NEWS OR BAD NEWS.
THE GOOD NEWS IS WE'RE ALL USING IDNA.
WE'RE ALL USING THE EXACT -- SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IMPLEMENTATIONS, BUT COMPARED TO EIGHT, NINE YEARS AGO, WHATEVER, IT'S BASICALLY THE SAME TECHNOLOGY THAT'S IN PLACE.
AND EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO FOLLOW THE IDN GUIDELINES.
THAT'S THE FIRST STEP.
SECONDLY, IT'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE GROUPS ARE COLLABORATING, THE DIFFERENT ISSUES ARE COLLABORATING.
IF WE'RE WORKING WITH TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE OR TWO DIFFERENT COMPANIES, IN THAT CASE, THOUGH TALK TO EACH OTHER.
BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE.
BUT DEPENDING ON, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT DATABASES.
>>DAVE PISCITELLO: I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT REAL SIMPLE.
I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO LONG QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
SO THERE ARE -- THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT, AT LEAST HERE, THREE DIFFERENT ROOT ZONE FILES.
THEY USE IDNA PUNYCODE ENCODING FOR TLD AND FOR THE REST OF THE FILE.
ARE THEY DOWNLOADABLE IN I CAN GO TO IANA AND GET THE ROOT ZONE FILE.
BUT I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND THE ROOT ZONE FILE FOR ANY OF YOUR --
>>S. SUBBIAH: I THINK IF YOU GO TO THE DIFFERENT WEB SITES OF OUR DIFFERENT OPERATIONS, YOU'LL FIND --
>>DAVE PISCITELLO: THAT'S A VERY INTERESTING PROBLEM FOR ME, BECAUSE I ONLY SPEAK ENGLISH.
BECAUSE WHEN --
>>S. SUBBIAH: WHAT WAS THAT?
I'M SORRY?
>>DAVE PISCITELLO: I ONLY SPEAK ENGLISH, AND I WASN'T ABLE TO GET TO SOME OF THE WEB SITES BECAUSE THEY WERE IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE.
MAYBE I'M JUST GOING TO THE WRONG PLACE.
WE CAN TOUCH BASE OFFLINE.
SO YOU HAVE DIFFERENT ROOT ZONE FILES.
YOU HAVE DIFFERENT ROOT NAME SERVER SYSTEMS.
>>S. SUBBIAH: I THINK SO.
ALL OF US --
>>DAVE PISCITELLO: EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE USING IDNA, SOME PEOPLE ARE USING A CLIENT PLUG-IN.
BUT THE FACT IS IF I AM A USER AND I GO FROM TRYING TO USE THE UNIQUE CHARACTER SETS IN JAPAN AND IN AN ARABIC COUNTRY AND IN A KOREAN COUNTRY, I'M CONSTANTLY CHANGING MY NAME SERVERS, I'M POINTING TO DIFFERENT DNS RESOLVERS, I'M USING DIFFERENT CODES OR PLUG-IN, SO MY USER EXPERIENCE ISN'T THE SAME, DEPENDING ON WHERE I AM?
IF I'M IN CANADA AND I WANT TO ACCESS A NAME THAT IS -- THAT IS PROVIDED BY, YOU KNOW -- UNDER THE CHINESE REGISTRY IN A CHINESE CHARACTER SET, I'VE GOT TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO POINT TO THAT AND KNOW THAT NAME SERVICE IN ADVANCE.
AND IF I MOVE, YOU KNOW, BACK TO CHINA AND I WANT TO COME BACK TO THE -- AN ARABIC COUNTRY THAT'S IN YOUR NAME, I'VE GOT TO CHANGE.
SO MY USER EXPERIENCE IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'VE GROWN UP ON AT THE --
>>S. SUBBIAH: IT'S ONLY PARTLY RIGHT.
IT'S NOT NECESSARILY RIGHT, IN THE SENSE THAT YOU -- SOME OF THESE SERVERS ACTUALLY ALLOW RESOLUTION OF, YOU KNOW, ASCII NAMES, REGULAR, YOU KNOW, ICANN-APPROVED NAMES.
THEY DO.
>>DAVE PISCITELLO: BUT IT'S ALWAYS ONE PLUS ICANN.
>>S. SUBBIAH: RIGHT.
SOME OF THEM DO COOPERATE.
SOME DON'T.
SO IT'S A FUNCTION OF JUST COOPERATION, THAT'S ALL.
IT'S NOT A FUNCTION OF TECHNOLOGY.
>>DAVE PISCITELLO: YESTERDAY I RAISED THIS POINT THAT THERE IS NO UBERZONE THAT ACTUALLY BRINGS THEM ALL TOGETHER LIKE THE DARK LORDS, ONE RING.
>>S. SUBBIAH: MAYBE SOMEBODY IS TRYING TO -- SOMEONE IS ACTUALLY TRYING TO CATALOGUE THIS AND PUT UP A WEB SITE.
>>MICHEL SUIGNARD: IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT SOME -- IF I DO USE A ROOT, IT'S BASICALLY A MAPPING IN THE ROOT, BUT IT'S BASICALLY HIDDEN INSIDE THE PLUG-IN.
SO YOU HAVE TO KIND OF LOOK AT THE LOW-LEVEL NETWORKING STACK TO DISCOVER WHAT IS THE TRUE ADDRESS OF WHAT YOU'RE TYPING.
SO IT'S KIND OF A HYBRID OF A KEY WORD SYSTEM.
BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE TYPING IS NOT REALLY THE ACTUAL DNS STRING WHAT YOU'RE ENTERING IN THE NETWORK.
ON A USER ISP, ALL BETS ARE OFF, BECAUSE THEY IMPLEMENT THE ZONE ROOT ON HIS LEVEL.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF VARIATION, OBVIOUSLY, IT'S KIND OF SCARING THE HELL OUT OF THE VENDORS.
>>JAAP AKKERHUIS: MY NAME IS JAAP AKKERHUIS.
I HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO ALL OF THESE PROPOSALS.
AND IT REMINDS ME OF THE BEGINNING DAYS OF THE IETF WORKING GROUP, WHERE ACTUALLY ALL OF THE SAME ARGUMENTS, GOING DOWN THE LIST.
ALTHOUGH I SAW ONE NEW ONE.
AND THAT IS TO TRANSLATE ISO 3166 OR USE TRANSLATION PROVIDED IN THERE.
HOWEVER, IF YOU READ THAT DOCUMENT AND ALL THE ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTATION WE DID, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TRANSLATION OF ISO 3166.
SO MAYBE YOU SHOULD STOP THAT DISCUSSION DIRECTLY.

>>VINT CERF: I DON'T HAVE ANY RESPONSE TO THAT OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT OBSERVATION.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MICHAEL.
AND THIS IS AN IGNORANT QUESTION.
AND I -- IF YOU LAUGH, I WON'T BE OFFENDED.
WE -- I THINK YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, AND SEVERAL OTHERS HAVE, THAT WE USE INCORRECTLY AND INTERCHANGEABLY REFERENCES TO SCRIPTS AND LANGUAGES.
THIS -- SAY THIS CAREFULLY.
THE SAME SCRIPTS ARE USED BY MULTIPLE LANGUAGES IN SOME CASES.
THE ARABIC CHARACTER SET, WITH SOME VARIATIONS, IS USED BY AT LEAST THREE THAT I RECALL.
IS IT OVERLY SIMPLISTIC TO IMAGINE THAT WE COULD HAVE GROUPINGS OF LANGUAGES THAT COULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH A SET -- WITH A SUBSET OF UNICODE SCRIPTS SO THAT ANYONE COULD EXPRESS ANY WORD WITHIN THOSE LANGUAGES USING A RESTRICTED SET OF SCRIPTS FROM THE -- SYMBOLS FROM UNICODE?
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF I -- IF I'M REMEMBERING RIGHT, URDU, FARSI, AND ARABIC DRAW ON A SIMILAR SET OF SCRIPTS.
SUPPOSE YOU TOOK THE UNION OF ALL OF THE CHARACTERS IN THOSE SCRIPTS THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO EXPRESS WORDS IN THOSE THREE LANGUAGES AND YOU SAID, "I'M GOING TO CREATE A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN WHICH USES THAT PARTICULAR SUBSET OF UNICODE."
I PRESUME THAT THERE WOULD BE A FAIRLY SMALL NUMBER, AS I THINK AMADEU SAID, MAYBE IT'S ON THE ORDER OF A HUNDRED OR EVEN 200 DIFFERENT GROUPINGS LIKE THAT.
WOULD THAT HELP US IN ANY WAY IF WE DIVIDED THE PROBLEM UP BY SCRIPT RATHER THAN BY LANGUAGE AND ALLOWED ANY OF THE LANGUAGES REPRESENTABLE BY THOSE SCRIPTS TO BE PART OF A NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN?
>>MICHAEL EVERSON: THERE'S A LOT IN THAT QUESTION.
IT CERTAINLY COULD MAKE SENSE IF FOR IN OTHER REASON SO THAT THE GTLDS COULD KNOW WHAT MIGHT BE USED FOR A PARTICULAR MARKET.
I KNOW THAT AMADEU HAS, ON OCCASION, TALKED ABOUT A PAN-ROMANCE LANGUAGE CHARACTER SET, WHICH WOULD BE FAIRLY SMALL, FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, BECAUSE IT'S JUST LATIN AND THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT THERE.
AND AS THERE'S A .CAT, I MEAN, IN PRINCIPLE, THERE COULD EVEN BE A DOT ROMANCE OR, YOU KNOW -- OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHERE SUCH A SET OF THINGS COULD BE EXPRESSED.
FOR SOME SCRIPTS OF THE WORLD, THAT DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE CONFUSEABLES.
I KNOW THAT MY FRIEND, OUR FRIEND AND COLLEAGUES WORKED WITH THE IRANIAN CCTLD TO MAKE THE RULES FOR THAT.
AND, FOR INSTANCE, BECAUSE IRANIAN HAS A LETTER YEH WHICH BEHAVES DIFFERENTLY FROM THE LETTER YEH IN ARABIC, THEY HAVE RULES THAT IN DOT IR, EVEN ARABIC WORDS WHICH IN SAUDI ARABIA ARE WRITTEN WITH THE OTHER YEH MUST BE WRITTEN WITH THE IRANIAN YEH BECAUSE IT'S A SECURITY ISSUE.
SO IT WOULD NOT PROBABLY BE POSSIBLE TO DO A -- WELL, THE ARABIC SCRIPT IS USED FOR A GREAT MANY LANGUAGES, FAR MORE THAN MOST OF US THINK OF, I MEAN, MANY, MANY LANGUAGES.
FOR CERTAIN SUBSETTING GROUPS, FOR AFRICAN LANGUAGES WHICH SHARE CERTAIN LATIN LETTERS IN COMMON, FOR ROMANCE LANGUAGES WHICH SHARE CERTAIN LETTERS IN COMMON, IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO DO THAT SORT OF THING, YES.
BUT IT'S -- THERE'S NO WAY OF JUST GOING IN AND SAYING, WELL, RIGHT, THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO.
ACTUALLY, THERE'S NO GOING TO AWAY FROM KNOWING ABOUT THE LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD.
>>VINT CERF: SO THIS IS -- THIS IS MY WEAK ATTEMPT AT TRYING TO THINK THROUGH WHAT RAM WAS TALKING ABOUT WHEN HIS POINT WAS THAT DOT INFO IS EXPRESSIBLE IN A SCRIPT WHICH IS USEFUL TO A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, AND THAT BY JUST BINDING TO THE SCRIPT AND NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT THE LANGUAGE IS, YOU MIGHT GET AWAY WITH A LOT.
YOU JUST POINTED OUT THAT IT'S NOT SO SIMPLE.
YOU'RE JUST PROVING AGAIN THAT THEOREM 207 APPLIES HERE.
THE THEOREM READS, "EVERYTHING IS MORE COMPLICATED."
>>CARY KARP: I WOULD LIKE TO DRAG THIS DISCUSSION OFF IN ONE OF THE DIRECTIONS THAT WE HOPE TO BE ABLE TO GET TO IN THE COURSE OF THE WORK -- THE PRE-EVENT DISCUSSION YESTERDAY.
AND I'LL JUST PUT OUT, WE OBVIOUSLY ENVISION A SITUATION THAT BEFORE ANY XN DASH DASH STRINGS CAN BE EITHER DENAMED OR NS'ED INTO THE ROOT, THERE HAS TO BE SOME TEST OF THE ABILITY OF THE ROOT TO DEAL WITH THESE THINGS.
EVEN IF WE CAN MAKE GOOD GUESSES ABOUT THE OUTCOME OF THAT TEST.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE THOUGHT WE MIGHT DO IS PICK A VERY NEUTRAL DESIGNATION THAT WOULDN'T APPEAR IN THE PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, DOT TEST, TO BE EXPRESSED USING A VARIETY OF SCRIPTS, PREFERABLY IN THE MANNER THAT YOU, IN FACT, DO ENVISION, WHERE IT WOULDN'T BE CLEAR EXACTLY WHICH OF THE LANGUAGES THAT USES THAT SCRIPT IS INTENDED.
AND THEN TO ALLOW THE ENTITIES THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY REASONABLE CANDIDATES FOR GETTING THEIR ACTIVE PRODUCTION STRINGS INTO THE ROOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS LABORATORY EXERCISE, WHICH OBVIOUSLY WILL BE TURNED OFF -- WILL TERMINATE AT A CERTAIN POINT WHERE IT WAS EVALUATED.
BUT BECAUSE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A MULTISCRIPT SET OF DOT TESTS, NOBODY WOULD EITHER BE DAMAGED OR REALLY CARE.
AND THE ONLY COMPLAINT I SUPPOSE WE MIGHT HAVE IS THAT WE REALLY NEED TO WASTE SIX MONTHS ON THIS INTERMEDIATE EXERCISE.
AND WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE ACTUALLY DO THAT.
BUT WE WISH TO PUT FORWARD THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ENVISION AS A POTENTIALLY USEFUL WAY TO GET SOMEWHERE GENUINELY MEANINGFUL WOULD BE TO DO THIS.
SO EVEN IF MICHAEL CAN EASILY POKE HOLES IN YOUR NOTION OF THIS, THERE IS, IN FACT, A -- HOW SHOULD WE SAY IT? -- SOMETHING THAT IS -- AS SEMANTICALLY SHALLOW AS THE DNS IS OFTEN REGARDED AS BEING ANYWAY WAY TO INTERNATIONALIZE THE TOP LEVEL IN A LABORATORY CONTEXT.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: MAY I, JUST TO RESPOND TO SOMETHING THAT VINT AND MICHAEL WERE SAYING.
WE'RE SAYING 34 SCRIPTS, THESE 170 MOST WRITTEN LANGUAGES ACCORDING TO THE EXTERNAL LIST.
AND, YOU KNOW, SOMEHOW, LET'S SAY OBJECTIVE LIST, WHATEVER "OBJECTIVE" MEANS, WHAT MICHAEL WAS SAYING REGARDING FARSI IS CORRECT.
BUT THIS IS VERY CLOSE TO WHAT WE HAVE WITH VARIANTS WE HAVE EVEN INSIDE A GIVEN LANGUAGE.
THE MEANING IS THERE ARE SOMETIMES WHERE WE HAVE SOME STRANGE CAUTIONS AND WE HAVE TO TAKE DECISIONS ON WHICH ONE.
EVEN WHEN IT'S A SINGLE LANGUAGE OR IT'S A SCRIPT.
SO IT'S NEVER AUTOMATIC.
BUT IT CAN BE DONE.
MY CONCRETE PROPOSAL WAS TO TELL THE GTLDS IF THEY WANT TO TRANSLATE THE TLD INTO THOSE 34 SCRIPTS, BECAUSE INFO OR COM ARE NOT EXACTLY WORDS, BUT, YOU KNOW, ABSTRACT REPRESENTATIONS OF SOMETHING.
SO IT'S NOT A CONCRETE TRANSLATION.
BUT PROVIDED THAT IT'S ANALOGOUS AND THE DATABASE IS EXACTLY THE SAME, WE ARE NOT SELLING THE HORSE TWICE TO THE SAME PERSON; RIGHT?
AND WE DON'T HAVE THINGS THAT ARE NOT UNIVERSALLY UNIQUE.
THE OTHER QUESTION IS MAKING TLDS ON A (INAUDIBLE) BECAUSE.
I CAN DO THAT.
DOT ROMANCE, DOT CYRILLIC, DOT -- WHAT'S THAT, UNIFIED CAN -- UNIFIED CANADIAN ALPHABETIC SYSTEMS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, FOR THE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGES HERE.
THE PROBLEM IS WHETHER THIS MAKES SENSE FROM A SOCIAL POINT OF VIEW. BECAUSE PEOPLE TEND TO RELATE THEMSELVES TO THE LANGUAGE THEY WRITE, NOT TO THE MORE ABSTRACT SET OF CHARACTERS BELONGING TO A SCRIPT THEIR LANGUAGE BELONGS TO.
SO FROM A SOCIAL POINT OF VIEW .N'KO OR .FARSI MAKES MORE SENSE IF WE NEED THAT, AND FOR MANY LANGUAGES WE DON'T, THAN .CYRILLIC, THE RUSSIAN MAKES MORE SENSE IN .CYRILLIC BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD NOT FEEL THAT INVOLVED IN SOMETHING THAT VERY OFTEN IS AN ABSTRACT DESCRIPTION OF CHARACTERS USED THROUGH DIFFERENT LANGUAGES. BUT THAT'S NOT A TECHNICAL PROBLEM. IT'S PERFECTLY PHYSICAL.
>>RAM MOHAN: FOLLOW ON.
VINT, TO YOUR EARLIER THOUGHT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, COMBINING SCRIPTS TOGETHER, IN FACT, IN EARLY OCTOBER, IN INDIA, THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT GOT TOGETHER A BUNCH OF LINGUISTS AND TECHNOLOGISTS TOGETHER TO APPROACH THE PROBLEM THAT INDIA HAS. IF WE THOUGHT CJK WAS A COMPLEX ISSUE, INDIA HAS 22 OFFICIAL LANGUAGES AND IT HAS ACTUALLY ABOUT 85 LANGUAGES IN ACTUAL WRITTEN USE TODAY.
AND WHAT CAME OUT OF A DAY AND A HALF'S INTENSE DISCUSSIONS WITH LINGUISTS AS WELL AS TECHNOLOGISTS, BUT PRIMARILY LINGUISTS, WAS THEY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION TO COMBINE AROUND 11 SCRIPTS THAT ACTUALLY REPRESENT THE VAST MAJORITY OF LANGUAGES THAT ARE REPRESENTED IN INDIA. AND THEY ACTUALLY GOT MANY OF THE LINGUISTS, SOME OF WHOM WERE APPOINTED BY STATE GOVERNMENTS WHO HAD KIND OF -- WHO FELT (INAUDIBLE) OVER A PARTICULAR LANGUAGE, THEY WERE ABLE TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT THAT IF SOMEBODY REGISTERED A NAME IN A SCRIPT AND THAT SCRIPT WAS A SUPERSET OF FIVE LANGUAGES, THEN IT WOULD BE TAKEN IN ALL OF THEM. CASE CLOSED.
AND THAT'S THE APPROACH THAT ACTUALLY THE INDIAN -- THE .IN REGISTRY IS SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING. AND INDIA IS THINKING OF GOING THAT DIRECTION.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT -- IF YOUR PROPOSAL REALLY WAS THAT IGNORANT. IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S GOT SOME BASIS BEHIND IT.
>>VINT CERF: WELL, I HAD GIVEN NO MORE THAN 30 SECONDS' THOUGHT TO MY QUESTION, SO DON'T IMPUTE TOO MUCH TO IT OTHER THAN TRYING TO GROPE FOR WAYS OF MAKING THIS SIMPLER.
IT SOUNDS VERY MUCH LIKE THAT APPROACH HELPED THEM, SO IT'S AN INTERESTING CASE EXAMPLE.
>>MATT HOOKER: WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE SUGGEST CREATING NEW GENERAL GTLDS BASED UPON LANGUAGES OR GROUPS OF LANGUAGES THAT SHARE COMMON SCRIPTS. I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT I THINK THOSE ARE POOR IDEAS, AND JUST TO BRIEFLY POINT OUT THAT A MUCH MORE SIMPLE AND ELEGANT SOLUTION IS TO HAVE ALL OF THE DIFFERENT SYMBOLS THAT ARE USED IN THE UNICODE WHICH CORRESPOND TO LIKE, YOU KNOW, 95 TO 99% OF THE LANGUAGES, THE CHARACTERS BEING USED IN LIVING LANGUAGES WRITTEN TODAY, AND SIMPLY HAVE ONE .TEST, AN EXCELLENT IDEA. AND THE PEOPLE WHO SPEAK FRENCH WILL WRITE FRENCH CHARACTERS, PEOPLE WHO SPEAK JAPANESE WILL INPUT JAPANESE CHARACTERS. IT WILL REFLECT REALITY SO PEOPLE WHO READ AND WRITE COMMON LANGUAGES WILL BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER PERFECTLY.
I DON'T SEE WHY -- THERE IS NO NEED, REALLY, TO CREATE MANY NEW GTLDS WITH CERTAIN LANGUAGE SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES OR FOR PEOPLE WHO READ AND WRITE SPECIFIC LANGUAGES WE COULD JUST HAVE ONE, A .TEST, AND LATER DECIDE WHAT IT WILL BE.
IT WILL BE A SIMPLER SOLUTION FOR CREATING 34 OR 37 NEW GTLDS IN MY OPINION.
>>MICHAEL EVERSON: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT TESTING OR IN GENERAL?
>>MATT HOOKER: I AM TALKING ABOUT TESTING IT FIRST, OF COURSE, AND THEN MOVING IT TO MAKE THAT THE INTERNET THAT SHOULD BE, WHERE PEOPLE CAN USE THEIR OWN LANGUAGES THAT THEY READ AND WRITE IN AND HAVE DOMAIN NAMES RESOLVED IN THEIR CHARACTER SET AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. WELL, I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOW YOU BECAUSE IT IS CERTAINLY THE CASE THAT TO HAVE TLDS THAT ARE BASED ON THINGS THAT ARE NOT NATIONAL MAKES GOOD SENSE. WE HAVE .CAT, WHICH IS THE FIRST OF THESE. BUT .N'KO, THAT'S N APOSTROPHE K O, .N'KO, THIS LANGUAGE IS TRANSNATIONAL. IT'S USED IN GUINEA AND SENEGAL, MALI AND ALL SORTS OF OTHER COUNTRIES, AND THEY ARE A PARTICULAR COMMUNITY. IT WOULD NOT BE A SERVICE TO THEM, I THINK, TO HAVE TO HAVE, IF YOU ARE LIVING IN MALI TO HAVE TO GO TO .MALI TO GET YOUR THING AND HOPE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO SUPPORT THE ALPHABET. WHAT THEY WILL PROBABLY REQUIRE, I'M SURE, IS THEIR OWN DOMAIN BECAUSE THEY ARE A PARTICULAR CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC ENTITY WHICH USES A PARTICULAR SCRIPT WHICH NO ONE ELSE USES.
SO I WOULD JUST, IN GENERAL, DISAGREE WITH -- I DON'T THINK THAT -- I MEAN, THE CCTLD IS A PARTICULAR UTILITY, BUT LINGUISTIC TLDS ARE JUST AS USEFUL AND SENSIBLE AS ANY OF THE OTHER KINDS OF GENERIC TLDS THAT WE HAVE. THEY ARE JUST SPECIFIC TO SOMETHING.
AND HELLO, DOCTOR.
>>MATT HOOKER: I DISAGREE AND I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ADDING NEW GTLDS. I AM TALKING ABOUT ADDING THE CHARACTERS USED IN ALL THE LIVING WRITTEN LANGUAGES TO WHAT COMES BEFORE THE DOT, AND PUT THAT IN THE ROOT. THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
>>CARY KARP: I SUSPECT YOU DON'T KNOW WHY IT IS THAT WE ARE HERE. IT IS THE ATTEMPT TO DO PRECISELY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING WE HAVE TO DO THAT HAS GOTTEN US INTO SUCH DEEP TROUBLE THAT WE NEED TO ROB THIS SEGMENT OF HUMANITY FOUR AND A HALF HOURS OF ITS LIVES TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT A BETTER WAY TO DO.
SO YOU ARE DESCRIBING THE PROBLEM, YOU ARE NOT DESCRIBING THE SOLUTION.
>>MATT HOOKER: NO. I GAVE YOU A SIMPLE SOLUTION. THANK YOU.
>>SIAVASH SHAHSHAHANI: SHAHSHAHANI, FROM .IR REGISTRY. I WANT TO ADD TO THE CONFUSION ABOUT THE SAME -- WITHIN THE VARIANTS OF THE SAME ALPHABET WHAT MICHAEL SAID ABOUT VARIANTS OF THE SAME ALPHABET. IN THE NEXT SESSION I WILL BE GIVING A PRESENTATION IN WHICH I WILL GIVE LIVE ILLUSTRATIONS OF POSSIBLE CONFUSIONS BETWEEN PERS AND ARABIC SO THIS IS A COMMERCIAL FOR NEXT SESSION.
>>GERVASE MARKHAM: HI, MY NAME IS GERVASE MARKHAM, I WORK FOR MOZILLA, ALTHOUGH WHAT I HAVE TO SAY DOES NOT PARTICULARLY RELATE TO THAT. I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER BUT ONE SAID. FLAT NAME SPACES, A NAME SPACE WHERE PEOPLE JUST TYPE THINGS AND IT GOES WHERE THEY WANT TO GO WITH NO SUBDIVISIONS MAY SEEM LIKE A GOOD IDEA IN THEORY, BUT IN FACT, I THINK THAT DOMAIN NAMES, TOP LEVEL, SECOND LEVEL, THIRD LEVELS ACTUALLY A FEATURE OF THE DNS AND NOT A BUG.
THERE'S A HOMELESS SHELTER IN THE CITY OF OXFORD IN THE UK CALLED THE GAP. THERE IS ALSO A LARGE MULTINATIONAL COMPANY CALLED THE GAP. SO IF YOU TYPE IN THE GAP, ONE IS .ORG.UK, ONE IS .CO.UK. AT THE MOMENT THEY HAVE SEPARATE NAMES SPACES BECAUSE OF THE SUBDIVISION. IT'S A FEATURE, NOT A BUG.
MAYBE I AM PREACHING TO THE CHOIR HERE. I DON'T SEE ALL THAT MUCH SUPPORT FOR HAVING A FLAT NAME SPACE, BUT I WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT I THINK WE SHOULD SEE FLAT NAME SPACES AND NEW TLDS AND DIFFERENT WAYS OF SPLITTING THINGS UP AS A FEATURE, BECAUSE THEY REDUCE NAME CONGESTION. AT THE MOMENT THERE IS BIG NAME CONGESTION IN .COM BECAUSE VERISIGN HAS DONE A WONDERFUL JOB OF MARKETING IT. HOWEVER, IN TERMS OF USEFULNESS TO USER, I DON'T THINK IT'S A PARTICULARLY A GOOD THING. I THINK THE MORE TLDS WE HAVE AND THE MORE WAYS WE CAN SPLIT IT UP AND THE DIFFERENT VARIETY OF NAMES WE CAN HAVE ALLOWS THE GAP IN OXFORD AND THE MULTINATIONAL COMPANY TO CO-EXIST IN DIFFERENT BUT RELATED AREAS OF THE DNS AND I THINK THAT'S VERY VALUABLE.
>>CARY KARP: ANY SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THAT?
OKAY. WE HAVE DEPLETED THE QUEUE.
WE HAVE A HALF AN HOUR TO GO. I'M SURE NOBODY WILL PROTEST IF WE DON'T USE THAT FULL HALF HOUR, BUT IT ACTUALLY WOULD BE QUITE USEFUL IF WE COULD SOMEHOW DISTILL OUT OF ALL OF THIS DISCUSSION THE COUPLE OF POINTS THAT WE ARE GOING TO PUT ON RECORD. IF NOTHING ELSE, WE ARE GOING TO OWE THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND IDN SOME RESUME OF WHAT WAS SAID HERE TODAY.
I ASSUME THAT THE ICANN BOARD HAS SOME INTEREST IN THIS AS WELL.
SO MY PERSONAL SENSE IS THAT THE PROBLEMS THAT WE REGARDED AS THE SIGNIFICANT ONES WHEN WE ENTERED THIS ROOM HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED TIME AND TIME AGAIN AS, INDEED, BEING THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE.
I'M NOT REALLY SURE THAT ANY CLEAR WAY FORWARD HAS BEEN DELINEATED.
VINT, A SPECIFIC QUESTION TO YOU. THE NOTION OF -- I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD TEST BED. THAT'S BEEN USED IN TOO MANY OTHER CONTEXTS. SOME LABORATORY SITUATION WHICH WOULD ALLOW US TO DETERMINE WHAT THE EFFECT OF ENTERING DNAME RECORDS INTO THE ROOT MIGHT BE IN THE CONTEXT, TO THE END THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE, WHAT THE EFFECT WOULD BE ENTERING NAME SERVERS FOR XN DASH DASH STRINGS INTO THE ROOT. PRESUMABLY THAT'S FAR MORE BENIGN IN ITS POTENTIAL TECHNICAL CONSEQUENCE. THE DNAME IS WHAT WE DON'T REALLY KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO -- HOW IT WILL BEHAVE.
IS THIS THE SORT OF THING THAT WE CAN SERIOUSLY PUT FORWARD OR IS IT THE SORT OF THING THAT WOULD CAUSE THE ICANN BOARD INFINITE ANGUISH IF IT WERE TO BE SUGGESTED SERIOUSLY?
>>VINT CERF: I THINK THAT CREATING -- LET ME MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSITION.
THE NUMBER OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN ENTRIES IN THE ROOT TO PERFORM THIS TEST WOULD BE HOW MANY? TEN? 12? 15? HOW MANY DIFFERENT REPRESENTATIONS OF THE STRING TEST WOULD YOU PROPOSE?
>>CARY KARP: MY PERSONAL FEELING IS WE NEED SOMEHOW TO ACCOMMODATE A RIGHT TO LEFT SCRIPT, WE NEED TO ACCOMMODATE AN IDEOGRAPHIC SCRIPT, BECAUSE WE CAN ASSUME THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME JUSTIFIABLE FEELING THAT WE ARE THE ONES WHO SHOULD BE THAT SCRIPT. WE WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO HAVE SEVERAL.
SO --
>>VINT CERF: YOU WON'T -- I DO NOT THINK --
>>CARY KARP: A DOZEN.
>>VINT CERF: YOU WILL NOT FIND ANY TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS THAT I KNOW ABOUT TO ADDING A DOZEN SUCH THINGS TO THE ROOT. THERE'S NO INDICATION FROM THE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT THAT WOULD BE TROUBLESOME.
SO I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE TO PUT FORWARD A PROPOSITION LIKE THAT.
I WOULD ASK, OF COURSE, THE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT ISN'T AN OVERSIMPLIFICATION -- WHAT I JUST SAID ISN'T AN OVERSIMPLIFICATION. SO I DON'T SEE THAT AS AN UNREASONABLE WAY FORWARD.
WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT WE NOT DUPLICATE THE EXPERIENCE WE HAD IN EARLIER TIMES WHEN PEOPLE REGISTERING IN THAT -- IN ANY OF THOSE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS MADE ANY ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE CONTINUITY OF THAT REGISTRATION, BECAUSE THAT, I THINK, WOULD BE -- ESPECIALLY IF WE DISCOVER THAT IT DOESN'T WORK. WE WOULDN'T WANT TO MISLEAD PEOPLE INTO THINKING IT'S ANYTHING OTHER THAN A TEST.
>>CARY KARP: THAT'S SPECIFICALLY WHY WE WOULD ENVISION A TLD LABEL THAT HAS NO PRODUCTION VALUE.
PERHAPS, THEN, JUST TWO MINUTES EACH FOR THE PANELISTS AROUND -- LET'S SEE. WE HAVE 30 MINUTES. YEAH, A MINUTE AND A HALF EACH. WHICH OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN TOUCHED UPON OR HAVE BEEN TOTALLY MISSED DOES EACH OF THE PANELISTS FEEL TO BE THE MOST URGENT THING TO LEAVE THIS ROOM REGARDING HIS OWN HIGHEST PRIORITY?
>>VINT CERF:ACTUALLY, MY OWN HIGHEST PRIORITY MAY CAUSE ME TO LEAVE THE ROOM BEFORE ANYBODY GETS DONE
(LAUGHTER.)
>>VINT CERF: OTHERWISE, I WILL DO WHAT MY T-SHIRT SAYS.
SO ACTUALLY, IF I COULD BE EXCUSED FOR JUST A MOMENT, I WILL BE RIGHT BACK.
>>CARY KARP: WE'LL TELL YOU WHAT YOU DECIDED YOU NEED TO DO WHEN YOU GET BACK.
>>VINT CERF: YOU CAN GOSSIP ABOUT ME WHILE I AM AWAY.
>>CARY KARP: PAT.
>>PAT KANE: I THINK CLEARLY THE THING WE NEED TO START WITH IS TALKING ABOUT POLICY AND PROCESS AND HOW WE MOVE FORWARD ON DETERMINING HOW WE WOULD EITHER SET UP A LABORATORY EXPERIMENT AND THEN HOW WE WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE A LOOK AT ASSIGNING OF EITHER REAL TLD SPACE OR ASSIGNING OF DNAME ENTITIES AND GO THROUGH THAT WHOLE PROCESS.
I THINK THAT IF WE GET THE PROCESS RIGHT OR AT LEAST GET THE PROCESS MOST OF THE WAY RIGHT, THE TECHNOLOGY IS GOING TO FALL INTO PLACE.
>>S. SUBBIAH: I WANT TO SAY THAT FIRST AND FOREMOST IS THAT VARIOUS DIFFERENT GROUPS DOING DIFFERENT THINGS IN, COMPARED TO BEFORE, IN SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WAYS. AND I THINK THAT ALL PARTIES SHOULD BE BROUGHT INTO THE DISCUSSION. THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE DOING DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENT PLACES. THERE ARE VERY LARGE THINGS GOING ON IN ASIA, SO 100 MILLION PEOPLE EMPOWERED ALREADY.
SO I THINK UNLESS ICANN SEIZES THE CHANCE TO GET EVERYBODY TOGETHER AND WORK OUT THE POLICY ISSUES, A LOT OF THIS TECHNICAL STUFF, WE FIGURED OUT A LOT OF IT ALREADY, IDNA AND SO ON HAS GOT US MUCH CLOSER TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE BUT SOME OF THE POLICY ISSUES NEED TO BE DISCUSSED. THAT'S THE FIRST TAKE-HOME MESSAGE.
SECOND IS A MECHANISM HAS TO BE CREATED, IF ICANN IS TO BE THE FORUM, NOT EVERYBODY GO OFF AND DO THEIR OWN THING, WORK WITHIN ICANN, A MECHANISM HAS TO BE SET WITHIN ICANN THAT NO SPECIFIC FIXED POLICY SHOULD WORK IN EVERY REGION. IT SHOULD BE A FORUM AND A METHOD WHERE, JUST AS THE LANGUAGE OF THE WORLD ARE DIVERSE, CULTURES OF THE WORLD OF DIVERSE, POLICIES ARE DIFFERENT, IF YOU BRING A LANGUAGE SPACE OR SCRIPT SPACE OR GEOGRAPHICAL SPACE, WHETHER CCTLD OR GTLD, THE VARIOUS PLAYERS IN THAT SPACE HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TOGETHER WITHIN A PROCESS TO SELECT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO NEXT IN THAT SPACE. AND I THINK THAT'S -- AND THE THIRD POINT I WANT TO SAY IS DESPITE ALL THE TALK OF THOUSAND TIMES THOUSAND IS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS AND WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE FOREVER, I AM REALLY FULLY BEHIND AMADEU. THE REAL PROBLEMS WON'T FALL OUT TO BE THAT MANY. THE PEOPLE INTERESTED WILL BE WORKING TOGETHER, AND THEY WILL WORK IN THEIR INTEREST TO WORK TOGETHER, LIKE THE CJK GOT TOGETHER. AND YOU WILL FIND OUT THAT THERE'S NOT THAT MANY SCRIPTS, NOT THAT MANY LANGUAGES, NOT THAT MANY THINGS TO GO FORWARD WITH. AND THAT'S REALLY -- BUT WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS CREATE THAT FORUM AND NOT TRY TO PUSH EVERYBODY INTO THE SAME SLOT.
THANK YOU.
>>MICHEL SUIGNARD: YEAH, I WILL GO A BIT ON THE TECHNICAL SIDE TO SAY PLATFORM VENDORS AND BROWSER VENDORS DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE BUSINESS OF RESOLVING. THAT REALLY BELONGS TO THE DNS ON THE ICANN SIDE. SO WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO BE -- BECAUSE NOW WE SEE A LOT OF PLUG-INS THAT ARE TRYING TO THESE KIND OF THINGS AND SO AT SOME POINT WE GET PRESSURE TO INTEGRATE PLUG-IN FUNCTIONALITY INTO VENDOR PLATFORM, BE THAT FORM OR EVEN BROWSERS OR ANY WAY YOU INTERACT WITH THE INTERNET. THAT HAS TO BE DONE WITHIN ICANN. WE DON'T WANT APPLICATION TO BE THE SCAPEGOAT AS WE SEE DONE IN IDN TO SOME DEGREE WHERE THE PROBLEM WAS LARGELY PUSHED TO APPLICATION WITH SOME CONSEQUENCES. WE ARE NOW DEALING WITH IT.
WE DON'T WANT REALLY THAT IDN TO BE THE SAME THING.
TO A LARGE DEGREE, I MEAN, I SEE THAT WE SEE IDN IS -- .IDN, WHAT TO DO IS VERY FLUID. SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO -- IF IT WAS JUST A THING TO CREATE A COUNTRY NAME AND IT WAS LOCALIZED I WOULD SAY IN THE SCRIPT WE COULD FIND SUCH A SOLUTION, AND IF IT WAS ABSOLUTELY STABLE THAT WOULD BE ONE THING. WE COULD INTEGRATE THAT IN A PLATFORM.
BUT THE WAY I SEE IT, IT'S VERY FLUID. THERE ARE A LOT OF OPINIONS WHAT SHOULD BE DONE. SO WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE A SINGLE SOLUTION AND THE ONLY WAY TO HAVE THAT IS WE NEED TO BE DONE IN THE REGISTRY LEVEL, YOU KNOW, ON THE ROOT ON ALL THE SUBZONES. AND THAT REALLY HAS TO BE DONE BASICALLY AS -- YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE OF THE APPLICATION SIDE. THAT'S WHAT REALLY I WANT TO DO.
>>ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN: I THINK WE SHOULD USE THE INTERNET MORE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE IDN. WE SHOULD START SIMPLE AND SMALL AND THEN GROW.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD START WITH SOME TEST, PARTICULARLY WITH THE CCTLDS' COOPERATION TO TEST IDN. AND THEN GROW UP WITH THAT.
>> ERIN CHEN: I THINK THE FIRST PRIORITY IS THE USERS' REQUIREMENT. THAT'S THE FIRST PRIORITY, WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT.
AND THE SECOND IS THE CDNC PROPOSAL I THINK IS THE KIND OF PROPOSAL THAT IS -- COULD BE USED BY ICANN TO CONSIDER ABOUT HOW TO CONSTRUCT THE TEST BED MECHANISM.
AND THE THIRD ONE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE, IS THE POLICY, WHAT KIND OF POLICY WE CAN KEEP THE INTERNET ORDER.
>>LI GUANGHAO: I AGREE WITH WHAT ERIN SAYS, AND ESPECIALLY WITH WHAT (INAUDIBLE) SAYS. IT REGISTERS TECHNICAL PROBLEMS WITH ADDING NEW TLDS, IDN TLDS, WHICH IS THE POLICY ISSUE THAT CONCERNS EVERYONE THE MOST.
SO I SUGGEST WE START WITH THE SIMPLE ONE. I THINK EVERYONE AGREES THAT THE IDN PROBLEM, POLICY IDN PROBLEM, IT'S RELATIVELY SIMPLE WITH THE CCTLDS.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CCTLDS AND GTLDS TOGETHER, IT GETS MORE AND MORE COMPLEX; RIGHT? AND I THINK WHY DON'T WE JUST START WITH THE CCTLDS, AND WE LOOKING FOR A BREAKING POINT AND JUST MOVING AHEAD. AND THAT'S WHAT MY OPINION IS. THANK YOU.
>>RAM MOHAN:THANK YOU. I HAVE A FEW THOUGHTS TO SHARE.
I WORRY ABOUT MANY THINGS, AND I HAVE BEEN SHARING SOME OF THESE WORRIES WITH YOU.
BUT SPECIFICALLY HERE, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE SEGREGATION OF THE PROBLEM INTO CCTLD SPACE AND GTLD SPACE. AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S A DOMAIN SPACE AND I THINK WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS AS A DOMAIN SPACE ISSUE, NOT A CCTLD SPACE ISSUE VERSUS A GTLD SPACE ISSUE.
IN FACT, I WOULD GO SO FAR TO SAY THAT SOME OF THE LARGEST CCTLDS HAVE PROBLEMS THAT ARE SIMILAR IN SCOPE TO WHAT GTLDS HAVE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE POPULATIONS THAT USE THEIR TLDS NOT JUST WITHIN GEOGRAPHIC BORDERS.
SO I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT.
THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS IN FRONT OF US, RIGHT? SHOULD XN DASH DASH BE ADDED TO THE ROOT. SHOULD IDNS BE ALIASED USING THE DNAME PROPOSITION OR ANY OTHER PROPOSITION? SHOULD TRANSLATION BE DONE AT THE CLIENT EXCLUSIVELY? SHOULD THE SAME REGISTRANT BE THE -- SHOULD THE SAME REGISTRANT OFF THE ASCII TLD BE THE OWNER OF THE IDN TLD?
AND ALSO WHAT KIND OF SCALABILITY CONCERNS EXIST FOR AN IDN TLD?
I ACTUALLY CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION. I ENDORSE THE CREATION OF AN EXPERIMENTAL PLATFORM WHOSE INTENT IS TO STUDY THE PROBLEM OF THE IDN TLD AND TO EXPLORE THE PROS AND CONS OF AT LEAST THE TWO APPROACHES THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED HERE, AND PERHAPS MORE.
I THINK WE NEED A TASK FORCE TO BE CREATED TO HELP DO THIS, AND I SUGGEST THAT ICANN BEGIN THE TASK OF CREATING THIS TASK FORCE.
AND FINALLY, I BELIEVE THAT IN MY SPECIFIC CASE, FOR MY EMPLOYER, THAT AFILIAS SHOULD BE THE HOME OF .INFO, WHETHER IT'S REPRESENTED IN ENGLISH OR TAMIL OR ARABIC OR ANOTHER LANGUAGE SCRIPT.
>>MICHAEL EVERSON: AS FAR AS THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DOING WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN GETTING IDNS SAFE AND WORKING, I THINK THAT EVERYTHING IS WELL IN HAND. SO I WILL CONFINE MYSELF TO THE LINGUISTIC -- TO A LINGUISTIC ASPECT.
AS I SAID BEFORE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE IT NOW BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT IT, IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE MORE AND MORE URGENT, AS ICANN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSIGNING THESE THINGS, ICANN SHOULD BE THE ORGANIZATION WHICH MAINTAINS REGISTRIES OF THE TRANSLATIONS OF THE CCTLD INTO OTHER SCRIPTS. THERE MAY BE SOME DIFFICULTIES IN SORTING OUT SOME OF THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT -- WHAT .IE WILL BE IN ARABIC SCRIPT BECAUSE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE LANGUAGE WHICH DEALS WITH THAT. SO THERE MAY BE SOME DIFFICULTIES WITH DOING THAT. BUT FOR SOME OF THEM, FOR THE CHINESE, IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE SO DIFFICULT.
I THINK THAT WE SHOULD CERTAINLY TALK ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE IN THE ABSENCE OF A COHERENT POLICY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE CONFUSION AND CONFUSION THAT AFFECTS THE END USERS WHO WON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.
SO I THINK THAT, FOR INSTANCE, IF WE HAD -- IF WE HAD THE LIST AND WE HAD, SAY, CHINA MAKE A LIST OF THESE THINGS, THEN IF IN ANOTHER COUNTRY WHEN THEY WANTED TO IMPLEMENT CHINESE DOMAIN NAMES FOR THAT PARTICULAR CCTLD, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO GO TO A PRE-EXISTING LIST AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, MAKING IT UP ON THEIR OWN.
>>CARY KARP: THE QUEUE IS CLOSED, SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO -- I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DESIGNATE YOU HONORARY PANEL MEMBER AND ALLOW YOU YOUR 90 SECONDS.
>>GERVASE MARKHAM: OKAY. I THINK, ACTUALLY, THAT THE POINT OF THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM CNNIC THAT THERE IS THIS SPLIT BETWEEN CCTLD REQUIREMENTS AND GTLD REQUIREMENTS IS ACTUALLY QUITE A GOOD ONE. IT SEEMS TO ME ALSO THERE ARE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS HERE.
WHAT THE CCTLDS SEEM TO WANT, IF THE CHINESE AND TAIWANESE ARE ANY REPRESENTATIVE IS THEY WANT ONE OR A SMALL HANDFUL OF NEW, AS IN NEW NAME SPACE, NOT ALIASED, TLDS IN THEIR LANGUAGE.
AND THAT WOULD USE AS A TECHNICAL MECHANISM THE ADDITION OF XN HYPHEN HYPHEN TO THE ROOT WHICH IS A MECHANISM AT LEAST WE BELIEVE HAS FEWER TECHNICAL ISSUES WITH IT THAN DNAME.
AND THEREFORE, BECAUSE OF THE SORT OF LIMITED SCOPE OF THAT AND THE LIMITED TECHNICAL INCREASE, THAT DOES SEEM LIKE A VERY GOOD PLACE TO START.
AT THE OTHER OF THE SCALE IS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE GTLDS WHO WOULD LIKE, AS RAM CLEARLY SAID AND AS I THINK AS THE VERISIGN CHAP IMPLIED, TO HAVE .INFO IN VARIOUS DIFFERENT LANGUAGES AND SCRIPTS, NUMBERS INDETERMINATE BECAUSE, OF COURSE, A SCRIPT IS NOT THE SAME AS A LANGUAGE. MULTIPLE LANGUAGES PER SCRIPT, AS MICHAEL WAS SAYING, IN DIFFERENT WAYS, ALL OF THEM PERHAPS ALIAS TO .INFO, SO PEOPLE CAN HAVE .INFO NAMES IN ALL OF THESE SCRIPTS. WHEREAS, THAT'S A WORTHY GOAL, IT INVOLVES NOT ANY MORE DIFFICULT TECHNICAL SOLUTION BUT A GREAT DEAL OF MORE DIFFICULT POLITICAL SOLUTIONS.
AND THEREFORE, IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT OBVIOUSLY THE FIRST STAGE IS THE TEST BED, AND THERE IS NO REASON WHY WE SHOULDN'T TEST BOTH SOLUTIONS TOGETHER.
BUT I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT SOLVING THE LIMITED SIMPLER CCTLD PROBLEM AS THE FIRST STAGE OF DEPLOYMENT OF IDN AT THE TOP LEVEL IN THE REAL WORLD.
I THINK THAT THAT DOES SEEM, FROM THE DISCUSSION, TO BE THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO MOVE IN.
>>CARY KARP: VINT, THERE'S ACTUALLY NOTHING SAID DURING THIS ROUND THAT WOULD ASTONISH YOU, AND I SUSPECT THAT ONE THING THAT WE MIGHT REGARD AS THE CONCLUDING CONSIDERATION IS, YES, INDEED, THERE ARE CLEAR CASES WHERE IT IS BOTH JUSTIFIED AND EASY TO ENTER A VERNACULAR EQUIVALENT OF AN ISO 3166 STRING DIRECTLY INTO THE ROOT. DO WE DO THAT AS THE NEXT STEP? DO WE NONETHELESS HAVE AN INTERVENING TIME LIMITED LABORATORY? WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT WE TRIED IT BEFORE WE TURN IT INTO FULL PRODUCTION. DO WE DO THESE THINGS IN PARALLEL?
THE ACTUAL TASK OF STRUCTURING THE EXPERIMENT, WHAT WILL THE LABORATORY DO, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK CAN EASILY BE SUGGESTED TO BE PUT IN FRONT OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE. SOME CCS, G PARTICIPATION, IT IS A SINGLE NAME CASE, AND AGAIN THE CC CASE IS EASY COMPARED TO THE G CASE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE G CASE IS TRIVIAL. IT ACTUALLY MEANS THAT'S WHERE THE CHALLENGES.
SO WITHOUT ASKING FOR ANY ANSWERS, IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE THE FINAL COMMENT ON ALL OF THIS, WE WILL ALL LEAVE THE ROOM WITH SOME SENSE OF DIRECTION.
>>VINT CERF: THAT'S LAYING UPON ME A CERTAIN CLAIRVOYANCE WHICH I DON'T THINK I OWN.
FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU DO THE LABORATORY, IT STRIKES ME AS USEFUL TO DO BOTH TESTS, TO DO A DNAME TEST AS WELL AS THE ENTRY OF XN DASH DASH.
I THINK THAT I'VE BECOME LESS ENAMORED OF THE DNAME, BUT LET ME SAY WHY.
ONE PLACE WHERE IT SOUNDS VERY PECULIAR IS THAT IF ALL THE DNAME SUCCEEDED IN DOING IS CREATING A VARYING LANGUAGE TERM FOR A PARTICULAR TLD -- LET'S TAKE INFO AS THE EXAMPLE -- IF I HAD TEN DIFFERENT WAYS OF SAYING INFO AND I HAD TEN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES IN WHICH IT'S EXPRESSED AND I CREATE THE TEN DNAME EQUIVALENTS, ALL I'VE DONE IS TO DEAL WITH THE TOP-LEVEL EXPRESSION OF THAT PARTICULAR TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN IN A SET OF DIFFERENT LANGUAGES.
THE AUTOMATIC BINDING TO ALL SECOND-LEVEL DOMAINS PRODUCES A MIXED DOMAIN NAME, THE WHATEVER IT WAS WE CALLED POLY-IDN OR SOMETHING.
AND I'VE -- IN LISTENING TO A LOT OF THE COMMENTARY, I'M BECOMING MORE PERSUADED THAT THAT'S LESS USEFUL THAN IT MIGHT SEEM ON THE SURFACE.
THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THE TESTS SHOULDN'T BE DONE.
WE MIGHT WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER DNAME IS USEFUL IN ANY CONTEXT AT ALL RELATED TO DOMAIN NAMES.
WITH REGARD TO THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE GTLD AND CCTLD ALTERNATIVES, I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND MORE -- I DO UNDERSTAND THE SIMPLE ARGUMENT, I WANT ONE ADDITIONAL TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN IN SOME -- I THINK I WANT TO SAY "IN SOME LANGUAGE," ALTHOUGH THIS IS VERY PECULIAR FOR SYMBOLS.
.IE ISN'T A LANGUAGE IN ANY LANGUAGE AT ALL, IT'S JUST REPRESENTED IN A SCRIPT.
AND, IN FACT, ONE MIGHT MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT IF FOR ALL THOSE LANGUAGES THAT SHARED THE SAME SCRIPT IN WHICH THIS SYMBOL IS TO BE REPRESENTED, YOU MIGHT EVEN BE ABLE TO FIND A PARTICULAR EXPRESSION OF THAT SYMBOL THAT DOESN'T DO DAMAGE TO ANY OF THE LANGUAGES THAT SHARE THAT SCRIPT BECAUSE IT'S JUST A SYMBOL AS OPPOSED TO A REAL WORD.
SO I'M JUST LOOKING FOR WAYS TO SIMPLIFY THIS PROBLEM A LITTLE BIT.
I'M NOT SURE THAT I COULD GIVE YOU A DEFINITE SENSE THAT THE BOARD, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD BE PERSUADED TO INTRODUCE ONE ADDITIONAL TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN FOR EVERY COUNTRY CODE.
BUT I THINK AS LONG AS THERE ARE ASSURANCES FROM THE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY THAT DOESN'T DO DAMAGE, IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE THAT.
AND AS I SAID IN MY OPENING REMARKS, I AM LOOKING FOR AND I AM VERY RECEPTIVE TO, AND I BELIEVE THE BOARD IS AS WELL, STEPS THAT WE CAN TAKE THAT WILL REALLY MAKE IDNS USEFUL IN THE INTERNET.

>>CARY KARP: OKAY.
I'M -- WITH THAT, I'M SURE THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT REMAIN TO BE SAID.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HAVE TWO MORE SESSIONS IN THIS WORKSHOP.
COFFEE IS NOT READY FOR US QUITE YET.
NONETHELESS, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY REALLY WANTS TO SIT HERE FOR 15 MINUTES WAITING.
SO WE WILL RECONVENE AT 5:00, WHICH IS WHEN WE INTENDED TO START THE SECOND SESSION, AND COFFEE WILL BECOME AVAILABLE WHEN IT BECOMES AVAILABLE.
WE'VE ASKED THEM, PLEASE, TO HURRY UP.
THANK YOU ALL VERY, VERY MUCH.
(APPLAUSE.)
(BREAK.)











>>TINA DAM: IF I CAN GET THE ATTENTION OF THE FLOOR, WE WILL BE STARTING IN JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THE PRESENTATIONS UP ON THE SCREEN.
SO WE'RE STARTING THE SECOND SESSION.
AND THE FOCUS IS GOING TO BE CHANGED FROM IDN AT THE TOP LEVEL TO IDN AT THE SECOND LEVEL.
THERE WILL BE SIX PRESENTATIONS.
IT'S GOING TO BE SHORT PRESENTATIONS, FIVE TO TEN MINUTES.
AND AFTER THAT, WE WILL OPEN THE PANEL FOR DISCUSSIONS ON THE VARIOUS TOPICS AND ALSO OPEN THE Q AND A.
THE JABBER ROOM IS STILL AVAILABLE FOR THOSE WITH REMOTE PARTICIPATION, AND THE ADDRESS IS IDN-ROOM@CONFERENCE.ICANN.ORG.
SO I'M GOING TO GIVE THE FIRST PRESENTATION.
AND I GUESS I BETTER INTRODUCE MYSELF.
MY NAME IS TINA DAM.
I AM THE CHIEF GTLD REGISTRY LIAISON WITH ICANN AND ALSO WORKING ON THE TOPICS OF IDNS.
I'M ALSO GOING TO ASK THE REST OF THE SPEAKERS TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES BEFORE THEIR PRESENTATION.
WE'RE ALMOST ON TIME FOR THIS WORKSHOP, SO WE BETTER JUST GET STARTED.
MY PRESENTATION IS GOING TO FOCUS ON THE RECENT REVISION OF THE IDN GUIDELINES THAT WAS ANNOUNCED NOT SO LONG AGO.
WE WENT FROM VERSION 1.0 TO 2.0.
THE PROCESS FOR THAT STARTED -- WELL, THE DISCUSSION STARTED BEFORE THE LUXEMBOURG WORKSHOP FOR IDNS.
BUT THAT WAS REALLY THE FIRST ICANN-RELATED PUBLIC SESSION WHERE THAT TOPIC WAS BEING DISCUSSED.
IT WAS PRIMARILY DUE TO SOME OF THE SPOOFING ISSUES THAT HAS BEEN APPARENT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, IF NOT MORE, THAT BROUGHT THE REQUEST IN FROM THE COMMUNITY, AND IN PARTICULAR, FROM THE GTLD REGISTRIES, BECAUSE THE IDN GUIDELINES APPLY DIRECTLY TO THEM IN THEIR IMPLEMENTATION OF IDNS AT THE SECOND LEVEL.
I'M JUST GOING TO RESTATE THE LUXEMBOURG WORKSHOP RESULTS.
SOME OF THE KEY ITEMS THAT WAS AGREED ON ON THE PANEL IN THAT WORKSHOP WAS THAT IT MUST -- WHEN YOU DO THE REVISION OF THE IDN GUIDELINES, IT MUST MAXIMIZE THE ABILITY OF A REGISTRY TO SUPPORT IDNS, AND IT MUST MINIMIZE THE ABILITY FOR THE ABUSE.
SO THAT WAS THE KEY REASON FOR THE REVISION.
ALSO, ONE OF THE OTHER KEY RESULTS THAT CAME OUT OF LUXEMBOURG WAS THAT POLICIES NEEDED TO BE ALLOWED TO BE BASED ON SCRIPTS AND NOT JUST ON LANGUAGES.
SO THOSE TWO THINGS WERE KEY ISSUES FROM THE WORKSHOP.
THEN THE GTLD REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY ALSO HAD A MEETING ON IDNS TALKING ABOUT THEIR IMPLEMENTATION FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES.
AND THEY AGREED, AMONG A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS, THE FOLLOWING: THEY WILL -- THAT THE GTLD REGISTRIES WILL FOLLOW ESTABLISHED AUTHORITATIVE LANGUAGE TABLES WHEN THESE EXIST, AND THEY WON'T PERMIT THE COMMINGLING OF SCRIPTS IN A DOMAIN LABEL.
THERE HAS BEEN VARIOUS OTHER DISCUSSIONS ON THIS TOPIC, ON DEVELOPMENT OF TABLES, AND DECISIONS ON WHO ARE AUTHORITATIVE FOR DEVELOPING THESE TABLES IS NEEDED.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S CONTINUED BEING WORKED ON.
BUT BACK TO THE REVISION OF THE GUIDELINES.
FOLLOWING LUXEMBOURG, WE FORMED A WORKING GROUP OF CCNSO AND GTLD CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS.
IT SHOULD BE (INAUDIBLE) TO NOTICE THAT VERSION 1 OF THE GUIDELINES DIRECTED THE REVISION TO TAKE PLACE BETWEEN THE IDN REGISTRIES AND ICANN.
SO THE WORKING GROUP WAS FORMED.
THEY TOOK THE KEY POINTS OUT OF LUXEMBOURG AND CREATED A DRAFT REVISION FOR -- THAT WAS POSTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
NOTIFICATION OF THIS DRAFT WAS PROVIDED TO CONSTITUENCIES, COMMITTEES, IDN MAILING LISTS.
AS MUCH AS WE COULD GET THE NOTIFICATIONS OUT TO THE COMMUNITY, WE DID.
AND WE ALLOWED FOR A 30-DAY COMMENT PERIOD VIA A PUBLIC FORUM.
SO AFTER THAT, ALL OF THE COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED WERE ADDED TO THE DRAFT REVISION.
AND THAT FORMED THE FINAL VERSION 2.0.
CERTAINLY WE HAD COMMENTS THAT WAS REACHING FURTHER THAN THE FRAMEWORK OF WHERE THE IDN GUIDELINES ARE RIGHT NOW.
AND THESE COMMENTS ARE STILL BEING CONSIDERED AND ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE NEXT PROCESS.
WE'RE PASSING THE GUIDELINES ON TO A MUCH BROADER STATEMENT.
THE WORKING GROUP ALSO POSTED A SUMMARY OF THE WORK THAT THEY'D BEEN DOING.
AND AFTER THAT, THEY PASSED THE FINAL VERSION ON TO ICANN BOARD ENDORSEMENT.
AND THE ICANN BOARD GAVE THEIR ENDORSEMENT AS A TEMPORARY ENDORSEMENT ON THE 8TH OF NOVEMBER.
AND THEY REQUESTED A COUPLE OF THINGS.
FIRST OF ALL, THEY REQUESTED THE WORKING GROUP TO RETURN TO THE BOARD WITH SPECIFIC IDN IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE THE ICANN MEETING IN MOROCCO.
AND THAT'S GOING TO BE IN JUNE 2006.
THEY ALSO SUPPORTED THE WORKING GROUP'S SUGGESTION TO CONTINUE WORKING ON THE GUIDELINES AND REFRAME THEM COMPLETELY TOWARDS THE BCP.
AND RAM IS GOING TO SPEAK AFTER ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY THAT IS AND HOW THAT IS GOING TO WORK.
BUT THE IMPORTANT PART IS THAT THIS SESSION IS A SESSION WHERE WE WILL TRY TO GET SOME RECOMMENDATIONS BACK TO THE BOARD, AS THEY REQUESTED, AS A FIRST STEP OF ANSWERING THEIR REQUEST.
AND THAT IS REALLY THE CORE OF MY PRESENTATION.
I HAVE ONE MORE SLIDE, AND IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED AT THE GUIDELINES, BUT IT HAS TO DO WITH THE IDN REGISTRY THAT'S AVAILABLE AT IANA RIGHT NOW.
AND, FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU HAVEN'T FOLLOWED THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS REGISTRY IN DETAIL PREVIOUSLY, THIS IS NOT A -- THIS IS NOT A NORMAL IANA REGISTRY; THIS IS A REGISTRY THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR IDN TABLES TO BE REGISTERED AND POSTED SO THAT EVERYBODY HAS ACCESS TO THEM.
IT'S BASICALLY TO HAVE A SINGLE DEPOSITORY OF THAT.
THE PREVIOUS IDN COMMITTEE LAUNCHED ITS REGISTRY, AND WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT IN FRONT OF THE CURRENT PRESIDENT'S IDN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO REVISE THIS REGISTRY.
WE'VE DONE ONE THING, THOUGH, AND THAT IS THAT WE'VE ALLOWED FOR SCRIPT-BASED TABLES IN ADDITION TO THE LANGUAGE-BASED TABLES, AS -- MAKING THAT AVAILABLE FOR REGISTRIES WHO ARE SUBMITTING SCRIPT-BASED TABLES.
WE RECEIVED OTHER COMMUNITY REQUESTS IN TERMS OF CHANGING THE NAME OF THE REGISTRY, AS IT'S A LITTLE BIT MISLEADING BECAUSE IT HAS THE TERM "LANGUAGE" IN THE NAME.
SOME BETTER SEARCH FUNCTIONALITY.
AND, BASICALLY, FUNCTIONALITY THAT RELATES TO THE DISPLAY AND IDENTIFICATION OF THESE TABLES.
NOW, ALL OF THESE COMMUNITY REQUESTS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEING PASSED ON TO THE PRESIDENT'S IDN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO REVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS BACK TO ICANN AND THE PRESIDENT ON HOW TO IMPLEMENT THOSE CHANGES.
SO THAT IS ALL FOR ME.
AND I'M GOING TO PASS TO RAM.
>>RAM MOHAN: THANK YOU, TINA.
I'M RAM MOHAN, I'M THE CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER FOR AFILIAS.
I DO NOT HAVE A PRESENTATION, ONLY PREPARED COMMENTS, AND THEY'RE BRIEF.
I WAS A MEMBER OF THE ORIGINAL IDN GUIDELINES TEAM, AS WELL AS A MEMBER OF THE REVISED GUIDELINES TEAM.
SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL THE WORKSHOP THAT WE HAD IN LUXEMBOURG WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT THE EXISTING IDN GUIDELINES.
AND A NUMBER OF US, SOME OF WHOM -- SOME OF THE AUTHORS OF THE 2.0 GUIDELINES ARE ACTUALLY HERE ON STAGE.
BUT A NUMBER OF US HAVE BEEN RECEIVING SPECIFIC FEEDBACK THAT THE ORIGINAL 1.0 VERSION OF THE GUIDELINES WERE SIGNIFICANTLY INADEQUATE AND, IN FACT, HAD SERIOUS ISSUES WHEN IT CAME TO SECURITY.
SO AS A RESULT, WE FORMED THIS GROUP, CREATED THE 2.0 GUIDELINES, AND ASKED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
AND I PERSONALLY WAS REALLY GLAD TO SEE THE WIDE RANGE OF COMMENTS THAT CAME BACK.
AND FROM FOLKS AS DIVERSE AS APPLICATION DEVELOPERS, BROWSER MANUFACTURERS, THE UNICODE CONSORTIUM, LINGUISTS, TECHNOLOGISTS, CCTLD ORGANIZING BODIES, IDN EXPERTS.
THERE WAS JUST A BROAD RANGE OF INTERNATIONAL EXPERTISE THAT CAME TO BEAR AND PROVIDED VERY DEEP AND SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE MANY SHORTFALLS THAT WERE YET TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE 2.0 GUIDELINES AS HAD BEEN PUBLISHED.
SOME OF THE KEY POINTS, THE GUIDELINES DO NOT USE NORMATIVE LANGUAGE.
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS FOR THE ADOPTION OF THESE GUIDELINES DON'T REALLY EXIST.
AND IF YOU'RE AN APPLICATION DEVELOPER, HAVING GUIDELINES ARE REALLY NOT VERY USEFUL, BECAUSE ANYBODY CAN JUST IGNORE THEM.
AND ALSO, BOTH GTLDS AND CCTLDS MAY OR MAY NOT FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES.
AND ACROSS THE BOARD, INDICATED A DESIRE TO CREATE -- OR TO BEGIN THE PROCESS TO CREATE A NORMATIVE DOCUMENT THAT WOULD RESULT IN A STANDARDS TRACK EFFORT WHICH COULD THEN BE ADOPTABLE BY APPLICATION DEVELOPERS, APPLICABLE TO REGISTRIES, WHETHER THEY'RE CCTLD OR GTLD, AND AT THE SAME TIME UNDERGO TECHNICAL REVIEW BY A GROUP OF PEERS AND EXPERTS.
AND THIS RESULTED IN THE GROUP DECIDING THAT THE GUIDELINES AS THEY EXIST, VERSION 2.0 OF THE GUIDELINES, WOULD BE KIND OF END OF LIFE FOR THESE PRINCIPLES, IF YOU WILL, AS GUIDELINES, AND TO MOVE IT TO A BCP PROCESS IN THE IETF THAT WOULD ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NORMATIVE DOCUMENT THAT UNDERGOES PEER REVIEW AND IS, UPON APPROVAL, ACTUALLY ADOPTABLE ACROSS THE BOARD.
THE INTENT IS TO LOOK THROUGH THE SPECIFIC COMMENTS THAT HAVE COME THROUGH AND THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR ALL TO READ ON THE PUBLIC FORUM FOR THE IDN GUIDELINES, TO HAVE THE GROUP THAT FORMED THE ORIGINAL GUIDE- -- TO WORK WITH THE GROUP THAT WORKED ON GUIDELINES 2.0, AS WELL AS OTHERS, AS NEEDED, AND TO BEGIN WORK ON CREATION OF A WELL-VETTED BCP-TRACK DOCUMENT WHICH WOULD THEN GET THROUGH THE -- START TO WORK THROUGH THE IETF PROCESS.
THERE IS NOT A SPECIFIC TIME LINE THAT HAS YET BEEN DEFINED, BUT THERE IS A CLEAR DESIRE AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, INCLUDING THOSE WHO HAVE PROVIDED COMMENTARY, THAT THIS PROCESS OF CONVERTING GUIDELINES INTO SOMETHING THAT IS MORE NORMATIVE TAKE PLACE IN SIX MONTHS OR NINE MONTHS, IN THAT TIME FRAME, GENERAL RANGE.
SO THAT'S THE PLACE WHERE WE ARE AT.
I'VE -- I'M HELPING COORDINATE THAT EFFORT.
BUT I -- SO I'LL BE -- I WILL LIKELY BE THE PERSON HOLDING THE PEN, BUT NOT THE PERSON WITH ALL THE THOUGHTS ON IT.
AND WE'RE WORKING IN A COMMUNITY-BASED EFFORT TO TRY AND GET TO A PLACE WHERE WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ONLY SOLID, BUT IS ALSO -- THAT HAS TEETH TO IT.
SO THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.

>>TINA DAM: MARK DAVIS.
>>MARK DAVIS: OKAY.
MY NAME IS MARK DAVIS.
I'M --
>> MICROPHONE.
>>MARK DAVIS: OH. IS THAT BETTER?
MY NAME'S MARK DAVIS.
I'M PRESIDENT OF THE UNICODE CONSORTIUM AND THE CHIEF SOFTWARE GLOBALIZATION ARCHITECTURE AT IBM.
AND I'LL BE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE SECURITY ISSUES THAT WE'RE CONCERNED WITH.
A BRIEF BIT ABOUT THE UNICODE CONSORTIUM -- I'LL TRY TO RUSH THROUGH THESE SLIDES A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATION IN TIME.
I THINK MOST PEOPLE HERE ARE FAIRLY FAMILIAR WITH THE UNICODE CONSORTIUM, SO I WON'T SPELL IT OUT.
BUT THESE WILL BE IN THE SLIDES THAT ARE ON THE WEB.
ONE OF THE CHIEF ISSUES HAVING TO DO WITH SECURITY IS WHERE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PERCEPTIONS AS FAR AS TWO STRINGS OR TWO TOKENS OR TWO IDENTIFIERS AS FAR AS IDENTITY.
THAT'S ONE OF THE KEY PROBLEMS.
IT'S NOT THE ONLY PROBLEM, BUT IT'S ONE OF THE KEY PROBLEMS WE'RE FACED WITH, IS WHERE SYSTEM A THINKS THAT TWO STRINGS ARE THE SAME, AND SYSTEM B THINKS THAT TWO STRINGS ARE DIFFERENT.
THE SIMPLE CASE IN IDN IS YOU GET AN E-MAIL ABOUT YOUR PAYPAL.COM ACCOUNT, YOU CLICK ON THE LINK.
YOU CAREFULLY EXAMINE YOUR BROWSER'S ADDRESS BOX.
IT SAYS PAYPAL.COM, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO A SPOOF SITE.
THE "P" WAS A CYRILLIC "P."
THE PROBLEM IS YOU, THE PERSON WHO'S AUTHORIZING IT, SYSTEM A, THINK THEY'RE THE SAME.
THE DNS SYSTEM THINKS THEY'RE DIFFERENT.
EXAMPLES OF PROBLEMS THAT YOU CAN FIND IN UNICODE ARE THE ONE I JUST INTRODUCED, THE "P" VERSUS THE SIMILAR-LOOKING CHARACTER IN CYRILLIC.
THERE ARE SEQUENCES, "RN" CAN LOOK JUST LIKE "M."
THERE ARE ESPECIALLY SEQUENCES IN INDIC LANGUAGES, A WHOLE HOST OF SEQUENCES.
YOU HAVE CASES LIKE "S" WITH AN "O" WITH A SLASH THROUGH IT VERSUS "S" WITH AN "O" FOLLOWED BY AN ACCENT THAT OVERLAYS IT AND LOOKS LIKE THE SLASH.
AND THEN YOU HAVE RENDERING SUPPORT.
IF YOU HAVE AN A UMLAUT WITH TWO UMLAUTS, IF YOUR RENDERING SYSTEM DOESN'T ACCURATE RENDER THEM, THEN THEY'LL LOOK THE SAME.
YOU HAVE AN "E" WITH AN "L."
IN THIS CASE, THIS IS ACTUALLY JUST RENDERED BY THE OPERATING SYSTEM.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S AN "E" WITH A LOWER DOT.
IT'S ACTUALLY AN E FOLLOWED BY AN L WITH A LOWER DOT.
AND THE LOWER DOT APPEARS UNDERNEATH THE "E."
OTHER EXAMPLES ARE NUMBERS.
HERE'S A GOOD CASE WHERE 89 IS EQUAL TO 42.
IN BENGALI, THE NUMBER 4 LOOKS AN AWFUL LOT LIKE AN 8.
IN ORIYA, THE NUMBER FOR 2 LOOKS A LOT LIKE A 9.
AND YOU CAN FIND A WHOLE HOST OF CASES LIKE THIS.
THERE ARE ALSO SYNTAX SPOOFING WHERE YOU CAN USE THE FACT THAT CHARACTERS HAVE VERY SPECIAL MEANING IN A CONTEXT, LIKE URLS, IN ORDER TO SPOOF THINGS.
THERE'S A CHARACTER THAT LOOKS VERY MUCH LIKE A SLASH.
AND SO YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO EXAMPLE.ORG, SLASH, SOMETHING, SOMETHING, SOMETHING, AND IT TURNS OUT YOU'RE GOING TO THE WRONG PLACE BECAUSE THE SLASH WASN'T REALLY A SLASH.
NOW, THIS IS ALSO POSSIBLE WITHOUT UNICODE, I'M SURE YOU'VE ALL GOTTEN SPAM WHERE YOU'VE GOT AN IP ADDRESS, SLASH, AMAZON.COM, AND PRETENDING TO BE FROM AMAZON, TALKING ABOUT YOUR ACCOUNT.
THE UNICODE CONSORTIUM HAS PUT TOGETHER A DOCUMENT WHICH IS CALLED UTR NUMBER 36, SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS.
IT PERTAINS TO GENERAL SECURITY ISSUES, NOT JUST IDN.
THE FIRST VERSION WAS APPROVED IN MID-2005, AND THE SECOND VERSION IS IN PROGRESS.
THE URL IS HERE AND WILL BE UP ON THE WEB SITE.
IT DESCRIBES THE PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDS THE BEST PRACTICES FOR USERS, PROGRAMMERS, USER AGENTS, REGISTRIES, AND REGISTRARS.
A SEPARATE DOCUMENT, NUMBER 39, IS SECURITY MECHANISMS, SUPPLIES DATA AND ALGORITHMS FOR IMPLEMENTATIONS TO DEAL WITH AND IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
IT ALSO PROVIDES FOR A RESTRICTED CHARACTER REPERTOIRE BASED UPON THE UNICODE IDENTIFIER PROFILE. AND IT INTERSECTS WITH NAMEPREP BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME AS NAMEPREP. AND IT ALSO PROVIDES FOR INFORMATION FOR MAPPING FROM CHARACTERS TO SCRIPTS AND TO CONFUSABLE CHARACTERS.
ONE THING THAT MAY NOT BE CLEAR IS, THE CURRENT NAMEPREP IS NOT THE SAME AS THE RECOMMENDED UNICODE IDENTIFIERS.
THE NAMEPREP IS GIVEN BY THE GREEN CIRCLE.
YOU CAN SEE ON THE BOARD.
AND IT'S BASED UPON UNICODE 3.2.
AND IT CONTAINS A LARGE NUMBER OF SYMBOLS AND NON-MODERN CHARACTERS WHICH ARE NOT -- WHICH WE'RE NOT INITIALLY RECOMMENDING FOR USE IN DOMAIN NAMES.
NOW, THERE'S A BIG INTERSECTION.
THAT ACCOUNTS TO A TOTAL -- ACTUALLY, IT'S A TOTAL OF 52,842 CHARACTERS.
THE -- THERE'S A LARGE INTERSECTION WITH WHAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING, WHICH ARE 37,000 CHARACTERS.
AND THEN THERE IS UNICODE 5.0, WHICH IS NEARING RELEASE.
AND THAT ADDS, INCLUDING UNICODE 4.1 AND UNICODE 4.0, ADDS A TOTAL OF 2800 CHARACTERS. AND WE CAN'T FORGET THAT THERE WILL BE FUTURE VERSIONS OF THE UNICODE STANDARD WITH ADDITIONAL CHARACTERS IN THE FUTURE.
SO NAMEPREP NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST MODIFIED TO INCLUDE THE CHARACTERS THAT PEOPLE NEED FROM THEIR LANGUAGES GOING FORWARD.
THERE'S A SEPARATE ISSUE OF WHETHER NAMEPREP ITSELF NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED TO REDUCE THE CHARACTER SET OR WHETHER THAT'S BUILT INTO GUIDELINES OR RECOMMENDATIONS ON TOP OF NAMEPREP.
AMONG THE GUIDELINES, THE DOCUMENTS DEFINE A SET OF RESTRICTION LEVELS WHICH WE ARE RECOMMENDING.
THE PERTINENT LEVELS ARE GIVEN HERE.
LEVEL 2 IS HIGHLY RESTRICTIVE.
ALL OF THE CHARACTERS HAVE TO COME FROM A SINGLE SCRIPT OR FROM LIMITED COMBINATIONS WHICH YOU SEE THERE.
AND THAT NO CHARACTERS CAN BE OUTSIDE OF THE IDENTIFIER PROFILE.
THIS IDENTIFIER PROFILE INCLUDES LETTERS AND NUMBERS, BUT IT EXCLUDES SYMBOLS, PUNCTUATION, ET CETERA.
MODERATELY RESTRICTIVE IS ONE LEVEL UP, ALLOWS LATIN WITH OTHER SCRIPTS EXCEPT FOR CYRILLIC, GREEK, AND CHEROKEE.
THIS IS IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT LATIN IS SO WIDESPREAD THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
THE FOURTH LEVEL IS MINIMALLY RESTRICTIVE, WHICH ALLOWS ARBITRARY MIXTURES OF SCRIPTS.
BUT ALL OF THESE LEVELS ARE SUBJECT ALSO TO RESTRICTIONS ON CONFUSABLES.
THE ICANN GUIDELINES, VERSION 2, WERE A DEFINITE IMPROVEMENT ON VERSION 1, AND THE CONSORTIUM WELCOMED THEIR ISSUANCE.
THEY DO NEED NEW REVISION, AND WE BELIEVE THEY NEED NEW REVISION SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
THERE WERE SOME PROCEDURAL ISSUES WE FELT COULD BE ADDRESSED BETTER IN THE FUTURE IN TERMS OF ALLOWING SUFFICIENT TIME FOR REVIEW, FOR DISPOSITION OF COMMENTS, AND FOR MULTIPLE CYCLES OF PUBLIC REVIEW.
TECHNICALLY, ANY SUCH GUIDELINES, WHETHER THEY'RE NORMATIVE OR NOT, NEED TO BE MUCH CLEARER AND HAVE A MUCH CLEARER STRUCTURE SO THAT THE EXACT IMPLICATIONS OF A CLAIM TO ADHERE TO THOSE GUIDELINES ARE MEASURABLE.
RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T FIND THAT THE CURRENT ONES ARE VERY USEFUL FOR SECURITY.
NUMBER -- GUIDELINE NUMBER 3 HAS FAR TOO MANY LOOPHOLES.
NUMBER 4 IS TOO PERMISSIVE AND NOT WELL-DEFINED.
AND NUMBER 5 WE BELIEVE SHOULD USE THE POST-NAMEPREP'ED FORM.
I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO GO INTO THESE IN DETAIL. TINA? I HAVE A COUPLE MORE SLIDES. DO I HAVE ENOUGH TIME FOR THAT?
>>TINA DAM: IF YOU CAN MAKE A QUICK SUMMARY OF THEM, SURE.
>>MARK DAVIS: I WILL BE VERY QUICK. THE GUIDELINES JUST NEED SOME REWORK SO THEY CAN BE CLEARER AND CAN BE APPLIED MUCH MORE EASILY AND CAN BE TESTED.
THERE ARE SOME COMMENTS PEOPLE WILL FIND IN THE DOCUMENT, BOLT ON THE SCRIPT RESTRICTIONS, ON THE DISALLOWED SYMBOLS, AND ON GUIDELINE 5, WHICH IS IMPORTANT, IS THAT WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT ONLY THE OUTPUT UNICODE REPRESENTATION AFTER MAPPING AND NORMALIZATION BE USED; OTHERWISE, IT ALLOWS MANY MORE VISUALLY CONFUSABLE CHARACTERS.
THE UNICODE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE THAT NUMBER 3 BE WRITTEN INSTEAD IN TERMS OF REQUIRING THE PUBLIC DOCUMENTATION OF THE RESTRICTION LEVELS BEING IMPOSED, AND THE PUBLIC DOCUMENTATION OF THE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ON CONFUSABLES THAT ARE USED.
THE GUIDELINE 4 SHOULD BE RECAST AS AN INCLUSIVE AS A POSITIVE LIST OF THOSE CHARACTERS THAT ARE INCLUDED, NOT A VAGUE DESCRIPTION OF THOSE CHARACTERS WHICH ARE EXCLUDED.
AND BASED UPON THE IDN SECURITY PROFILE, WHICH WE -- IS A PROFILE OF THE UNICODE IDENTIFIERS.
AND NUMBER 5, TO USE THE NAMEPREP NORMALIZED UNICODE FORMAT OUTPUT.
AND THEN OF COURSE WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT ICANN WORK WITH THE IETF TO UPDATE NAMEPREP TO UNICODE 5.0 SO THAT PEOPLE USING CHARACTERS THAT WERE NOT IN 3.2 ARE NOT DISADVANTAGED.
I'LL CUT IT THERE.
>>TINA DAM: THANK YOU. AND WE ARE GOING TO PASS THE WORD ON TO SIAVASH SHAHSHAHANI, AND I APOLOGIZE.
SIAVASH SHAHSHAHANI: I AM ACTUALLY SUBSTITUTING FOR OUR TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, ALIREZA SALEH, WHO WAS NOT GIVEN A VISA TO COME.
APPARENTLY, THE CANADIAN CONSULATE IN TEHRAN BELIEVES THE I.T. MARKET IN CANADA IS SO YOUNG, ALL YOUNG TECHNICAL PEOPLE ARE POTENTIAL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. HE WAS NOT GIVING ANY VISAS SO I AM PINCH HITTING FOR HIM.
>> HOW ABOUT YOU?
>>SIAVASH SHAHSHAHANI: I GUESS I AM TOO OLD TO BE A POTENTIAL IMMIGRANT.
THIS IS WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF IDN AT IRNIC, THE .IR CCTLD REGISTRY.
OKAY, NOW, JUST A ONE PAGE CONTRIBUTION MYSELF. THE WORK DESCRIBED HERE WAS DEVELOPED MOSTLY BY THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS, ROOZBEH POURNADER AND ALIREZA SALEH. THEY GAVE A PRESENTATION IN THE SOUTH AFRICA MEETING OF ICANN LAST YEAR. AND WHAT I AM GOING TO DESCRIBE IS THE DEVELOPMENT AND SOME REPETITION OF WHAT THEY DID. WE HAVE TO THANK SOME INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS FOR ENCOURAGING US AND HELPING US, AND I HAVE SOME NAMES THERE LIKE JOHN KLENSIN, MICHAEL EVERSON AND MINC.
ALL RIGHT. WE HAD A SIX-MONTH TEST BED PERIOD THAT STARTED IN FEBRUARY, LATE FEBRUARY OF LAST YEAR, 2005. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO LAST SIX MONTHS. IT LASTED ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT LONGER. AFTER THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE -- DURING THE TEST BED PERIOD, REGISTRATION WAS FREE, BUT IT LET THEM KNOW THAT THE DOMAINS WILL BE DISCARDED AFTER THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD.
THIS WAS MOSTLY TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO TAKE PART AND UNDERSTAND HOW THE PROCESS WORKS. AND FOR US TO FIND OUT WHAT THE UNFORESEEN PROBLEMS WOULD BE.
THEN AFTER THE TEST BED PERIOD WE WERE TO HAVE A FIRST SUNRISE PERIOD OF 45 DAYS WHICH WAS LIMITED TO REGISTRATION OF OFFICIALLY REGISTERED NAMES BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS. THIS WAS EXTENDED BY THE REQUEST OF THE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS WERE VERY SLOW TO MOVE. SO WE ARE STILL IN THAT PERIOD. WE HAVE EXTENDED THAT FOR A MONTH. AND IT MAY EVEN BE EXTENDED FURTHER.
THERE IS GOING TO BE A SECOND SUNRISE PERIOD OF 15 DAYS. THIS IS LIMITED TO PARTICIPANTS WHO TOOK PART IN THE FIRST PERIOD. THIS IS TO PROVIDE SOME INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO TAKE PART IN THE TRIAL PERIOD, AND WE GIVE THEM THIS OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A PRIORITY REGISTRY DOMAIN IN THE SECOND SUNRISE PERIOD WHICH LASTS 15 DAYS.
THEY ARE LIMITED TO REGISTERING 15 DOMAINS DURING THIS PERIOD.
OKAY. NOW, IN THE TRIAL PERIOD, WE TESTED 15 DOMAINS, OR 15 SECOND LEVEL DOMAINS THAT ARE LISTED HERE.
THE NAMES AS THEY APPEAR IN PERSIAN ARE THERE AS ARE THE TRANSLATIONS. AND THE NUMBERS YOU SEE ARE ACTUALLY THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO -- THE NUMBER OF DOMAINS THAT WERE REGISTERED.
THE WHOLE THING IS NOT VERY MUCH. IT WAS ONLY 6500 DOMAINS THAT WERE REGISTERED IN THE TRIAL PERIOD, OF WHICH ALMOST HALF OF THEM WERE REGISTERED DIRECTLY UNDER .IRAN, WHICH IS THE FIRST ONE, THE ONE IN RED.
SO WE DECIDED THAT FOR THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION WE'LL ONLY USE THE FIRST ONE, JUST .IRAN, NOT THE OTHER DOMAINS.
OKAY. NOW, I HAVE ALREADY COVERED THIS.
OUR FIRST SUNRISE PERIOD IS TO END RIGHT AFTER THIS MEETING ON DECEMBER 6, BUT AS I SAID, I HAVE JUST BEEN CONTACTED BY A GOVERNMENT MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE THINGS, AND I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO EXTEND IT EVEN FURTHER.
WE HAVE TO NEGOTIATE WITH THEM AGAIN.
OKAY. I HAVE ALREADY DESCRIBED THIS.
NOW, A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL ABOUT THE WAY THIS WORKS. THE SOFTWARE WAS DEVELOPED AT OUR INSTITUTE. REGISTRATION IS IN IDN, AND I HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE ALPHABET OR THE SCRIPT.
PERSIAN IDN IS BASED IN PERSIAN SCRIPT WHICH IS A VARIANT OF ARABIC ALPHABET, AND THERE IS PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY FOR PHISHING AND OTHER KINDS OF ABUSE BECAUSE THERE ARE VERY SIMILAR LOOKING LETTERS THAT HAVE DIFFERENT UNICODES.
AND I'LL BE DESCRIBING SOME OF THIS AS WE GO ON.
SO LET ME DESCRIBE THE LABEL PROCESSING WE HAVE.
WHEN WE GET THE REQUEST, WE CHECK THE FORMAT AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS ACCORDING TO OUR CHARACTER TABLE.
THEN WE NORMALIZE THAT INTO STANDARD PERSIAN. THAT MEANS THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN KEYBOARDS THAT LOOK LIKE PERSIAN KEYBOARDS, BUT THEY'RE REALLY ARABIC KEYBOARDS.
AND THE LETTER YOU TYPE IS REALLY -- HAS A DIFFERENT UNICODE.
SO IT'S NOT REALLY INCLUDED IN OUR TABLE. SO WHAT WE DO IS WE HAVE A PROCESS, AUTOMATIC PROCESS, FOR NORMALIZING THE -- WHAT'S BEING TYPED INTO COMPLETELY PERSIAN DOMAINS.
THEN THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS WE HAVE TO REMOVE, LIKE ZERO WIDTH JOINER AND NONZERO WIDTH JOINER. THESE ARE THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU KNOW THE SCRIPT, YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. IF YOU DON'T KNOW, WELL, I'LL BE GIVING AN ILLUSTRATION AS WE GO ON.
THEN WHAT WE DO IS WE PRESENT THE EXACT IMAGE OF THE REGISTERED DOMAIN TO THE APPLICANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS REALLY WHAT HE IS REGISTERING. HE HAS TO VERIFY THAT THIS IS REALLY WHAT HE WANTS.
OKAY. NOW, I'LL BE GIVING AN EXAMPLE. IF THE APPLICANT, SAY, WANTS TO REGISTER SOMETHING LIKE THIS (INDICATING), NOW MOST OF YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS IS, BUT THE SECOND PART, THE PART TO THE LEFT, IS JUST .IRAN, WHICH IS THE ONLY SECOND LEVEL WE HAVE.
THE FIRST ONE IS JUST CONCOCTED TO BE SOMETHING FAIRLY COMPLICATED. IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING.
BUT IT'S COMPLICATED IN THE FACT THAT THE LAST LETTER HERE, IT'S A YEH, IT'S REALLY IN ARABIC, IT'S NOT IN PERSIAN OR FARSI, BECAUSE IT'S GOT TWO DOTS UNDER IT.
BUT THE IMAGE THAT THE GUYS WILL BE PRESENTED WITH WILL BE THE OTHER ONE. SEE HERE, AT THE BOTTOM, YOU HAVE THE IMAGE WHICH IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HE HAS TRIED TO REGISTER. THERE ARE THE TWO DOTS ARE MISSING FROM UNDER THE YEH SOUND.
NOW, AFTER HE CONFIRMS THE -- THAT THIS IS WHAT HE WANTS, THEN THE DOMAIN AND ALL ITS PUNYCODE VARIANTS ARE REGISTERED AS A BUNDLE. NOW, I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS.
WITH THE GIVEN LABEL, YOU REGISTER UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL LABELS WHICH CAN BE CONFUSING. AND THESE OTHER FIVE ARE ALSO AUTOMATICALLY RESERVED FOR THE SAME PERSON WHO REGISTERED THE DOMAIN. THEY WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO REGISTER BY OTHER PEOPLE.
AND THE NORMALIZED LABEL AND ITS EXACT PUNYCODE ARE THE PRIMARY KEYS IN THE DATABASE. OKAY?
NOW, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE DO.
SO HERE IS THE SAME WORD THAT I SAID SOMEBODY WAS TRYING TO REGISTER SAY AS A DOMAIN. THIS IS THE INPUT LABEL. I'LL EXPLAIN THE VARIOUS STAGES ONE BY ONE.
OKAY. THE NEXT STAGE, AS I SAID, THE TWO DOTS UNDER THE YEH ARE REMOVED. SO THIS IS NOW A COMPLETELY PERSIAN LABEL.
NOW WE GENERATE THIS IMAGE AND PRESENT IT TO THE APPLICANT.
AFTER THAT, WE GENERATE WHAT'S CALLED THE SIMPLE LABEL. THIS IS THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO BE PRESERVED IN THE DATABASE.
YOU MAY NOTICE THERE'S SOME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND THIS (INDICATING). YOU NOTICE THIS "H" SOUND HERE OR THE HEH SOUND HERE AND THERE'S THE AH SOUND HERE, THESE HAVE BEEN STUCK TOGETHER. THIS HEH HERE IS THE HEH AT THE END OF THE WORD. THERE'S A NONZERO WIDTH JOINER HERE. THERE IS A CERTAIN SPACE HERE, VIRTUAL SPACE HERE, THAT'S IGNORED BY THE DNS. YOU HAVE TO STICK THIS "A" TO THE "H" HERE TO STORE IT TO DNS.
AND SO THE UNICODE BUNDLE IS REALLY GOING TO CONSIST OF SIX LABELS.
LET ME EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT HERE.
THERE ARE TWO LETTERS THAT ARE CONFUSABLE BETWEEN PERSIAN AND ARABIC. ONE IS THE "K" SOUND AND THE OTHER IS THE YEH SOUND.
SO WHAT -- AND THERE ARE ALSO -- NUMERALS CAN ALSO BE CONFUSING BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT UNICODES FOR ARABIC AND PERSIAN AND SOME KEYBOARDS DON'T USE EITHER. SOME KEYBOARDS JUST USE THE LATIN NUMERALS. SO WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF ALL THREE.
SO YOU HAVE THREE OF THESE AND YOU HAVE THE PERSIAN VERSUS ARABIC ALPHABETIC CHARACTERS. TOGETHER THEY MAKE UP TO SIX VARIANTS.
THESE ARE THE SIX VARIANTS THAT ARE STORED FOR THE APPLICANT, ACTUALLY.
AND THESE ARE THE PUNYCODES FOR THE SIX.
NOW, ACTUALLY, THE SITUATION IS EVEN WORSE THAN THAT. THERE IS REALLY 12 LABELS THAT ARE. WE DON'T DISPLAY ALL 12 OF THEM. WE ONLY DISPLAY SIX OF THEM, THE REASON BEING THAT THE WORD "IRAN" ITSELF IS LIABLE TO BE CONFUSED. IN THE WORD IRAN, THERE IS THE YEH, AND THE YEH IN FARSI AND ARABIC, EVEN THOUGH THE LOWER CASE LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME IN FARSI AND ARABIC, THEY HAVE DIFFERENT PUNYCODES SO WE HAVE TO ALLOW FOR THAT. SO WE ACTUALLY STORE 12 RECORDS IN THE DNS INSTEAD OF SIX.
NOW, AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS PRETTY CONFUSING FOR THE CUSTOMER. THAT'S WHY THE REGISTRATION HAS BEEN RATHER SLOW.
WE HAVE PUT UP SOME GUIDES FOR THE POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS, AND IT WAS VERY EVIDENT IN THE TRIAL PERIOD THAT PEOPLE NEEDED HELP REGISTERING THEIR OWN NATIVE LANGUAGE.
SO I HAVE SOME OF THESE THINGS HERE. A WEB INTERFACE, IT SAYS HERE, IS BEING DEVELOPED. ACTUALLY, IT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED. IT'S ALREADY FUNCTIONAL. AND IF I CAN MOVE -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO MOVE THIS DOWN.
THE URL IS DOWN THERE BUT IT'S NOT VISIBLE HERE.
ANYWAY, THE....
OKAY. SO WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS? WELL, WE ARE ACTUALLY SUPPORTING IDN.IDN AS EVERYBODY SEEMS TO BE HERE TODAY. SEE, IN OUR CASE, THE FACT THAT THE SCRIPT IS FROM RIGHT TO LEFT, THE APPEARANCE, YOU KNOW, CAN BECOME REALLY CONFUSING BECAUSE YOU HAVE A .IR ON THE RIGHT SIDE AND YOU HAVE A .IRAN ON THE LEFT SIDE. THAT'S PRETTY CONFUSING.
AND -- BUT THE IRONY OR THE CAVEAT OF THE WHOLE THING IS IF SOME DAY ICANN DECIDES TO HAVE A ZONE UNDER .IRAN, IT SHOULD REALLY HAVE TWO ZONES BECAUSE THE YEH, AS I SAID, IN FARSI AND ARABIC ARE DIFFERENT. AND RIGHT THERE IN THE DOMAIN ITSELF YOU NEED A BUNDLE.
AND HERE IS THE SITUATION, AS YOU CAN SEE.
IN THE LOWER CASE YEH, IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME. THE UPPER CASE IS DIFFERENT. ALTHOUGH THE UPPER CASE IS NOT USED HERE.
BUT THE PUNYCODES BEING DIFFERENT, YOU HAVE TO ALLOW FOR THAT.
OKAY. THAT'S IT.
NOW, JUST TO REPORT THAT THE REGISTRATION IN THE SUNRISE PERIOD HAS BEEN EXTREMELY SLOW. THERE ARE TWO REASONS FOR THAT. ONE IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES THAT ARE ALLOWED TO REGISTER DURING THIS PERIOD ARE MOVING VERY SLOWLY, AS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES USUALLY DO.
ANOTHER THING IS THAT THE PRIVATE COMPANIES IN IRAN USUALLY HAVE VERY LONG NAMES WHICH DO NOT -- THEY ARE NOT USUALLY RECOGNIZED BY THEIR LONG NAMES WHICH GENERALLY CONSIST OF THREE OR FOUR PARTS. SO A LOT OF THEM ARE JUST WAITING FOR THE REGISTRATION TO BE OPEN AND THEY WILL REGISTER THEIR SHORTER NAMES.
OKAY. THANK YOU.
>>TINA DAM: THANKS. SO I AM GOING TO PASS ON TO GERVASE MARKHAM.
>>GERVASE MARKHAM: TINA, I E-MAILED YOU -- MARC, I E-MAILED YOU MY PRESENTATION TEN MINUTES AGO JUST IN CASE THIS HAPPENED. YOU DON'T HAPPEN TO HAVE IT, DO YOU? TINA AS WELL. I E-MAILED IT TO YOU. WHICHEVER OF YOU CAN GET IT UP FIRST. IT'S JUST AN HTML FILE WHICH YOU, OF COURSE, SHOULD DISPLAY IN FIREFOX.
SPEAKING OF WHICH, FIREFOX 1.5 WAS RELEASED TODAY. I WOULD TELL YOU ALL TO GO AND DOWNLOAD IT BUT THE POOR PEOPLE TRYING TO REMOTELY PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING ARE HAVING ENOUGH TROUBLE HEARING AND SEEING US AS IT IS, SO PLEASE DON'T FLOOD THE INTERNET CONNECTION ANY MORE. WAIT UNTIL YOU GET HOME TO YOUR EXPENSIVE HOTEL BROADBAND.
>>MARK DAVIS: WHICH ADDRESS DID YOU USE?
>>GERVASE MARKHAM: THE IBM ONE.
I'LL START GOING, AND I'LL HOPE THAT MY SLIDES WILL JOIN ME LATER.
I'M HOPING THAT I SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET MY POINTS ACROSS WITHOUT THEM.
I'M GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IDN SECURITY ISSUES, AND PARTICULARLY HOW THEY RELATE TO BROWSERS.
I'M GOING TO QUICKLY RECAP THE PROBLEM, WHICH I'M SURE YOU ARE ALL AWARE OF, PRESENT THE SORT OF WHAT WE THINK IS THE APPROPRIATE SOLUTION OR SET OF SOLUTIONS FROM THE DIFFERENT GROUPS AND BODIES INVOLVED IN THE PROBLEM. I'LL TALK ABOUT OUR CURRENT FOUNDATION POLICY, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT INTERIM BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT GROUPS ARE STILL MOVING TOWARDS IMPLEMENTING THEIR PARTICULAR PARTS. AND I WILL END WITH SOME COMMENTS ON THE RECENTLY ISSUED ICANN GUIDELINES.
SO THE BIG PROBLEM, OF COURSE, WITH IDN CONFUSION IS NOT THAT PEOPLE WILL END UP IN THE WRONG PLACE. IT'S THAT PEOPLE WILL SET OUT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY END UP IN THE WRONG PLACE. I.E., PHISHING.
AND AS WE FOUND OUT WITH SPAM, ANY WAY THAT PEOPLE CAN MAKE MONEY ON THE INTERNET TENDS TO ATTRACT A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH NEFARIOUS INTENT RATHER QUICKLY.
IDN SPOOFING IS A NEW AND BIGGER CLASS OF RISK THAN GENERAL PHISHING, BECAUSE FOR GENERAL PHISHING, AT LEAST IF YOU KNOW WHERE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE, YOU CAN LOOK IN THE URL BAR, OR IN WHATEVER OTHER DOMAIN INDICATORS YOUR BROWSER PROVIDES, AND YOU CAN SEE WHETHER YOU ARE ACTUALLY THERE OR NOT.
WITH IDN SPOOFING, BECAUSE THE CHARACTERS LOOK THE SAME, EVEN IF YOU LOOK YOU CAN STILL BE IN THE WRONG PLACE. AND SO THAT RAISES THINGS.
THANKS. -- THAT RAISES THINGS TO A WHOLE NEW LEVEL, WHICH MAKES LIFE EVEN MORE COMPLICATED, SO WE ARE OBVIOUSLY VERY KEEN THAT THIS SHOULDN'T HAPPEN.
THE SOLUTION, THEN, IS AIMED AT, IN A WORD OR IN A SHORT SENTENCE, MAKING SURE THAT NO TWO CONFUSABLE DOMAINS CAN BE REGISTERED TO DIFFERENT ENTITIES. NO TWO CONFUSABLE DOMAINS CAN BE REGISTERED TO DIFFERENT ENTITIES. AND IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THIS AIM, FOUR OR FIVE DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS AND GROUPS HAVE TO ALL DO THEIR PARTICULAR PART. AND IF THOSE GROUPS DO LESS OR, IN FACT, MORE THAN THAT, THEN YOU END UP WITH PROBLEMS. IF THEY DO MORE, YOU END UP WITH POLITICAL PROBLEMS.
THE UNICODE CONSORTIUM, IN OUR VIEW, THE KEY THING THAT THEY NEED TO DO AND WHICH THEY HAVE, IN FACT, DONE IS TO PRODUCE A LIST TELLING US WHICH CHARACTERS ARE ACTUALLY CONFUSABLE WITH OTHER CHARACTERS. THEY HAVE THE EXPERTISE IN LANGUAGES, CHARACTER SETS AND SCRIPTS. AND THAT LIST IS AN IMPORTANT BASIS FOR ANY POLICY.
AND I'M VERY PLEASED THAT MARC HAS TAKEN THAT ON. YEAH, BRILLIANT. PRESS F11. AND THEN MOVE ON ABOUT TWO MORE SLIDES.
NEXT ONE.
HERE WE GO. ONE MORE.
OKAY.
SO THE UNICODE CONSORTIUM SHOULD BE PRODUCING A CONFUSING CHARACTERS TABLE, AND THEY HAVE.
THE IETF I'M HOPING WILL MAKE STANDARDS CHANGES AS NECESSARY. CHANGES TO THE WAY THAT WE DO THINGS CAN EITHER BE DONE IN A STANDARDS FORM OR IN GUIDELINE POLICY FORM. PROBABLY WE WILL END UP NEEDING SOME CHANGES TO NAMEPREP, BUT WE DON'T NEED THOSE IN THE SHORT TERM.
ICANN NEEDS GUIDELINES WHICH ENFORCE STANDARDS WHICH ACHIEVE THE AIM OF NO TWO CONFUSABLE DOMAINS. IN ORDER TO HAVE THOSE GUIDELINES, YOU NEED SOME DEFINITION OF WHAT'S CONFUSABLE, AND THAT'S WHERE YOU GET THE UNICODE CONSORTIUM COMES IN.
THE REGISTRIES THEN IMPLEMENT THOSE GUIDELINES, AND THE BROWSERS TURN ON IDN FOR THOSE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS WHICH DO.
SO IN THIS WAY, ALL OF THE ENTITIES INVOLVED CAN COOPERATE TO HOPEFULLY PRODUCE A SOLUTION WHICH ACHIEVE THE END.
OUR INTERIM MOZILLA POLICY HAS BASICALLY THE FEATURES OF WHAT THAT SOLUTION WOULD BE IF ALL OF THOSE GROUPS HAD DONE ALL OF THOSE THINGS, WHICH THEY ARE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF DOING.
WE USE AN INCLUSION-BASED APPROACH FOR CHARACTER TABLES. WE ASK THAT TLDS PUBLISH THEIR CHARACTER TABLES AND A HOMOGRAPH POLICY IF THE TABLES HAVE HOMOGRAPHS WITHIN.
WE HAVE 26 TLDS, INCLUDING THREE GTLDS ENABLED FOR IDN IN MOZILLA 3.5 AND WE ARE PLEASED ABOUT THAT. AND THAT INCLUDES THE GTLDS THAT HAVE THE VAST MAJORITY OF COUNTRY SPECIFIC IDN REGISTRATIONS, WHICH ARE CHINA, KOREA, JAPAN, TAIWAN, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
AND SO ALL OF THOSE WILL WORK IN THE LATEST VERSION OF FIREFOX WHICH HOPEFULLY, IN A FEW WEEKS, EVERYBODY WILL HAVE AND WE ARE VERY PLEASED ABOUT THAT.
THE ICANN GUIDELINES, AS THEY HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN VERSION 2, ARE A PRETTY GOOD MATCH IN GENERAL FORM TO OUR PROPOSED SOLUTION AND TO OUR INTERIM POLICY. AND SO THAT'S REALLY GREAT.
THERE ARE A FEW COMMENTS THAT I WANT TO MAKE ON THE GUIDELINES, JUST BRIEFLY, BECAUSE AS MARC SAID, THERE ARE A FEW ISSUES WITH THEM AND I JUST WANT TO GIVE OUR TAKE ON THAT.
SO JUST STEPPING BACK FOR A MOMENT, THERE ARE A FEW RISKS. JUST TO ENUMERATE THE RISKS OF PHISHING, OF IDN SPOOFING, PHISHING IN SLIGHTLY MORE DETAIL, YOU HAVE MIXED SCRIPT SPOOFING, WHICH IS, FOR EXAMPLE, PAYPAL WITH A CYRILLIC "A." SINGLE SCRIPT SPOOFING, WHERE LETTERS ALL IN ONE SCRIPT SPOOF ANOTHER DOMAIN ALL IN ANOTHER SCRIPT. SO THE WORD SCOPE COULD BE ENTIRELY CYRILLIC CHARACTERS OR IT COULD BE ENTIRELY LATIN CHARACTERS.
AND ALSO PROTOCOL SPOOFING, WHERE PEOPLE USE THINGS THAT LOOK LIKE SLASHES OR QUESTION MARKS OR OTHER PROTOCOL CHARACTERS IN ORDER TO MAKE IT APPEAR LIKE YOUR DOMAIN HAS FINISHED WHEN IT HASN'T.
THE ICANN GUIDELINES AS THEY STAND IN VERSION 2.0 DO DEAL WITH ONE BY THE SIMPLE -- MARK, IF YOU WOULD -- BY THE SIMPLE METHOD OF BANNING MIXED SCRIPT ALTOGETHER.
I DIDN'T ORIGINALLY THINK THAT THAT WOULD FLY, BUT EVERYONE SEEMS HAPPY WITH IT SO WHO AM I TO ARGUE? THAT'S GREAT.
THEY DON'T REALLY DEAL WITH 2. AND THAT IS A -- THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE GUIDELINES OR THE BEST CURRENT PRACTICES DOCUMENT WILL NEED TO FURTHER ADDRESS, ALTHOUGH THAT IS A MUCH SMALLER PROBLEM. OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE A LOT SMALLER AMOUNT OF DOMAINS THAT CAN BE ENTIRELY REPLICATED FROM ONE CHARACTER SET TO ANOTHER. BUT THE MOZILLA POLICY DOES -- WE HAVE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ON TOP OF THE ICANN ONE TO DEAL WITH THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.
AND THE ICANN GUIDELINES DO DEAL WITH PROTOCOL CHARACTER SPOOFING WITH A COUPLE OF CAVEATS ABOUT THE WORDING. IT'S A LITTLE BIT VAGUE BUT THEY BASICALLY DEAL WITH THAT, TOO.
SO TWO OUT OF THREE AIN'T BAD, AND WE'RE VERY PLEASED WITH HOW THINGS HAVE GONE IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THE ICANN HAD TO PRODUCE THESE GUIDELINES.
SO YEAH, WE APPLAUD THE WORKING GROUPS INVOLVED FOR TAKING THE PROBLEM SERIOUSLY, FROM GOING FROM AN EXCLUSION BASED TO INCLUSION-BASED APPROACH, NOT WHAT WE HAVE TO DISALLOW BUT WHAT MUST WE INCLUDE. THAT'S A VERY BIG CHANGE AND AN IMPORTANT STEP AND I'M VERY GLAD THEY GRASPED THAT WITH BOTH HANDS AND ALSO THE ELIMINATION OF PUNCTUATION. THIS IS MORE OF A POLITICAL ISSUE. SOME PEOPLE THINK DNS SHOULD BE ABOUT REPRESENTING WORDS AND NAMES AND TRADEMARKS. IT SHOULDN'T. IT SHOULD BE ABOUT REPRESENTING IDENTIFIERS WHICH ARE MNEMONICS FOR SUCH THINGS AND PUNCTUATION IS DEFINITELY STRICTLY OPTIONAL. AND I'M GLAD THAT THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE GUIDELINES IS MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION.
SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

>>TINA DAM: THANKS. AND THE LAST PRESENTER FOR THIS PANEL IS MICHEL SUIGNARD.
>>MICHAEL SUIGNARD: OKAY. I'VE GOT IT ON BOTH SCREENS NOW. GOOD.
SO I ALREADY INTRODUCED IN THE PREVIOUS SESSION. I AM MICHEL SUIGNARD, I WORK FOR MICROSOFT. IN FACT, I WORK WITH MARK DAVIS ON THE TR 46 ABOUT UNICODE SECURITY. SO I GUESS MANY OF MY VIEWS ON THE SECURITY GUIDELINES CONCERNING ICANN WORK HAVE ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED. SO THIS DOCUMENT IS REALLY ABOUT THE WORK WE ARE DOING IN MICROSOFT TO IMPLEMENT IDN ON -- I WILL HAVE TO APOLOGIZE. PROBABLY IT'S GOING TO BE A BIT OF A SALES PITCH, BUT I TRY NOT TO BE AS TECHNICAL AS POSSIBLE SO WE'LL BE PRESENTING INFORMATION THAT'S RELEVANT TO THIS PANEL.
THE INTERESTING THING, SO THOSE KIND OF PRESENT THE BASICS THAT WE DID USE TO IMPLEMENT IDN IN THE PLATFORM.
FIRST OF ALL, IT'S KIND OF INTERESTING, IN FACT, BECAUSE THE MAJOR PART OF THE WORK WAS DONE NOT IN APPLICATION, AS IDNA WILL TRY TO TELL, BUT WAS REALLY WE DID MOST OF THE WORK IN WHAT WE CALL A NETWORK STACK.
SO THE BENEFIT OF THAT, IT BENEFITED NOT JUST THE BROWSER BUT EVERY APPLICATION THAT IS BASICALLY BROWSING.
TODAY, USER AGENTS CAN HAVE MULTIPLE FACETS. THEY CAN LOOK AS THE BROWSER BUT THEY CAN ALSO HAPPEN IN YOUR SPREADSHEET, IT CAN HAPPEN IN YOUR WORD PROCESSOR, CAN HAPPEN WITHIN YOUR E-MAIL CONTENTS. SO THERE ARE OTHER WAYS YOU CAN BROWSE TODAY.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WHEN YOU, YOU KNOW, IMPLEMENT IDN, YOU BASICALLY OFFER A SOLUTION FOR THOSE CASES.
ANOTHER THING WAS, WE SEEK TO MINIMIZE PUNYCODE EXPOSURE IN THE USER INTERFACE.
THAT, AGAIN, WAS A DIRECTION OF IDNA RECOMMENDATION.
EVEN WHEN BASICALLY BASIC APPLICATION ARE PRESENTING US AS PUNYCODE FORM, WE DO CONVERT THE PUNYCODE TO UNICODE FOR -- TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT.
THIS IS THE OTHER POINT, THAT A SECURITY ISSUE MOSTLY, IS THAT PUNYCODE, ON UNICODE PRESENTATION FOR US ARE STRICTLY EQUIVALENT.
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE -- AND THAT'S ONE OF THE EASY WAYS TO, YOU KNOW, CREATE (INAUDIBLE) IN A SYSTEM IS THAT WHEN YOU HAVE TWO THINGS THAT SHOULD BE EQUIVALENT, THAT THEY ARE TREATED EQUIVALENT BY ALL LAYERS.
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, UNICODE LINKS ARE IRI, IT'S A NEW BEAST THAT HAS BEEN DEFINED NOT THAT LONG AGO AND HAVE BEEN USED DE FACTO BY MANY APPLICATION OR PLATFORM COMPLEMENTS.
IN FACT NOW WE ARE REALLY SEEING THEM IN ACTION, IN FACT, THROUGH PUNYCODE ON IDN.
COMPATIBILITY, WE HAVE LEGACY, WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF IT.
SO IDN IS -- CAN BE, TO SOME DEGREE, DISABLED, IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER CONTEXT.
ON THE ADDRESSING SECURITY CONCERNS, WE DON'T WANT ANY DN-ENABLED PLATFORM TO BE LESS SECURE THAN WHAT WE HAD BEFORE.
IT HAS BEEN ALSO EXPLAINING SOME OF THE -- COULD EXPLAIN SOME OF THE TIME WE TOOK TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.
SO SORRY, I AM GOING TO DIVE A BIT INTO SOME OF THE FUNCTIONS WE DID.
SO THESE, AGAIN, ARE NOT BROWSER FUNCTIONS, THEY'RE JUST PLATFORM THINGS THAT WE ADDED.
WE ADDED OBVIOUSLY, THE TWO ASCII AND TWO UNICODE, WHICH ARE, YOU KNOW, THE FOUNDATION OF IDNS.
WE ALSO ADDED A FUNCTION WHICH IS VERY USEFUL FOR UI PURPOSES, WHICH IS IDN TO ASCII, BUT WITH THE END RESULT BEING UNICODE NATIVE, SO YOU CAN USE IT, BASICALLY, WHEN YOU WANT TO SHOW THE NAMEPREP OUTPUT, THAT'S KIND OF THE -- IT BASICALLY LOOKS LIKE THE NAME YOU ENTERED, BUT IT'S BASICALLY THE NAME THAT IS GOING TO BE SENT TO THE WIRE AFTER PUNYCODE TRANSFORMATION.
SO IT SHOWS SOME OF THE TRANSFORMATION THAT ARE REALLY USEFUL FOR THE END USER.
AND WE SHOW THAT ON THE STATUS BAR.
IT'S AVAILABLE IN VISTA, WHICH IS NOT YET (INAUDIBLE), BUT IS ALSO -- WILL BE AVAILABLE, IN FACT, IN IE7.
SO THOSE FUNCTIONS DO EXIST IN BOTH PLATFORMS.
I MEAN, ANY PLATFORM IE7 IS SHIPPING.
IS ALSO AVAILABLE IN DOWNLOAD, SO YOU DON'T NEED TO BASICALLY GET IE7, YOU DON'T NEED TO GET VISTA.
YOU CAN GET THEM FROM THE DOWNLOAD SITE.
THERE'S A COMPLICATED STORY WHY WE ARE DOING THIS, BUT BASICALLY, THAT IS.
SO LINK CONSISTENCY, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, A HOST NAME THAT IS ENTERED AS PUNYCODE IS TREATED AS IF IT WAS ENTERED UNICODE.
SO IF YOU SEE THEM ON YOUR PAGE, THERE'S A WAY -- IF THEY'VE EASY BEEN ENTERED IN THE HTML SOURCE CODE, AS A PUNYCODE VALUE OR AS A BASICALLY NATIVE UNICODE, FOR ME, IN MY PRESENTATION, THEY ARE GOING TO SHOW THE SAME WAY ON MY SCREEN.
AND, AGAIN, WE DO PROCESS -- WE, IN FACT, KEEP THE UNICODE PROCESSING AS LATE AS POSSIBLE.
BASICALLY, WE TRIED TO BE UNICODE ALL THE WAY AROUND.
AND THEN WE GET THE NETWORK STACK WHERE, REALLY, WE DO THE TRANSFORMATION TO PUNYCODE FOR, OBVIOUSLY, DNS WITH THE REVOLUTION.
THERE'S AN EXCEPTION TO THAT, THAT IF WE DO FIND THAT THE SITE IS SUSPICIOUS, OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S GOING TO BE DISCUSSED A BIT MORE, WE DO PRESENT THE SITE AS IN PUNYCODE.
SO THAT'S OUR WAY BASICALLY OF FLAGGING SOMETHING WE DON'T THINK IS SAFE.
SO I WILL GO QUICKLY.
THAT'S COMPATIBILITY.
WE HAVE BEEN KIND OF THINKING OF DOING SOME, YOU KNOW, IMPROVEMENTS, IRI SUPPORT ON HAVING SOME WAY OF FORCING UTF-8 TO BE USED MORE OFTEN.
WE ALSO HAVE SOME WAY OF TURNING OFF IDN SUPPORT, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE IMPLEMENTATION OUT THERE THAT DO USE OTHER WAYS OF USING NON-ASCII HOST NAME.
SO THIS IS KIND OF A QUICK DESCRIPTION OF WHAT "SUSPICIOUS" MEANS.
AND WE DO USE FOR THAT A LOT OF INFORMATION ON UTF 36, ESPECIALLY ON THE SCRIPT BASED.
WE BASICALLY ASSUME THAT SCRIPTS UNKNOWN TO A USER ARE BASICALLY PRESUMED SUSPICIOUS.
BY KNOWN TO THE USER, WE USE THE LOCALE OF A USER.
IF A USER LIVES IN JAPAN, THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE HE KNOWS THE JAPANESE LANGUAGE, BUT PROBABLY DOESN'T KNOW ARABIC.
SO THAT'S A GOOD IDEA TO PRESENT THIS.
MIXED OF SCRIPTS WITHIN A LABEL ARE SUSPICIOUS, UNLESS CUSTOMARY FOR A GIVEN LANGUAGE, LOCALE.
LIKE JAPANESE WHERE DO YOU MIX SCRIPT IN A SINGLE LABEL, THAT'S OKAY.
BUT IF IT'S NOT WELL-KNOWN, YOU ARE NOTIFIED.
SUSPICIOUS SITES AGAIN ARE PRESENTED IN PUNYCODE FORM.
SCRIPT-BASED API.
WE DID, IN FACT, ADD SOME SCRIPT API DETECTION ON THE PLATFORM AS WELL AS IN THE DOWN LEVEL BITS.
SO THE SCRIPT DETECTION, WE BASICALLY OFFER A PLATFORM LEVEL AGAIN OF, FOR A GIVEN STRING, YOU GET THIS LIST OF SCRIPT CONTAINED IN THAT TEXT.
WE HAVE A LOCALE-BASED SCRIPT, FOR A GIVEN LOCALE, WE TELL YOU WHICH SCRIPTS MAKE SENSE.
AND THEN WE HAVE THE THIRD ONE, WHICH IS COMPARING THOSE.
SO THAT MAKES IT VERY EASY, IN FACT, TO DEVELOP, I WOULD SAY, A FIRST-LEVEL OF MITIGATION AGAINST SCRIPT ATTACK.
BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THE EXPLOIT IS DETECTED RIGHT AWAY.
YOU KNOW THAT (INAUDIBLE) DOESN'T CONTAIN TWO SCRIPTS, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IN MY U.S., SO I WOULD SAY THIS IS REALLY LOOKING SUSPICIOUS TO ME.
THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN DO EASILY THAT THE USER HAS NO WAY, BECAUSE, VISUALLY, THEY LOOK THE SAME, BUT FROM A PLATFORM POINT OF VIEW, YOU KNOW THAT, OBVIOUSLY, A GOOD POINT IS BEHIND THOSE CHARACTERS.
THERE'S MORE WORK TO DO.
WITH THE (INAUDIBLE) IS STILL ONE BIG AREA.
WE STILL THINK THAT THERE'S MORE WORK TO DO ON THE DNS, TO HAVE A SERVICING MODEL, WHERE, BASICALLY, BECAUSE OF FOR PRIVACY REASONS, THIS MEANS THAT YOU HAVE TO KIND OF -- IT'S A HELP, IT'S A SERVICE TO GET BETTER, SO YOU BASICALLY HAVE A LIST OF NON-PHISHING HOST NAMES.
IF YOU HAVE A SCRIPT THAT IS -- I MEAN, A LABEL OR HOST NAME THAT IS CONFUSABLE WITH ONE OF THOSE, YOU KNOW, KNOWN (INAUDIBLE) PHISHING HOST NAMES, YOU CAN SAY THAT'S KIND OF CURIOUS, I HAVE TWO NAMES ON -- MY NEW NAMES IS (INAUDIBLE) FOR KNOWN GOOD SITES.
SO THAT'S ONE WAY WE ARE KIND OF GOING.
THERE'S NO FINAL DECISION ON THAT.
UI MODEL, WE MAY USE COLOR CODING TO PRESENT SUSPICIOUS LEVELS.
THAT IS, IN FACT, WORK WE ARE DOING TOGETHER WITH MOZILLA ON (INAUDIBLE) WHATEVER BROWSER WANTS TO COLLABORATE ON THAT WHAT IS BASICALLY SAFE OR SUSPICIOUS.
AND THEN WE WILL ALSO BE GOING INTO THE ACTION OF BEING RESTRICTIVE AS FAR AS SYMBOLS OR MODERN USE CHARACTERS.
FOR THAT, WE ARE FOLLOWING (INAUDIBLE) SUCH AS DEFINED IN TR 46 AND TR 49.
WE ALSO RECEIVED -- I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO MAKE NOTE OF THEM NOW.
THEY WILL BE ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF THIS CONFERENCE, IMPORTANT IS THAT WE DID -- I DID MENTION THE TWO LIBRARIES, THE DOWNLOAD SITES, SINCE THEY DO CONTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT IDN SUPPORT TODAY, IT'S PRETTY COMPLETE ALREADY.
THE BLOGS SITE IE7 WILL CONTAIN INFORMATION AS SOON AS IT'S PUBLIC.
AND THEN TR 36, AND TR 24.
IF I HAVE A FEW MINUTES, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW A FEW THINGS ABOUT IE7, IT'S NOT YET AVAILABLE, BUT WILL BE USED TO SEE BITS COMING IN.
SO I AM TRYING TO MAKE IT BIGGER.
SO THAT'S ZOOM -- THE ZOOM HAS SOME -- YOU KNOW, DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THE SPACE INTRODUCED SOMETIMES BETWEEN CHARACTERS THAT IS BASICALLY A DEFICIENCY OF THE VERSION THAT I HAVE WITH ME.
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, YOU SAW THAT'S SOME SAMPLE OF UNICODE NAMES, INTERESTING THING DOWN THERE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE, ON THE BIG SCREEN, YOU WON'T SEE THE STATUS LINE, BECAUSE IT'S TOO SMALL.
BUT INTERESTING THINGS THAT THE FIRST SITE, IT IS IDN -- I MEAN, SITE IN GERMAN, YOU HAVE THE SHARP S ON THE MAIN PART.
ON THE LOWER PART, IN FACT, CONTAINS NAMEPREP OUTPUT WITH THE DOUBLE "S."
I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON THIS.
IT'S JUST A BUNCH OF EXAMPLES.
AND THEY DO -- LIKE, SHOW FOR DIFFERENT NAMES THAT DO RESOLVE ON THE -- THEY ARE SHOWN IN NATIVE FORMS IN THIS PAGE.
AND YOU HAVE, OBVIOUSLY, DOT COM EXAMPLE, BUT YOU ALSO DOT CN AND DOT DE AND SO ON.
AND YOU HAVE ALSO JAPANESE SITES.
I GUESS I SHOULD PROBABLY AT LEAST TRY THAT -- IF THE DEMO GODS ARE WITH ME ON THE LINK, IT WILL WORK HERE, I JUST POINT IT TO THE JAPANESE SITE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT MAY RESOLVE.
I DON'T KNOW.

>>GERVASE MARKHAM: WHICH ONE DID YOU TEST?

>>MICHEL SUIGNARD: I DID TEST THAT ONE BEFORE.
WHEN THIS THING IS TRYING TO GET SOMEWHERE, IT PROBABLY SHOWS THAT -- SO I DID USE AS WELL INBOX PAGE ON OUTLOOK.
AND I DO HAVE THE SAME SITE, IN FACT, SHOWING THERE ON -- I AM NOT -- NOT TRYING TO RESOLVE NOW.
BUT THEY DO RESOLVE AS WELL.
THIS IS NOT IE, IT'S JUST OUTLOOK HTML.
AND YOU CAN, YOU KNOW -- IN FACT, AGAIN, IF -- SO THAT'S TOO SMALL ON THE SCREEN, BUT YOU SEE THE OVER BAR, THIS TOOL TIP DO SHOW THE SITE UNDERNEATH ON -- IT'S INTERESTING.
I GOT MY SITE.
IT'S HERE.
SO THAT'S A JAPANESE SITE.
AND YOU CAN SEE THE ADDRESS BAR, AGAIN, IS TOO TINY FOR ME, BUT IT IS, IN FACT, IN JAPANESE.
IF I GO BACK TO MY INITIAL DOCUMENT, PROBABLY BY GOING BACK, I WANT TO SHOW SOMETHING -- YEAH.
IF I SITE -- IF I GO IN THE RUSSIAN SITE -- NO, THAT'S BULGARIAN.
IN FACT, LET'S SEE, THIS ONE.
NO.
YEAH.
WELL, I -- BECAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, A SITE IN CYRILLIC.
AND THAT ONE, IN FACT, THE ADDRESS BAR DID NOT CONVERT IN CYRILLIC.
THERE'S A MESSAGE HERE TELLING ME THAT THIS DOESN'T BELONG TO MY -- YOU KNOW, THE CHOICE I HAVE TODAY FOR MY (INAUDIBLE).
SO I HAVE A CHOICE, IN FACT, TO CHANGE MY LANGUAGE AND TO ADD SOME MORE LANGUAGES.
FOR EXAMPLE, NOW I HAVE ON THE MACHINE DEFINED THAT I CAN READ SITES IN ENGLISH, JAPANESE, FRENCH, AND KOREAN, MEANING THAT THOSE ARE NOT CONSIDERED SUSPICIOUS.
SO IF I WANT TO ADD RUSSIAN, I CAN JUST ADD, BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, THE RUSSIAN, ONE OF THE RUSSIAN LOCALE AND SAY, YOU KNOW, ADD THIS TO MY SITE.
AND THEN IT WOULD BECOME NONSUSPICIOUS.
SO THAT'S ONE WAY, A MECHANISM WE HAVE TO DO THIS.
FINALLY, I WON'T SPEND TOO MUCH TIME, YEAH, JUST QUICK THINGS THAT AT THE VERY BOTTOM HERE YOU HAVE SOME -- YEAH.
AT THE VERY BOTTOM HERE, YOU HAVE SOME EXAMPLE OF IDN.IDN.
FOR US, WE DON'T HAVE ANY -- NO IDN.IDN.
IF WE GET AN IDN.IDN, WE JUST TRANSMIT IDN.IDN THROUGH THE WIRE AS IT IS.
SO WE SEE MORE WORK COULD BE DONE ON THAT.
BUT THE LIST IS KIND OF READY FOR IDN.IDN ON THAT ASPECT.
WE'RE JUST TRANSMITTING THEM AS XN.XN, YOU KNOW, DASH DASH.
AND I THINK THAT'S ABOUT IT.
I'M TRYING TO THINK IF I -- YEAH.
OKAY.

>>TINA DAM: THANK YOU, MICHEL.
SO I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS BEFORE I OPEN FOR QUESTIONS.
I THINK IT'S -- IN TERMS OF IF WE GO BACK TO THE IDN GUIDELINES, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS NEVER THE INTENTION TO STOP AT THE VERSION 2.0.
SO THERE IS A COUPLE OF WAYS TO CONTINUE THAT WORK THAT'S ALREADY IN PROGRESS.
ONE IS THE ICANN BOARD ASKED FOR THE COMMUNITY VIA THE WORKING GROUP, TO COME BACK WITH ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS.
AND THE SECOND ONE IS THE BC TRACK THAT RAM WAS TALKING ABOUT TO BASICALLY RETOOL A LITTLE BIT BROADER IN THE COMMUNITY THAN WHAT WE HAVE WITH THE GUIDELINES ALONE.
SO IT'S JUST THAT OBSERVATION OF HOW THERE ARE DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR PROCESS MOVING FORWARD, ALL DEPENDING ON WHAT FRAMEWORK THE SUGGESTIONS FALL INTO.
BUT I'M GOING TO OPEN FOR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS BOTH FROM PANEL AND FROM THE FLOOR.
VINT.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THOSE THOUGHT-PROVOKING PRESENTATIONS.
I WANTED TO RAISE AN ISSUE WHICH HAS COME UP MOSTLY IN THE FORM OF COMPLAINTS THAT GET IN MY MAILBOX HAVING TO DO WITH TLDS THAT ARE NEW, THAT IS TO SAY, THAT THEY'RE NOT THE OLD, TRADITIONAL SEVEN PLUS ALL OF THE TWO-LETTER COUNTRY CODES.
IT'S APPARENTLY THE CASE THAT NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE PROBLEMS IN SOME BROWSERS, BUT MORE FREQUENTLY, WE HAVE PROBLEMS IN PEOPLE'S JAVA CODE APPLETS AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS THAT MIGHT HAVE MORE THAN THREE CHARACTERS, THERE ARE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS THAT ARE THINGS LIKE DOT COOP AND DOT ARROW AND DOT MUSEUM.
AND A LOT OF JAVA CODE WRITERS DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
THEY, IN FACT, WILL SAY, WELL, THIS ISN'T A VALID E-MAIL ADDRESS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T END IN DOT COM OR DOT NET OR DOT ORG OR ONE OF THE OTHER TRADITIONAL TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.
SO IT OCCURS TO ME THAT IN ADDITION TO WORKING WITH BROWSER MAKERS, THAT WE MAY NEED AN EDUCATION CAMPAIGN FOR PEOPLE WHO WRITE JAVA CODE, OR OTHER SIMILAR KINDS OF APPLETS, TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE EXTENSION OF DOMAIN NAMES NOT ONLY TO LONGER ONES IN THE TOP LEVEL, BUT ALSO IDN FORMATS, IS VERY IMPORTANT, NOT JUST AT THE TOP LEVEL, BUT IN OTHER PARTS OF THE LABELS OF A MULTIPART DOMAIN NAME.
SO THAT'S ONE OBSERVATION, JUST MAKING THE TASK HARDER THAN IT ALREADY IS.
THE SECOND THING, WHICH, MICHEL, YOUR CHARTS MADE ME THINK THAT IF WE WANT TO IMPROVE THE PRODUCT THAT COMES OUT FROM OUR COLLECTIVE WORK, THAT -- AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE NOTION OF A TEST ENVIRONMENT, A KIND OF BATTERY OF APPLICATIONS, A BATTERY OF DOMAIN NAMES THAT ARE CHALLENGING IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WOULD BE VERY USEFUL FOR ALL OF US TO HAVE ACCESS TO SO THAT WE COULD CONFRONT OUR SOFTWARE WITH QUITE A WIDE RANGE OF DOMAIN NAMES THAT IT MIGHT HAVE TO REPRESENT, PARSE, PASS ALONG, CUT AND PASTE, AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE'S ENERGY TO PRODUCE A STANDARD SET OF TESTS, AND I DON'T EMPHASIZE THE "STANDARD" PART SO MUCH, BUT AN ACCESSIBLE, AVAILABLE, SHARABLE SET OF TESTS, IT WOULD HELP US ALL PRODUCE BETTER RESULTS, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL AS WELL.
>>TINA DAM: AMADEU.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY.
THANKS A LOT.
FIRST OF ALL, LET ME SAY THAT IT'S A PLEASURE TO SEE THAT THESE IDN DISCUSSIONS ARE EVOLVING IN THE WAY THEY ARE EVOLVING, NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE TOPICS WE ARE DOING AND THE ADVANCES WE ARE MAKING; ALSO BY THE SORT OF KNOWLEDGE WE ARE BRINGING INTO ICANN.
REMEMBER THAT FOR THE FIRST FOUR YEARS, IT WAS DONE IN, I WOULD SAY, QUITE WILD LINGUISTIC IGNORANCE.
WE WERE TRYING TO DO OUR BEST, BUT WE -- THERE WERE NOT PEOPLE WITH LINGUISTIC KNOWLEDGE OR UNICODE KNOWLEDGE IN THE DISCUSSIONS.
AND IT'S A GREAT PLEASURE TO HAVE IN A SINGLE DAY MICHAEL, MICHEL, AND MARK SITTING IN PANELS WITH US, DISCUSSING ALL THESE ISSUES.
THE SECOND, AND RELATING TO THIS ONE, IS A REQUEST THAT WAS REQUESTING SOME REALISM REGARDING THE NUMBERS BEFORE.
NOW I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST SOME REALISM WITH THE ENGINEERS THAT DO THE IMPLEMENTATION WHAT IS IN UNICODE BECOMING IDNA.
AND VERY OFTEN THEY MAKE VERY SIMPLISTIC DECISIONS ABOUT APOSTROPHE IS PUNCTUATION, IT'S NOT A LETTER.
WELL, IN MANY LANGUAGES, INCLUDING MINE, BUT IS EVEN MUCH MORE DRAMATIC IN CELTIC LANGUAGES, AS MICHAEL COULD TELL, APOSTROPHE IS PART OF THE WORD FORMATION, IT'S PART OF THE WORD VERY OFTEN.
IN MANY LANGUAGES, IN CATALAN, WE CAN'T DO WITHOUT, IN FRENCH WE COULD DO WITHOUT, BUT IT'S VERY UGLY.
IN CELTIC LANGUAGE, YOU CAN'T DO WITHOUT TO FORM WORDS.
WE NEED THAT, OR THERE'S A SUSPENDED DOT FOR CATALAN AND GEORGIAN OR SOME STRANGE HYPHEN THAT LOOKS CLOSE TO THE NORMAL HYPHEN.
BUT THESE ARE THINGS WE NEED ALSO.
SO IN THE REVIEW OF THE IDN PROTOCOL, IT'S NOT ONLY A QUESTION ABOUT ADOPTING UNICODE 5.0, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT, BUT IT'S ALSO A QUESTION OF REVIEWING CERTAIN DECISIONS MADE BY PEOPLE THAT HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT ANY OTHER LANGUAGE THAN ENGLISH, ABOUT WHAT'S USED IN OTHER LANGUAGES AS WORD FORMATION CHARACTERS.
HAVING SAID -- AND GERVASE MADE SOME REMARKS REGARDING PUNCTUATION THAT I HAVE NOT COMPLETELY GOT, SO I HOPE THAT HE WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR FOR ME A LIST.
THE OTHER QUESTION IS I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I CAN DO THAT HERE OR NOT, BECAUSE I UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS WAS AN IDN.IDN COMPLETE WORKSHOP, SO I DID NOT SUBMIT THE POSSIBILITY TO PRESENT WHAT .CAT IS TRYING TO DO WITH IDNS.
IT'S VERY SHORT, AND IF YOU'LL ALLOW ME TIME, I WILL JUST TAKE THREE MINUTES FOR THAT.
IF NOT, YOU JUST CUT ME OFF.
.CAT IS A NEW TLD.
WE WILL LAUNCH IT HOPEFULLY IN JANUARY, IF WE SOLVE SOME PROBLEMS WITH IANA.
AND IS A SPECIAL KIND OF TLD IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S RELATED TO (INAUDIBLE) LANGUAGE.
IT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS SOME LINGUISTIC BASE, IT'S NOT LANGUAGE-BASED TLD ONLY, BUT LANGUAGE IS THE MOST VISIBLE PART.
WE THOUGHT WE HAD SOME SPECIAL DUTIES RELATING TO THE LANGUAGE.
TRYING TO DO IDNS, WE HAD SOME OBSERVATIONS, THE FIRST IS THAT IN LATIN ROMAN LANGUAGE, IDNS ARE HELPFUL.
AND USING OUR CHARACTERS IS IMPORTANT, BUT IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT.
WE HAVE GROWN USED TO USE PURE ASCII, AND WE UNDERSTAND DOMAINS IN ASCII AND, YOU KNOW, TEXT IN ASCII, EVEN IF IT MEANS OUR BELOVED SPECIAL CHARACTERS.
IT'S VERY UGLY, BUT IT'S USABLE.
THE SECOND ONE IS THAT THIS MAY CREATE CONFUSION IF WE SELL A SERVICE THAT PEOPLE CAN'T USE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THE OTHER PARTY DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT BROWSER OR THEY ARE TRYING TO USE E-MAIL AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHY IT WORKS FOR THE WEB BUT NOT FOR THE E-MAIL AND THINGS LIKE THAT, OR THEY ARE SITTING IN A PLACE WHERE THEY DON'T FIND THE STRANGE CHARACTERS ON THE KEYBOARD BECAUSE THEY ARE IN VANCOUVER AND NOT IN BARCELONA OR BULGARIA OR WHEREVER.
AND THESE WILL CREATE SOME SORT OF FIRST IMPRESSION THAT WE DON'T WANT TO ENCOURAGE.
THE OTHER IS WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN THE IDNS VERY OFTEN HAS BEEN TRYING TO SELL THE SAME HORSE TWICE TO THE DIFFERENT OWNER.
WE SAY WE HAVE THIS DOMAIN, BUT NOW WE HAVE THIS DOMAIN IN ANOTHER WAY, SO GRAB IT AND PAY AGAIN, BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE WILL SELL IT TO ANOTHER PERSON AND YOU WILL HAVE CONFUSION WITH YOUR TRADEMARK NAME, WHATEVER.
WE TRY TO MINIMIZE THIS.
HOW?
WELL, FIRST, FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES, WE DO IDNS ONLY FOR CATALAN LANGUAGE.
AND WE ENCOURAGE MOVING TO A SCRIPT-BASED APPROACH, BUT IT WAS LANGUAGE-BASED.
BEING A LANGUAGE-BASED APPROACH MADE SOME SENSE.
WE WILL MOVE TO ROMAN IN THE NEAR FUTURE, PERHAPS.
THE SECOND ONE IS THAT -- SO WE HAVE JUST 11 SPECIAL CHARACTERS, 11 NON-U.S. ASCII.
THE SECOND THING IS THAT WE DON'T CHARGE FOR IDNS.
THIS IS STILL AN EXPERIMENT.
IT DOESN'T WORK IN MOST COMPUTERS FOR WEB, IT DOESN'T WORK NOWHERE, FOR E-MAIL.
WE DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO CHARGE MONEY FOR THAT.
AND FUNNY ENOUGH, ONE OF THE HUGE PARTS OF OUR LANGUAGE AND ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT THINGS IN OUR CONTRACTUAL NEGOTIATIONS WITH ICANN WAS CONVINCING THEM THAT THEY SHOULDN'T CHARGE EITHER THE $1 PER DOMAIN TO US, AS WE WERE NOT CHARGING THE REGISTRANTS.
THE THIRD PART, AND THAT'S THE IMPORTANT PART OF THE EXPERIMENT, IS THAT WE WANT TO HAVE PEOPLE GROW USED TO THAT.
HOW?
THEY HAVE TO REGISTER THE -- LET'S SAY EQUIVALENT ASCII.
WHAT WE ARE CREATING ARE FALSE VARIANTS.
E WITH ACCENT IS EQUAL TO E WITHOUT ACCENT ASCII.
FOR THE 11 CHARACTERS, WE HAVE SEVEN EQUIVALENTS.
SO WHAT WE DO IS, YOU GET THE ASCII VERSION, THE TRADITIONAL ONE WITHOUT THE SPECIAL CHARACTERS, AND YOU PAY THAT ONE.
AND ON TOP OF THAT, YOU GET YOUR IDN FOR FREE.
BUT WITH THE CONDITION THAT THIS HAS THE SAME REGISTRY LIFE, IS A BUNDLE, SAME REGISTRANT, SAME CONTEXT, SAME NAME SERVERS, OKAY.
AND WE WILL DO THAT UNTIL THE DAY THAT WE SEE THAT -- AND WE PUT THAT IN THE CONTRACT WITH ICANN -- 80% OF THE INSTALLED BROWSER BASE IN THE FOLLOWING, YOU KNOW, OPERATING SYSTEMS, WINDOWS, INCLUDING WINDOWS MOBILE AND THEIR SUCCESSORS, MAC OS X, LINUX, SIMIAN, AND PALM. AND ALSO A MAJOR E-MAIL CLIENT FOR ALL THESE PLATFORMS ALREADY ACCEPT IDNS NOT DEFINITELY WITHOUT THE NEED OF IN THE CLIENT-BASED PLUG-IN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT IS, OUT OF THE BOX, IT WORKS FOR USERS.
AND SO THE PEOPLE WILL LEARN THAT THEY USE FUNDACION, WITH ACCENT, DOT CAT.
AND PROBABLY THEY WILL LEARN THAT THE IDNS WILL WORK BECAUSE OF THE MOZILLA, MICROSOFT, AND ALL THE VENDORS OF BROWSERS AND E-MAIL CLIENTS, AND OTHER INTERNET-RELATED APPLICATIONS.
THAT DAY, WE'LL DECIDE TO UNBUNDLE AND PERHAPS TO CHARGE FOR THAT.
FOR THE MOMENT BEING, WE ARE TAKING THIS VERY CONSERVATIVE APPROACH.
I KNOW IT'S TOO CONSERVATIVE, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT EXPANDING THE NAME SPACE THAT MUCH.
BUT THIS IS NOT OUR MAIN WORRY.
WE DON'T NEED MORE DOMAINS. WE DON'T WANT MORE MONEY. WE WANT PEOPLE TO LEARN HOW TO USE IDNS IN, YOU KNOW, AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE WE ARE NOT PLAYING WITH OUR RIGHTS AND WE ARE NOT PLAYING WITH OUR MONEY, BECAUSE IT IS STILL AN EXPERIMENT FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW.
ONE MINOR TECHNICAL THING AT THE END. THE ONLY --
>>TINA DAM: AMADEU, CAN I ASK YOU TO SUMMARIZE MAYBE THE LAST POINT QUICKLY? BECAUSE I'LL HAVE TO PASS THE TIME ON TO SOMEONE ELSE TO SPEAK AS WELL.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: IT WAS VERY SHORT THE LAST ONE. WE'RE TRYING TO USE DNAME FOR THAT; OKAY? IN OUR NAME SERVERS. THAT IS THAT THE DIFFERENT PARTS, THE DIFFERENT VERSIONS, THE ONES THAT ALL THE IDN EQUIVALENTS THAT I HAVE BROUGHT TO THE SAME ASCII USE THE NAME.
FOR SOME REASON, SOME TECHNICAL ADVISORS WITHIN ICANN TOLD US NOT TO USE DNAME BUT REGULAR NS. WE'RE SEEING TODAY DNAME IS GAINING SOME SUPPORT HERE, SOME MOMENTUM. WE ARE GLAD ABOUT THAT AND WE WILL TAKE A DECISION ONE OF THESE DAYS.
>>GERVASE MARKHAM: AMADEU ASKED ABOUT PUNCTUATION A LITTLE WHILE AGO. I SHOULD SAY ALSO THAT WHAT HE HAS JUST DESCRIBED SEEMS LIKE ALMOST THE IDEAL WAY TO RUN A REGISTRY THAT'S DEALING WITH ONE PARTICULAR SORT OF LANGUAGE OR COUNTRY IN TERMS OF THE WAY HE IS MANAGING IDNS AND BUNDLING STUFF AND HAVING THE ASCII EQUIVALENTS WITHOUT THE ACCENTS BUNDLED IN, AND THAT SOUNDS FANTASTIC AND I JUST WANT TO CONGRATULATE HIM ON THE WAY HE HAS ARRANGED THAT.
BUT IN TERMS OF PUNCTUATION, THERE IS -- THE ROLE OF PUNCTUATION IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES IS DIFFERENT, AS HE POINTS OUT. AND THERE IS A TENSION HERE, PARTICULARLY WITH PUNCTUATION, BECAUSE OF ITS NORMAL SORT OF EPHEMERAL DOT E TINY, STROKEY NATURE. THERE IS A TENSION HERE BETWEEN HAVING AS MUCH PUNCTUATION AS, YOU KNOW, ANYONE MIGHT PARTICULARLY WANT WITH THE DANGER THAT PEOPLE MIGHT GET CONFUSED WITH PROTOCOL CHARACTERS AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND SO I GUESS THAT'S A TENSION THAT HAS TO BE WORKED OUT ON A PARTICULAR LANGUAGE. THERE IS ALSO THE QUESTION OF EQUALITY. THE POOR ENGLISH MIGHT START, YOU KNOW -- SOME OTHER SCRIPT GETS ALL OF ITS PUNCTUATION. THE ENGLISH MIGHT START WANT APOSTROPHES AND COMMAS AND THINGS IN THEIR DOMAIN NAMES AND GOODNESS KNOWS WHERE YOU WOULD END UP.
MY SORT OF HOT BUTTON WITH PUNCTUATION IS PUNCTUATION THAT SPOOF CHARACTERS, SUCH AS COLON AND HASH AND SLASH AND SO ON. IF YOUR PUNCTUATION IN YOUR SCRIPT LOOKS LIKE THAT, THEN IF YOU SUGGEST ALLOWING IT TO IDNS THEN I AM GOING TO GET ALL WAAHHH ON YOU.
BUT IF IT DOESN'T, I'M PROBABLY NOT GOING TO START WORRYING.
I VERY MUCH SEE THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE IN THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE POLICE TELLING PEOPLE WHAT CHARACTERS THEY CAN AND CAN'T USE. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I DO THINK THAT THE DNS IS FOR IDENTIFIERS, NOT FOR WORDS AS SUCH.
AND SO YEAH. BUT ADMITTEDLY IT'S AN ISSUE IN TENSION AND IT'S AN AREA WHERE I VERY MUCH HAVE MY EARS OPEN.
>>TINA DAM: MARK.
>>MARK DAVIS: YEAH, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE RECOMMENDED IDENTIFIER PROFILE ON THE UNICODE SIDE IS UP FOR PUBLIC REVIEW. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT CHARACTERS YOU THINK SHOULD BE ADDED OR REMOVED, THEN WE WOULD LOVE TO KNOW THAT.

>>TINA DAM: OKAY. JUST BEFORE YOU GIVE YOUR COMMENT, WE'LL CLOSE THE QUEUE AFTER THE TWO OF YOU. AND WE'LL HAVE A LAST STATEMENT FROM THE PANEL BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE LAST SESSION.

>>PETER KOCH: OKAY. MY NAME IS PETER KOCH. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER. I FEEL A LOT OF ENTHUSIASM ABOUT THE DNAME APPROACH HERE, WHILE TECHNICALLY, AND PURELY TECHNICALLY, I HAVE SOME SYMPATHY FOR THAT, PLEASE BE ADVISED DNAME IS A BEAST AND IT HAS SOME STRANGE SIDE EFFECTS THAT NEED TO BE CAREFULLY STUDIED.
SO IT'S NOT THE MAGIC BULLET.
BUT MORE TO THE POINT, I HAVE A REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION FOR RAM.
YOU TALKED ABOUT, LIKE INTRODUCING THE GUIDELINES INTO THE IETF PROCESS AND THEN THERE WAS SOME MIXTURE REGARDING BCP OR STANDARD TRACKS STATUS, AND YOU CONFUSED ME.
SO COULD YOU....
>>RAM MOHAN: BCP, PERIOD.
>>PETER KOCH: OKAY. AND WHO IS YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE FOR THAT?
>>RAM MOHAN: WHO IS MY TARGET AUDIENCE FOR?
>>PETER KOCH: FOR THAT PARTICULAR BCP. AND BY THE WAY, OF COURSE THERE IS NO PROTOCOL POLICE.
>>RAM MOHAN: SURE. THE IDEA HERE IS TO ACTUALLY CREATE -- WELL, THE TARGET WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY ONCE -- ONCE IT'S APPROVED, IF IT'S APPROVED, WOULD BE REGISTRIES. THEY WOULD BE THE PEOPLE WHO TODAY, THE GUIDELINES, PRIMARILY ARE AIMED AT REGISTRIES. AND I WOULD SUSPECT THAT'S THE SAME AUDIENCE FOR THIS DOCUMENT AS WELL.

>>PETER KOCH: WELL, IN THE DISCUSSION ABOUT IDN AND HOMOGRAPH OR HOMOGLYPH TEXT THAT SHOULD BE CALLED, IT WAS POINTED OUT AT SOME TIME IT WAS NOT TOO USEFUL TO STOP AT THE SECOND LEVEL ANYWAY.
SECOND QUESTION ON THAT IS IT IS VERY LIKELY DURING THE IETF REVIEW PROCESS THERE WILL BE CHANGES REQUESTED CHANGES BE MADE TO THE DOCUMENT. SO WHAT IS THE GENERAL IDEA? HAVING LIKE TWO DIRECTIONS OF THE GUIDELINES? HAVING ONE ICANN GUIDELINE AND ONE IETF GUIDELINE?
>>TINA DAM: SURE. THE GUIDELINES IS GOING TO BE REPLACED BY THE BCP. THE GUIDELINES APPLY TO THE GTLD RIGHT NOW.
THOSE CONCEPTS OR REQUIREMENTS IS GOING TO MOVE -- BE MOVED INTO A BCP. SO THERE WILL BE ONE.
>>PETER KOCH: SO THERE WILL BE A REFERENCE FROM THE -- FROM ICANN TO THE IETF BCP 2B?
>>TINA DAM: THAT'S THE INTENTION ONCE IT'S FINISHED, YES.
>>MICHAEL EVERSON: NOW, NOW, YOU KNOW I AM GOING TO TAKE YOU TO TASK.
>>GERVASE MARKHAM: I AM IN TROUBLE.
>>MICHAEL EVERSON: WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE OR NOT ACCEPTABLE IN OTHER PEOPLE'S LANGUAGES. THE FACT THAT THE ETHIOPIC WORD SPACE, WHICH THEY WILL HAVE TO USE BECAUSE THEY CANNOT USE A HYPHEN BECAUSE IT'S COMPLETELY ALIEN TO THEM, AND THE ETHIOPIC WORD SPACE IS A WAY TO DIVIDING ADDIS AND ABBABBA AND IT WOULD BE PERFECTLY NATURAL AND EVERY ETHIOPIC OR (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER WOULD BE REALLY HAPPY TO HAVE IT. THE FACT IT LOOKS LIKE A COLON TO YOU IS YOUR PROBLEM. THE FACT THAT VERSAGA IN DEVANAGARI LOOKS LIKE A COLON IS YOUR PROBLEM BECAUSE IT'S A LETTER AND YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
NOW, YOUR PROBLEM, THOUGH, WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOUR PROBLEM IS THAT IT IS -- LOOKS LIKE A PROTOCOL CHARACTER, YOU DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM. THE PROTOCOLS ONLY RECOGNIZE THE ACTUAL CHARACTERS THAT THERE ARE. IF YOU HAVE HTTP COLON SLASH SLASH, IT IS GOING TO GO AND DO WHAT IT DOES. IF YOU HAVE AN ETHIOPIC WORD SPACE OR A DEVANAGARI VERSAGA THERE, IT WON'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER LEVEL OF SOFTWARE THAT RECOGNIZES WHAT THE ACTUAL CHARACTER IS SUPPOSED TO BE.
SIMILARLY, IF YOU HAVE A COLON IN THE PLACE WHERE YOU NEED AN ETHIOPIC WORD SPACE OR A SANSKRIT VERSAGA, IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK SO YOU DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.
>>VINT CERF: ACTUALLY, I THINK I SAW SEVERAL HANDS UP.
NO FAIR GOING AWAY FROM THE MICROPHONE. WE WANTED TO HAVE A GOOD TARGET TO SHOOT AT.
I HAVE THE -- LET'S SEE. I UNDERSTAND THE LINE OF REASONING -- I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE LINE OF REASONING THAT YOU WERE WALKING DOWN. THE PART THAT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME HAS TO DO WITH THE POSSIBILITY THAT A STRING WILL BE PRESENTED VISUALLY, MAYBE IT'S ON A BUSINESS CARD, MAYBE IT'S JUST ON THE SCREEN, MAYBE IT'S PRINTED ON A SHEET OF PAPER. AND THE PARTY LOOKING AT THAT STRING IS GOING TO TRY TO REPRODUCE IT BY REKEYING IT, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING IT STAY IN ITS MACHINEABLE FORM.
IT'S THE REKEYING PART THAT COULD, I THINK, CAUSE THE CHARACTER THAT LOOKS LIKE A COLON TO BE TRANSFORMED INTO A COLON BY THE REKEYING OF THAT STRING BY A PARTY WHO THINKS THAT IT'S PART OF A URL.
SO MY COLLEAGUES MAY BE ABLE TO SAY THIS MORE CLEARLY, BUT I THINK THAT'S THE PART THAT WORRIES PEOPLE ABOUT SYMBOLS THAT LOOK THE SAME AS PROTOCOL CHARACTERS, BECAUSE THEY MIGHT BE PUT INTO A STRING AND THEN REKEYED AND CREATE THE PROBLEM THAT YOU WERE SUGGESTING WOULD NOT HAPPEN.
>>GERVASE MARKHAM: THAT'S CERTAINLY AN ADDITIONAL CONCERN ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT MY PRIMARY CONCERN.
>>MICHAEL EVERSON: NOBODY IS GOING TO REKEYING THE HYRIC ALPHABET WHEN NOBODY KNOWS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
>>VINT CERF: YOU HAVE GREATER TRUST IN PEOPLE WHO USE THE INTERNET THAN I DO.
>>MICHAEL EVERSON: YOU WOULD HAVE TO SIT THERE WITH A CHART AND WORK IT OUT. IT'S COMPLICATED. IT HAS 200 CHARACTERS IN IT. ETHIOPIC KEYBOARDS HAVE A BUTTON THAT CAN TYPE A COLON DISTINCTLY FROM AN ETHIOPIC WORD SPACE. IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY AT MOST FONTS, A COLON WILL BE ROUND AND HAVE CIRCLES AND THE ETHIOPIC WORD SPACE IS MADE UP OF A SQUARE. IT'S A MATTER FOR THE ETHIOPIC CCTLD, FOR INSTANCE, TO DECIDE WHAT IS ALLOWED AND WHAT IS NOT AND IT'S NOT A MATTER FOR ICANN OR ANY OTHER BODY TO SAY THAT LOOKS LIKE ONE CHARACTER IN ASCII THAT WE USE FOR SOMETHING ELSE AND SO YOU CAN'T USE IT.
IN BURMESE THE DIGIT ZERO AND LETTER WAH ARE 100 PERCENT IDENTICAL IN EVERY FONT AND THERE IS NO GETTING AWAY FROM THAT.
EVER.
>>MARK DAVIS: MIGHT I SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS?
I THINK THAT THERE IS -- THERE IS A DEFINITE TENSION BETWEEN THE VISUALLY SIMILAR CHARACTERS, BECAUSE THEY CAN CAUSE SECURITY PROBLEMS, AND THAT'S DUE TO THE ISSUE THAT I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER.
WHAT WE HAVE TRIED TO DO IN COMING UP WITH A SET OF RECOMMENDED CHARACTERS IS TO TRY TO WEIGH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE CHARACTERS AGAINST THE PROBLEMS THAT THEY CAN CAUSE. AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE FEEDBACK FROM PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF AND OTHERS ON THE CHARACTER CHOICES THAT WE HAVE MADE.
BUT THERE ARE ISSUES, EVEN IF -- THERE ARE ISSUES THAT CAN CAUSE PROBLEMS AND, AS GERVASE SAYS, THE GOAL IS TO HAVE MNEMONICS THAT ARE REPRESENTABLE NOT TO NECESSARILY HAVE EVERY SINGLE WORD OF EVERY LANGUAGE. YOU CAN'T RIGHT NOW REPRESENT THE WORD U.S.A. SPELLED WITH PERIODS IN A LABEL. IT'S JUST IMPOSSIBLE. YOU CAN'T REPRESENT O'REILLY IN A LABEL, OR LOTS OF WORDS. FOR THAT MATTER, IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WORDS, THE NORMAL DELIMITERS OF SPACE, AND SPACES ARE NOT ALLOWED AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT AREA.
WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH IS WE CAN'T EXPECT IT WILL EVER BE ABLE TO REPRESENT THE FULL RICHNESS OF ALL LANGUAGES IN ALL -- WITH ALL TYPOGRAPHIC TRADITIONS. IT'S MEANT TO REPRESENT A SUBSET OF THAT. AND I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WE GO FORWARD.
THAT WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS TRY TO MAKE THAT SUBSET AS USEFUL AS POSSIBLE.
>>MICHEL SUIGNARD: YES, IF IT WAS ME THE ONLY SYMBOL THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IS THE DASH, PLUS AND MINUS. I WAS WORKING VERY HARD WHEN I WAS CREATING THAT LIST TO HAVE NOTHING IN IT. IN FACT, IF ANYTHING, THE NEW REVISION HAS ONE LESS SYMBOL IN IT BECAUSE I DID WORK WITH THE JAPANESE REGISTRY TO GET ONE CHARACTER REMOVED BECAUSE WE FOUND IT WAS IN FACT VERY CONFUSING. WE LOOK AT IT IN ORDER TO SEE IF ANYBODY USED IT AND NOBODY HAD SO WE CAN GET RID OF IT.
ANYTHING THAT CREATE A SECURITY RISK IS BAD. WE CANNOT JUST LIVE WITH IT.
IF WE RUN THE WHOLE IDEA OF AN EXPERIMENT INTO THE GROUND BECAUSE WE ALLOW TOO MANY CHARACTERS THAT CREATE A SAFETY ISSUE, WE HAVE LOST EVERYTHING.
SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE TRY TO BE AS CONSERVATIVE AS WE CAN. AGAIN, I AM NOT GOING TO REPEAT THE OTHER ARGUMENTS. THOSE ARE IDENTIFIERS. THEY ARE NOT WORDS. IT JUST HAPPENS THAT THEY LOOK LIKE WORDS BUT THEY ARE NOT.
>>MICHAEL EVERSON: BUT WHAT I AM SAYING IS THE ARGUMENT THAT A PROTOCOL CHARACTER IS GOING TO CAUSE ANY PROBLEMS IS COMPLETELY FALSE.
>>MICHEL SUIGNARD: YOU ARE NOT A SECURITY EXPERT. SORRY. YOU KNOW.
>>MICHAEL EVERSON: THE PROTOCOL CHARACTER ONLY WORKS AT A PARTICULAR PLACE IN A URL AND IT DOESN'T WORK IF A YOU PUT A COLON IN A MIDDLE OF A STRING, IT DOESN'T GO ANYWAY.
>>GERVASE MARKHAM: THERE IS A SLIGHT MISUNDERSTANDING HERE ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE RISK. I AGREE THAT THE SCENARIO YOU POSTULATE WOULD NOT BE A RISK BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE WORRY IS. THE WORRY IS THAT SOMEONE WILL VISIT A PARTICULAR WEB ADDRESS, AND THEY WILL ASSUME -- COLON IS ADMITTEDLY THE EASIER CASE THAN THE SLASH, BUT WHERE THEY WILL ASSUME THAT IS THE PARTICULAR PART THAT THAT'S THE DOMAIN IS THIS SECTION (INDICATING) WHEN IN FACT IT'S THAT SECTION BECAUSE THAT THERE IS A THING THAT LOOKS LIKE A SLASH BUT ISN'T.
AND SO IF THAT THING THAT LOOKS LIKE A SLASH HAPPENS TO BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF YOUR ALPHABET THEN WE HAVE A BIT OF A PROBLEM BECAUSE IF WE LET YOU USE IT, THEN EVEN IF -- THEN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET FOOLED INTO THINKING THEY ARE IN ONE PLACE ON THE INTERNET WHEN IN FACT THEY ARE ON ANOTHER. WHICH IS SORT OF THE CORE CONFUSION THAT IS THE BASIS OF PHISHING AND ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT ARISES.
NOW, I'M NOT -- I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE SCALE OF THE POSSIBLE PROBLEM IS. IT COULD BE THAT WHEN WE ANALYZE THE DIFFERENT SCRIPTS OF THE WORLD AND THEIR LETTERS AND MAYBE A SEPARATOR FOR EACH ONE, IF EACH ONE WERE TO CHOOSE A SEPARATOR TO HAVE AN ANALOGOUS POSITION OF A HYPHEN, IT MAY TURN OUT THAT NONE OF THEM BY HAPPY COINCIDENCE HAVE ANY RELATION TO PROTOCOL CHARACTERS. WE HAVE COME ACROSS ONE WHICH DOES, WHICH IS THE ETHIOPIC WORD SPACE. EVEN THAT MIGHT BE PERMISSIBLE IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THE REGISTRY HAD A RULE THAT IT HAD TO OCCUR BETWEEN TWO ETHIOPIC CHARACTERS. WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO MITIGATE THE PROBLEM THAT WAY. BUT WHAT I WANT TO ESTABLISH AS A PRINCIPLE IS THE FACT THAT THERE ARE CHARACTERS OR PUNCTUATION CHARACTERS WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIALLY CLOSE TO PROTOCOL CHARACTERS OF WHICH THERE ARE ONLY FIVE OR SIX, THEN THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL SECURITY RISK THERE AND WE CANNOT USE THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS GROUP USES THIS CHARACTER; THEREFORE, WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT MUST BE ALLOWABLE.
BECAUSE THE REASON WE ARE IN THE POSITION WE ARE TODAY WHERE ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT IMPORTANT ORGANIZATIONS ARE SPENDING ALL OF THIS TIME WORKING ON THE IDN PROBLEM IS THAT WE STARTED OFF SAYING THAT, YEP, ALL THE CHARACTERS ARE GREAT EXCEPT THESE COUPLE, WHICH WE THINK ARE PROBLEMATIC. AND WE ENDED UP WITH A SERIOUS SECURITY ISSUE.
AND I THINK THAT MORE SECURITY ISSUES SURROUNDING IDN AND MORE SPOOFABILITY PROBLEMS SURROUNDING IDN WILL LEAD TO REDUCED UPTAKE AND THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK WHICH WOULD BE VERY, VERY BAD.
I AM DETERMINED THAT IDNS ARE GOING TO BE FIRST CLASS CITIZENS ON THE NET. THEY ARE GOING TO BE JUST AS SAFE TO USE AS ASCII DOMAIN NAMES. YOU DON'T NEED EXTRA ALERTS YOU DON'T NEED EXTRA WARNINGS, DON'T NEED EXTRA TRAINING TO USE THEM.
IF THEY ARE LESS SAFE BECAUSE CHARACTERS ARE ALLOWED WHICH MIGHT CONFUSE PEOPLE, AND THEREFORE THERE IS SOME DANGER, THEN WE HAVE FAILED IN THAT GOAL AND THAT'S WHAT I DON'T WANT TO SEE.
>>TINA DAM: I AM GOING TO STEAL THE WORD BECAUSE I AM CONSCIOUS WE ARE RUNNING OVERTIME A LITTLE BIT.
I HAVE ONE MORE PANEL MEMBER IN THE QUEUE. I WANT TO QUICKLY CHECK WITH THOMAS. I SAW YOU IN THE QUEUE. NO.
CARY, YOU ARE ACTUALLY IN A LUCKY POSITION BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO GET THE LAST WORD AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE LAST SESSION. AND TRY TO BE BRIEF.
>>CARY KARP: I'M THE GUY WHO HELD THE PEN WHEN THE GUIDELINE VERSION 2.0 WAS DRAFTED. AND THERE ARE THREE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE SAID.
THE ONE IS THAT WE HAVE HEARD EVERY WORD AND HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO EVERY WORD THAT HAS BEEN SAID. I'M CRITICAL OF THE EXTENT OF THE MODIFICATION THAT HAS BEEN MADE.
YOU MAY NOT REALIZE THAT SOME OF US ARE BOUND BY CONTRACT TO HEED THOSE GUIDELINES. OTHERS OF US ARE NOT, REGISTRIES ARE NOT.
AND WHEN THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE JUST BEEN HAVING STARTED, IT BECAME CLEAR THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY REGISTRY THAT COULD ONLY EXPRESS ITS IDN POLICIES IN TERMS OF LANGUAGE TO MAKE THE CHANGES THAT THE CURRENT SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS NECESSITATED.
SO IT WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE SCRIPT-BASED POLICIES AS WELL AS LANGUAGE-BASED POLICIES. AND THAT WAS THE MINIMUM CHANGE THAT HAD TO BE MADE AND HAD TO BE MADE IN A REAL HURRY.
EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO IN THAT SAME HURRY WAS REALLY GREAT, AND WE KNEW ALL ALONG THAT THERE WERE GOING TO BE PLENTY OF THINGS THAT WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO IN THAT HURRY.
THE BCP WAS REGARDED AS A MORE SUITABLE REPLACEMENT INSTRUMENT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE CLEAR NORMATIVE STATUS, HOWEVER, THAT ULTIMATELY ENDS UP BEING IMPLEMENTED.
AN IDN GUIDELINE AND AN IDN BCP ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ANIMALS. WE ALSO REALIZE IT WILL BE A WHILE BEFORE THAT BCP ACTUALLY EXISTS. AND BECAUSE THE BOARD DECISION THAT RATIFIED THOSE GUIDELINES INSTRUCTED US VERY, VERY CLEARLY TO ADD WISDOM GATHERED IN THE SHORT TERM TO THE DOCUMENT, WE ARE GOING TO BE CODIFYING IN SOME FORMAT THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY CLEAR EXACTLY THE THING THIS WE HAVE BEEN CRITICIZED FOR NOT HAVING CODIFIED, PERHAPS TO INFORM THE BCP PROCESS. AND THE ONE THING SPECIFIC THAT WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE TO GET BACK INTO THE DOCUMENT THAT WE TOOK OUT, HAVING MISAPPRAISED THE SITUATION, IS THE RULE THAT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DO WHAT MARK SAID WAS IMPOSSIBLE. U.S.A., CAN, IN FACT, BE A SINGLE LABEL IN A DOMAIN NAME BUT IT CANNOT BE A SINGLE LABEL IN A HOST NAME. AND WHAT IS CALLED THE HOST NAME RULE HAS TO BE MADE BINDING. IT WAS BINDING IN VERSION 1.0. IT WAS BINDING IN UP TO THE FIRST VERSION OF BUT IT FAILED BY THE WAYSIDE TO REASONS THAT RELATED TO CONTRACTUALLY WORDING. THAT THOSE OF US CONTRACTUALLY BOUND BY ALL OF THIS ARE BOUND ANYWAY TO OBSERVE THE HOST NAME RULE. AND AS THE FIRST CONTRIBUTION TO THIS EXTENDED 2.0, WE ARE GOING TO RESTORE THIS LITTLE CLAUSE AND AS THAT HAPPENS WE WILL BE HEEDING VERY CAREFULLY EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO ADD TO THIS. AND YOU WILL SEE THAT HAPPEN AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN.
>>TINA DAM: THANK YOU, CARY. SO I AM GOING TO CLOSE THIS SESSION AND SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO THE PANELISTS AND FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION.
WE DO HAVE ONE LAST SESSION TO GO, AND FOR JUST A PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE, I AM GOING TO ASK ALL OF THE SPEAKERS FOR THE LAST SESSION TO SORT OF GATHER AROUND OVER IN THE CORNER HERE BY THE SPEAKER STAGE SO THAT WE CAN HAVE QUICK SWITCHES IN BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT PRESENTERS.
SO THANK YOU TO THIS PANEL.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>TINA DAM: OKAY.
SO THE LAST SESSION FOR TODAY IS TO PROVIDE A GROUP OF PEOPLE WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THEIR INITIATIVES IN RELATION TO IDN.
SO WE'VE HAD TWO SESSIONS ON VERY SPECIFIC TOPICS, IDN AT THE TOP LEVEL, IDN AT THE SECOND LEVEL.
AND THERE IS VARIOUS PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT HAVEN'T BEEN HEARD YET TODAY WHO ARE PRESENT HERE IN VANCOUVER.
SO THERE IS GOING TO BE SIX PRESENTATIONS, I BELIEVE, IF EVERYBODY MANAGED TO STAY THROUGH THE LONG DAY.
AND I'M GOING TO ASK MOUHAMET DIOP AND MICHAEL EVERSON, I BELIEVE YOU ARE THE FIRST ONES UP.

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: OKAY.
A VERY LONG SESSION.
I THINK THAT PEOPLE ARE STILL FRESH TO LISTEN FOR THE THIRD PART OF THE -- I GET IT HERE AND I DON'T GET IT ON MY SCREEN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
I THINK THAT I WILL NOT BE SO LONG.
I WILL TRY TO BE BRIEF.
I WANT TO PRESENT WITH MICHAEL A PROJECT ON WHICH WE HAVE WORKED ON IT.
AND THE INTENTION OF THAT PROJECT IS TO TRY TO HAVE A BETTER PRESENCE OF THE AFRICAN LANGUAGES ON THE NET.
AND PART OF THE IT IS -- THE FIRST PART OF THE PROJECT IS TO HAVE A CODIFICATION, A MEAN A CODIFICATION INSIDE UNICODE OF MANY AFRICAN LANGUAGES THAT ARE NOT ALREADY THERE.
AND THE SECOND ONE IS TO TRY TO HAVE THE SAME APPROACH THAT WE HAVE VALIDATED THROUGH OUR DISCUSSION HERE, IS AN EXPERIMENTATION ABOUT IDN FOR SOME CCS IN AFRICA TO HAVE BETTER KNOWLEDGE AND A BETTER EXPERIENCE ABOUT WHAT EFFECT THIS IMPLEMENTATION WILL CAUSE TO THE DNS.
SO THIS PROJECT IS -- HAS SOME HISTORY THAT MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT HERE, BUT IT JUST CAME FROM SOME FACTS, AND THE FACTS ARE THE AFRICAN COMMUNITY AND AFRICAN LANGUAGES ARE VERY WEAK IN TERMS OF PRESENCE AND CONTENT ON THE INTERNET.
AND BASED ON THAT FACT, SO SOME OF THE EXPERTS HAVE TAKEN THE DECISION TO HELP THE LINGUISTS IN OUR REGION TO BE MORE VISIBLE.
BECAUSE, I MEAN, STRONG -- THERE WAS A TREMENDOUS WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE BY THE LINGUISTS IN AFRICA.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS, WHENEVER THEY FINISHED THEIR JOB, THEY GOT A PROBLEM TO JUMP FROM THE TECHNICAL SIDE TO THE COMPUTERIZATION.
AND THEY DID NOT KNOW WHO CAN HELP THEM IN ORDER TO LEAPFROG AND TO STEP ON THE OTHER SIDE.
SO WE JUST DECIDE THAT IT'S TIME FOR THE AFRICAN TECHNICAL COMMUNITY TO HELP THE LINGUISTS, SIT AROUND THE SAME TABLE AND DISCUSS HOW WE CAN MOVE FORWARD IN ORDER TO MAKE THE UNICODE PROCESS BE MORE EFFICIENT AND TO SHORTEN THE PROCESS AND THEN START THINGS ABOUT IDN.
SO I THINK THE SUBJECT OF THIS MEETING IS JUST RELATED TO IDN, BUT IF WE SEE THE NUMBERS VERY QUICKLY, WE WILL UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT IN AFRICA WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
I AM GOING TO GO VERY QUICKLY TO THE SLIDE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE HEARD ABOUT THE -- THE RATIONALE FOR PUSHING FOR IDN AND EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT JUST BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF POPULATIONS SPEAKING DIFFERENT LANGUAGES.
AND I'M NOT GOING TO COME BACK ON THAT ARGUMENT AGAIN.
THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING SLIDE.
IT JUST SHOWS HOW FAR IS THE EXCLUSION REGARDING THE AFRICAN REGION.
BECAUSE WE ARE MORE THAN 800 MILLION PEOPLE, LESS THAN 2% OF THE CONNECTIVITY IN AFRICA.
WE CAN SAY THAT WE REPRESENT 13% OF THE POPULATION WORLDWIDE.
BUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ECONOMIC, I MEAN, YOU DIDN'T EVEN SEE ANY LINE RELATED TO AFRICA, BECAUSE WE SAY THAT THEY ARE INSIGNIFICANT IN THE TOTAL TRANSACTIONS REGARDING THE E-COMMERCE OR ANY IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY.
SO IT MEANS THE SAME PROBLEM WE HAVE REGARDING TECHNOLOGY WE HAVE BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE THAT IS THE SUPPORT FOR EDUCATION IS NOT PRESENT IN THE PROCESS.
I JUST GIVE THE EXAMPLE OF MY COUNTRY.
WE HAVE 16 LANGUAGES THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED AS NATIONAL LANGUAGES.
IT MEANS IT CAN BE USED FOR EDUCATION IN THE SECONDARY AND THE PRIMARY.
BUT WHAT HAPPENS IS NONE OF THEM WAS IN THE UNICODE DATABASE.
IT MEANS IF YOU WANT TO USE THE COMPUTER IN ORDER TO TEACH ANYTHING IN MY COUNTRY, I MEAN, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO DO IT USING THE COMPUTERS, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THERE.
THIS IS THE FACT IN SENEGAL, THE SAME APPROACH, WE HAVE IT IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
SO IT IS REALLY INTERESTING TO SEE THAT THE PROCESS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO WITH THE HELP OF THE DIFFERENT SPECIALISTS HERE IS, WE TALK A LOT ABOUT THE CONTENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONTENT, THE MULTILINGUALISM.
THESE CONCEPTS ARE REALLY NICE CONCEPTS.
BUT THE IMPLEMENTATION HAS TO GO THROUGH SOME SPECIFIC PROCESS ON GROUND THAT ONLY TECHNICAL STAFF CAN HELP THESE PEOPLE TO ACHIEVE IT.
AND COMING BACK TO THE CONTACT ON THE WSIS.
WE JUST EXPLAINED TO THE POLITICAL STAFF THAT NOTHING COULD BE DONE IF YOU WANT THE AFRICAN CONTENT TO BE ON THE NET IF YOU DO NOT GO THROUGH THESE PATHS, THAT IS, FIRST MAKE YOUR LANGUAGE INTO UNICODE, GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, MAKE IT -- I MEAN, THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPER AND OTHER PEOPLE, GET THEM ONTO THE COMPUTERS, AND THEN FROM THAT, YOU CAN JUST THINK ABOUT MAKING THIS THING MORE ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE.
SO VERY QUICKLY, I HAVE JUST TO GO THROUGH THREE SLIDES TO SHOW YOU WHAT ARE THE THREE STEPS THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH FOR THIS PROJECT.
WE -- THE PROJECT HAS JUST THREE PARTS.
THE FIRST ONE IS THE CENSUS OF THE AFRICAN LANGUAGES.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THE JOB BY OURSELF, BECAUSE THERE WERE ACTUALLY NETWORKS OF LINGUISTS THAT EXIST AND DID A GREAT JOB.
SO THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TRIED TO DO HERE IS TO USE THE EXISTING NETWORK OF LINGUISTS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF AFRICA AND TRIED TO MAKE THEM TALK TO EACH OTHER IN ORDER TO HAVE A GOOD CENSUS OF WHERE WE ARE IN TERMS OF HOW MANY AFRICAN LANGUAGES WE HAVE, HOW MANY ARE SPOKEN, HOW MANY ARE WRITTEN, AND HOW MANY HAVE ALREADY BEEN THROUGH THE PROCESS OF UNICODE REGISTRATION AND WHERE WE ARE.
AND THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE PROJECT.
THE SECOND ONE IS THE CODIFICATION.
AND THE CODIFICATION GOES THROUGH JUST A PILOT, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY.
WE SAY THAT THIS IS A PRIVATE-SECTOR INITIATIVE.
SOME OF THE ENGINEERS JUST SAY, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO SEE WHO CAN HELP US FUND THE FIRST PART OF THE PILOT PROJECT, AND WE GOT SUPPORT FROM ISOC, AFILIAS ABOUT HELPING US WITH THE FIRST PART OF THAT PROJECT.
IT'S JUST RELATED TO SIX COUNTRIES, LANGUAGES INSIDE THESE COUNTRIES, GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS, AND AT THE END, GIVE WHAT WE CALL A WHITE OR GREEN PAPER TO THE AFRICAN UNION SAYING THAT THIS IS THE WAY WE CAN SCALE UP OR GENERALIZE FOR THE PROJECT.
AND THE THIRD PART IS, WE JUST DECIDE INSIDE THE COORDINATING COMMITTEE GROUP THAT WE'RE GOING TO SELECT TWO CCS THAT ARE READY TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF IDN AT THE SECONDARY LEVEL JUST TO HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE THAT IS NEEDED TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE IDN.
AND THIS IS ONLY DISCUSSION, BECAUSE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE SEE PEOPLE FROM THE CCNSO WHO ARE REALLY INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS AND WHO HAVE THE SKILLS THAT ARE NEEDED IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THIS.
AND THAT IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF DISCUSSION WE HAVE ALREADY HAD.
WE HAVE MADE ONE FIRST MEETING THAT IS CALLED A STUDENT COMMITTEE MEETING IN SENEGAL WHERE WE HAVE AROUND 45 PEOPLE AT THAT MEETING FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD COMING FROM DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AND EVEN FROM EUROPE AND OTHER COUNTRIES.
WE'VE GOT ALSO PEOPLE GETTING INTO THE CONFERENCE FROM THE U.S. AND WE TRIED JUST TO MAKE THE TECHNICAL PEOPLE AND THE LANGUAGE PEOPLE TOGETHER IN ORDER TO SEE HOW WE CAN DO TO MOVE FORWARD.
I'M NOT TRYING TO KEEP A LONGER DISTANCE.
BUT THE IDEA IS, THIS IS PART OF, I MEAN, WHAT ICANN IS SUPPOSED TO HELP IN SOME WAY SOME PART OF THE WORLD TO BE, I MEAN, JUST TO SEE ALL THE MOVEMENT GOING TOGETHER AND NOT LEAVING PART OF THE WORLD BEHIND JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE WHAT THEY NEED IN ORDER TO CATCH UP.
AND THAT WAS JUST THE MESSAGE I WANT TO LEAVE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>MICHAEL EVERSON: THIS IS VERY, VERY BRIEF JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHY WE'RE ALL HERE AND THE KINDS OF CHALLENGES THAT PEOPLE FACE WHO HAVE NOT HAD THEIR LANGUAGES ON COMPUTERS FOR A LONG, LONG TIME.
AS WE ALL HAVE, MOST OF US.
AND SO THIS IS JUST -- THIS IS VERY BRIEF, JUST SOME INFORMATION ON THE N'KO SCRIPT THAT I HAVE MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES TODAY.
I'M TELLING YOU WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING RIGHT NOW.
UNESCO FUNDED THE WORK TO ANALYZE AND GET N'KO READY FOR ENCODING IN UNICODE. AND IT WILL BE IN UNICODE 5.0.
TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS, THE N'KO SCRIPT IS USED TO WRITE A NUMBER OF RELATED LANGUAGES SURPRISING 18 TO 20 MILLION SPEAKERS.
THEY'RE USED IN THE COUNTRIES SHOWN IN RED THERE ON THE MAP, COTE D'IVOIRE, GAMBIA, GUINEA, LIBERIA, SENEGAL, AND -- IT WAS DEVISED RECENTLY IN TERMS OF HOW THE WORLD'S WRITING SYSTEMS GO, IN THE 1940S BY SOLOMANA KANTE WHO DEVISED IT FOR THE RELATED LANGUAGES OF WEST AFRICA.
IT HAS A VIGOROUS AND ACTIVE USER COMMUNITY AND WILL BE ENCODED.
HERE'S A PICTURE OF A BOOK STORE AND A SCHOOL.
WHAT IS CURRENTLY GOING ON IS FONT PREPARATION, BECAUSE N'KO HAS NEVER HAD UNICODE PRESENCE BEFORE, THEY HAVE TWO THINGS THAT THEY DO.
THEY FAKED -- BECAUSE IT'S A RIGHT-TO-LEFT SCRIPT WITH COMBINING WITH CHARACTER JOINING, THEY'VE BASICALLY FAKED N'KO WITH ARABIC SCRIPTS FOR A LONG TIME.
SO NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME WE'RE DEVELOPING REAL N'KO FONTS.
WE ARE BEHOLDEN, FOR INSTANCE, TO MICROSOFT AND ADOBE FOR GETTING N'KO INTO UNIDESCRIBE.
BUT I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO PETER CONSTABLE, AND HE'S NOT AGAINST IT.
SO N'KO HAS COMPLEX BEHAVIOR AND NEEDS PRECISE DIACRITICAL MARKS.
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE FONTS THEY DO HAVE NOW, YOU CAN SEE IT'S ROUGH AND UNRECTIFIED.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM ROW, THIRD, FOURTH, AND FIFTH CHARACTERS, ALL OF THOSE HAVE N'S WHICH ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
THEY'RE AWFUL.
AND SO WHAT WE'RE DOING AS PART OF THIS IS WE'RE MAKING -- IT WILL BE -- IT WILL NOT ONLY BE A UNICODE FONT, BUT IT WILL BE A MULTIPLATFORM UNICODE FONT, IT WILL BE FREE FOREVER, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT IS GETTING TYPOGRAPHIC FORM WITH WHAT I CONSIDER, IF I MAY, DECENT DESIGN FOR THE FIRST TIME.
WE'RE DOING KEYBOARD DESIGN.
THERE'S AN ERGONOMIC KEYBOARD WHICH IS -- AND THEN A QWERTY AND AZERTY FOR PEOPLE WHO ALREADY KNOW HOW TO TYPE AND MAY PREFER THOSE.
IN THE KEYBOARDS WE HAVE PRIMARY SUPPORT FOR N'KO AND BIDIRECTIONAL SUPPORT, BECAUSE YOU NEED BIDIRECTIONAL IF YOU HAVE AN RTL SCRIPT.
THERE ARE SECONDARY SUPPORT FOR GENERIC AND ASCII SYMBOLS, ESPECIALLY ONES USED IN PROTOCOLS, FOR INSTANCE.
NEXT, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS TO DO.
THERE'S THE VAI SCRIPT OF LIBERIA.
AND THEN THERE'S ALL THE LANGUAGES IN AFRICA WHICH USE THE ARABIC SCRIPT AND ALL THE ONES WHICH USE THE LATIN SCRIPT.
AND THERE'S JUST A LOT WORK TO BE DONE.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SORT OF DOING.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

>>TINA DAM: THANK YOU, MICHAEL.
I THINK MOUHAMET HAD A REALLY BRIEF COMMENT.
JUST KEEP IT VERY BRIEF.
>>MOUHAMET DIOP: IT'S ONE MINUTE.
IT'S JUST A 30-SECOND SHOT OF -- SAYING THAT WE WANT TO SHARE ABOUT JUST A ONE-MINUTE COMMENT ON THAT, IS FOR PEOPLE TO SEE WHAT HAVE BEEN DONE, FOR EXAMPLE, THROUGH ALL THE ICANN PROCESS ABOUT IDN INITIATIVES SINCE 2000 UP TO NOW.
AND THIS IS JUST IN TWO SLIDES, A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY INTERESTED TO KNOW WHERE WE ARE AND WHAT WE HAVE SCHEDULED TO BE DONE FOR THE NEXT COMING MONTHS.
AND EVEN FOR THE SCALING UP OF THE PROJECT, THAT IS THE THIRD PHASE OF THE PROJECT.
SO PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN GETTING MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT PROJECT, SO WE'LL BE ABLE TO SHARE WITH THEM.
AND THIS IS JUST TO SHOW HOW THIS INITIATIVE HAS BEEN SET UP BY COORDINATING COMMITTEE.
AND WE TRY TO LIAISE WITH LINGUISTS AND I.T. SPECIALISTS IN AFRICA IN ORDER TO HAVE A STEERING COMMITTEE THAT IS STRONGER AND WILL INTERACT WITH ALL THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT WE NEED TO WORK WITH.
SO THIS IS JUST THE ONLY THING I WANT TO SHARE WITH PEOPLE TO SHOW THAT WE ARE TRYING JUST TO HAVE THE CONNECTION WE NEED IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT PROJECT FUNCTION WELL AND BECOME A REALITY IN THAT CONTINENT.
THANKS.

>>TINA DAM: THANK YOU, MOUHAMET.
I'M CAUTIONED THAT THERE'S A LOT OF MATERIAL FROM THE DIFFERENT PRESENTERS.
THOSE WHO HAVE PRESENTATIONS WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE ONLINE AND LINKED FROM THE AGENDA.
SO YOU'LL BE ABLE TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT SOME OF THESE DETAILS LATER.
I'M GOING TO PASS THE WORD ON TO PANKAJ AGRAWALA FROM THE GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE IDN WORKING GROUP.
>>PANKAJ AGRAWALA: THANK YOU, TINA.
I DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION, AND I'M GOING TO MAKE A BRIEF PRESENTATION OF SOME FACTS AND A NEW DIMENSION TO THE WHOLE DISCUSSION ON IDNS THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE 12:30.
I WOULD EVEN GO TO THE EXTENT OF SAYING THAT I'M GOING TO BE PRESENTING THE POLITICAL SIDE OF THE ROLLOUT OF IDNS.
AND THE FIRST AND FOREMOST THING THAT HAS HAPPENED BETWEEN LUXEMBOURG AND VANCOUVER AND BETWEEN THE TWO WORKSHOPS ON IDNS IS AN EVENT THAT TOOK PLACE IN TUNIS.
AND THE GOVERNMENTS HAVE NOW SUDDENLY REALIZED THAT THERE IS A RESOURCE CALLED THE INTERNET AND THERE IS A SOVEREIGN ENTITY IN THE FORM OF COUNTRY CODE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, AND ALSO THERE IS ANOTHER ENTITY, WHICH IS THEIR COUNTRY'S LANGUAGE, WHICH IN (INAUDIBLE) 53 OF THE TUNIS AGENDA, HAS BEEN GIVEN, I WOULD SAY, A FULL RECOGNITION BY SAYING THAT WE CONTINUE WORKING TOWARD MULTILINGUALISM OF THE INTERNET AND WE WILL THEREFORE ADVANCE THE PROCESS FOR MULTILINGUALISM IN A NUMBER OF AREAS, INCLUDING DOMAIN NAMES, AND KEY WORD LOOKUPS. AND IT GOES ON TO SAY ABOUT IMPLEMENT PROGRAMS THAT ALLOW FOR THE PRESENCE OF MULTILINGUAL DOMAIN NAMES AND CONTENT ON THE INTERNET.
AND THEN STRENGTHEN COOPERATION BETWEEN RELEVANT BODIES FOR THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNICAL STANDARDS TO FOSTER THE GLOBAL DEPLOYMENT.
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN WHEN IT COMES TO THE GAC?
WE HAVE WITH US THE TECHNICAL SIDE IS WELL LOOKED AFTER BY THE -- I WOULD SAY BY THE IETF AND ALL THE ESTEEMED MEMBERS WHO HAVE SPOKEN BEFORE ME.
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE CLUSTERS THAT WE HAVE FOUND IN THE VARIOUS LANGUAGES, SCRIPTS, AND COUNTRIES, WE COME ACROSS A HOST OF CLUSTERS, MODELS, AS WE WOULD CALL THEM, THERE IS A ONE LANGUAGE, ONE SCRIPT, ONE COUNTRY, PROBABLY THE EASIEST MODEL TO HANDLE, ONE LANGUAGE, ONE SCRIPT, AND A DIASPORA.
MY FRIEND ADMINISTRATED TAMIL IN SINGAPORE.
MY ADMINISTRATOR IS SO UPSET.
HE SAYS WHY HAVEN'T YOU DONE IT IN INDIA?
AND I TELL HIM, SIR, TAMIL IS A SCRIPT, AND WE HAVE ANOTHER SCRIPT WHICH HAS SOMETHING VERY COMMON AND I WILL HAVE TO SORT OUT THE ISSUES, THE PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES.
AND HE SAYS, YOU ARE NOT AS GOOD AS RAM.
WELL, THAT IS THE WAY IT IS.
I HAVE A LANGUAGE, A SCRIPT, MANY COUNTRIES.
I HAVE ONE LANGUAGE, MANY SCRIPTS, ONE COUNTRY.
ONE LANGUAGE, MANY SCRIPTS, MANY COUNTRIES.
ONE COUNTRY, MANY SCRIPTS, MANY LANGUAGES.
THE -- IT'S A HOST OF PERMUTATION COMBINATIONS.
I WOULD EVEN GO TO THE EXTENT OF SAYING THAT MAYBE IN THE TIMES TO COME THERE MIGHT BE A SITUATION WHICH WILL BE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT GAT AND THE WTO ROUNDS OF NEGOTIATIONS WERE IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT.
IN TWO, THREE YEARS' TIME, I WILL BE SEEING COUNTRIES NEGOTIATING OVER WHO SHOULD BE TAKING THE FIRST RIGHT OVER A PARTICULAR NAME OR HOW DO YOU GIVE THE PRIORITY TO A PARTICULAR RESOURCE THAT HAS BEEN CREATED ON THE MULTILINGUAL ENVIRONMENT.
AND TOWARDS THAT, WE FIND THAT THE FIRST PHASE, THAT IS, THE DEVELOPMENT OF BASIC LANGUAGE TABLE, IDENTIFICATION AND COLLECTION OF CHARACTERS, IDENTIFICATION AND POTENTIAL VARIANTS, AND THEN LINKING THEM WITH THE UNICODE CHARACTERS WOULD BE ALL VERY EASY.
BUT THE REAL CHALLENGE THAT WILL COME WOULD BE IN THE I.P. (INAUDIBLE) AND CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS, WHERE THE -- HOW DO YOU DETERMINE THE RESERVED NAMES IN A LANGUAGE?
WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE A PARTICULAR COUNTRY WOULD RESERVE SOME OF THE NAMES IN ITS CCTLD AND THEN WOULD EXPECT THE GTLD TO ALSO RESERVE THOSE NAMES.
HOW DO WE RESOLVE THAT ISSUE?
HOW DO WE DETERMINE THE SUNRISE PERIOD, IF IT IS NECESSARY, ESPECIALLY IF THERE ARE -- THERE ARE TRADE NAMES AND THERE ARE IPR ISSUES?
THEN WE HAVE THE CONTEXTUAL RULES OF MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM LENGTH.
AND, OF COURSE, THE FINAL THING IS THAT HOW DO YOU GET A DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY IN WHICH YOU HAVE AN EXPERT WHO KNOWS THE LEGAL SIDE, THE LANGUAGE SIDE, AND THE SCRIPT?
YOU -- WE STILL DON'T HAVE A COMBINATION OF ALL THREE IN ONE PERSON.
AND IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND ALL THESE.
SO, THEREFORE, THE OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE HUGE BEFORE US.
AS I SAID, I HAVE -- IN THE GAC, WE HAVE DECIDED TO CREATE THESE CLUSTERS AND ASK EACH OF THESE CLUSTER COUNTRIES TO START DISCUSSING AMONGST THEMSELVES AND PROCEED THROUGH A COLLABORATIVE AND GIVE-AND-TAKE MODEL.
BUT I PERCEIVE THAT THE FUTURE IS RIDDEN WITH PROBLEMS AND WE CAN'T SEE A SOLUTION LIKE THE ONE THAT HAD THE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED SOLUTION THAT I HAD HEARD IN ONE COUNTRY.
OFFER THAT MATTER, EVEN THE BUNDLING THAT IRAN COULD DO FOR ITS CCTLD, I DON'T THINK SUCH A SITUATION COULD BE ACCEPTABLE IN A MULTI-COUNTRY SITUATION. AND WHEN THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE COUNTRIES INVOLVED.
MY PRESENTATION IS JUST ON THESE ISSUES THAT GAC HAS BEEN -- THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS BEEN GRAPPLING WITH.
AND WE HOPE TO DO SOMETHING AND COME FORWARD AGAIN WHEN WE MEET AGAIN IN WELLINGTON.
THANK YOU.

>>TINA DAM: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PANKAJ.
THE NEXT PRESENTER IS GOING TO BE ANDRZEJ BARTOSIEWICZ.
HE'S GOING TO GIVE US SOME INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE ITU IS DOING IN REGARDS TO IDNS.
>>ANDRZEJ BARTOSIEWICZ: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TINA.
I AM GOING TO PRESENT WHAT IS GOING ON WITHIN ITU IN THE FIELD OF IDNS. AND MY IDEA IS TO SHOW THAT ITU CAN COOPERATE WITH ICANN, AND BOTH ORGANIZATIONS, ICANN AND ITU CAN HAVE THE BENEFITS FROM THE COOPERATION BECAUSE OF WIDER ADOPTION OF IDNS WORLDWIDE.
LET'S START VERY BRIEFLY WITH BACKGROUND.
ITU IS DEALING -- DEALS WITH IDNS BECAUSE OF THREE DOCUMENTS, THREE RESOLUTIONS. TWO OF THEM ARE FROM 2002 FROM THE PLENIPOTENTIARY CONFERENCE IN MARRAKESH. AND THE LAST ONE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT. THIS IS THE RESOLUTION FROM WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION STANDARDIZATION ASSEMBLY FROM NOVEMBER 2004, AND THIS DOCUMENT DEFINES THIS ACTIVITY WITHIN ITU.
I DON'T WANT TO READ THIS RESOLUTION, BUT JUST TO SHOW YOU FROM MY PERSPECTIVE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART.
ALL THE DOCUMENTS ARE IN THIS PRESENTATION, SO YOU CAN LATER READ THEM, IF YOU THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.
I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE IDEA OF THIS RESOLUTION AND WTSA CONSIDERED THAT THERE IS -- THERE IS NEED TO BE IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION OF THE POLITICAL, ECONOMICAL, TECHNICAL ISSUES WITHIN IDNS.
ALSO, IT SAYS THAT INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS LIKE ITU SHOULD HAVE A FACILITATING ROLE IN SUCH ISSUES.
OKAY. AND FINALLY, THIS RESOLUTION EXPLICITLY SAYS THAT STUDY GROUP 17 WITHIN ITU IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IDNS. JUST MAYBE VERY BRIEFLY, ITU WORK IS DIVIDED IN STUDY GROUPS, AND STUDY GROUPS ARE DIVIDED IN SO-CALLED QUESTIONS. AND IDN IS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WITHIN STUDY GROUP 17.
WE HAD ALREADY TWO MEETINGS OF THE STUDY GROUP 17 AND THIS QUESTION 16, ACTUALLY. AND THE WORK WITHIN ITU IS DONE BASED ON THE IDEA THAT BEFORE THE MEETING, THE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE SUBMITTED AND THEN DISCUSSION OUT OF THE ITU STUDY GROUP MEETING, THERE'S PRESENTATION OF THE DOCUMENTS, AND DISCUSSION ON THE DOCUMENTS.
SO THE MEETING IN MOSCOW, WE PREPARED THE ACTION PLAN, AND IT WAS THE FIRST MEETING OF THIS GROUP.
WE CREATED MAILING LIST, ENUMERATED FUNDAMENTALS OF IDNS, ET CETERA.
AND THE LAST MEETING WE HAD IN OCTOBER 2005. WE HAD 17 CONTRIBUTIONS, MOSTLY BASED ON -- MOSTLY ADDRESSING TECHNICAL ISSUES OF THE IDNS.
WE HAD 19 PARTICIPANTS, INCLUDING NINE GOVERNMENTS. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE WAS NINE GOVERNMENTS AND TEN NON-GOVERNMENTAL PEOPLE. SO IT'S NOT LIKE GOVERNMENTS ONLY.
AND -- YES, THAT IS.
AND SOME OF THEM ARE IN THIS ROOM, ALSO.
WHICH ISSUES HAVE BEEN COVERED BY ITU AND IS DISCUSSED, TECHNICAL BACKGROUND, ESPECIALLY RISK ACCOMPANYING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IDNS. REQUIREMENTS FOR ITU-T, RECOMMENDATIONS, IF ANY. SO IT'S NOT DEFINED. AND OF COURSE THE PROBLEMS WITH IDNS ADOPTION WORLDWIDE.
ON THE NEXT THREE SIDES YOU CAN SEE THE DEFINITION OF THIS QUESTION DEDICATED TO IDNS.
AND JUST TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THREE OF THEM. THIS GROUP SHOULD ADDRESS WHAT ARE NATIONAL, REGIONAL, AND INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE OF ITU MEMBER STATES, THE GOVERNMENTS. ITU-T SECTOR MEMBERS, SO THE BUSINESS -- BUSINESS REPRESENTATION. AND OTHER RELEVANT ENTITIES LIKE USERS, ET CETERA.
ALSO, WE HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT ARE THE IDN NEEDS OF ITU MEMBER STATES AND SECTOR MEMBERS.
SO THIS GROUP WILL NOT ADDRESS MORE THAN EXPECTED BY THE SECTOR MEMBERS AND STATE MEMBERS.
AND OF COURSE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CURRENT IETF AND ICANN WORK ON IDN. SO ITU DO NOT -- DOESN'T PLAN TO DO THE SAME WORK AS DONE WITHIN IETF OR ICANN. SO IF ICANN, LET'S SAY, PREPARED IDN LANGUAGE TABLES REPOSITORY, ITU WILL NOT REPLACE THIS WORK BECAUSE IT'S NOT NECESSARY. IT'S ALREADY DONE.
RELATIONSHIPS, OF COURSE, WITHIN ITU WITH OTHER STUDY GROUPS. STANDARDIZATION ORGANIZATIONS LIKE IETF, ISO. OTHER ORGANIZATIONS LIKE ICANN, AND THEREFORE I AM HERE. UNICODE CONSORTIUM.
MY CONCLUSIONS ARE GENERALLY TWO. THE FIRST IS THAT IN MY OPINION, ITU AND ICANN CAN COOPERATE TO FACILITATE IDN DEPLOYMENT. I WOULD LIKE -- IN MY OPINION, ICANN CAN BENEFIT WITH ITU WORK ON IDNS BECAUSE ITU CAN HELP, CAN FACILITATE THE ADOPTION OF IDNS. AND MY OPINION IS THAT ITU DO NOT PLAN TO SEIZE THE ICANN/IANA WORK ON IDNS. SO IF SOMETHING IS DONE BY ICANN, IT WILL BE NOT REPLACED OR DONE AGAIN BY ITU. THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR THIS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>TINA DAM: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ANDRZEJ.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS YOAV KEREN FROM THE DOMAIN THE NET TECHNOLOGIES.
>>YOAV KEREN: HI. IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY FOR EVERYONE, AND THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE STILL HERE.
I WANT TO TRY, AFTER MANY OF THE THINGS THAT WERE SAID HERE, I WANT TO TRY AND TAKE US BACK A LITTLE, MAYBE TO THE SPIRIT ABOUT IDN IN THE BEGINNING REPRESENTATION. AND THEN GIVE YOU MAYBE A PERCEPTION OF HOW IT IS FROM THE HEBREW ANGLE. HEBREW ANGLE OR ISRAELI ANGLE.
INTERNET, AS EVERYONE HERE KNOWS, HAS CHANGED OUR WORLD. STARTING FROM E-MAIL TO SEARCH TO MANY, MANY, MANY OTHER APPLICATIONS THAT I JUST PUT HERE ON THIS SLIDE.
THIS HAS REALLY CHANGED MANY PEOPLE'S WORLD, AND LIFE AND ECONOMICAL PERCEPTIONS, AND SOMETIMES EVEN SOCIAL.
BUT DID IT CHANGE EVERYONE'S WORLD? AND WE KNOW THE ANSWER FOR THAT. NO. THERE ARE BILLIONS THAT STILL DO NOT USE THE INTERNET. THEY CANNOT ENJOY THE SPECTRUM OF APPLICATIONS. AND THEY CANNOT ENJOY THE ECONOMICAL BENEFITS.
NOW, THESE PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT BARRIERS, AND DOMAIN NAMES, WE ALL KNOW, ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES. SOMETIMES THERE ARE OTHER THINGS.
BUT A KEY BARRIER, AS I SEE IT, IS, IN MANY TIMES, THE ENGLISH DOMAIN NAMES AND THE ENGLISH E-MAIL ADDRESSES.
THE SAME TIME, LOCALIZATION IS ALREADY HERE. PC APPLICATIONS ARE AVAILABLE NOW IN MANY LANGUAGES. THEY WERE DEVELOPED EITHER BY INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES THAT UNDERSTOOD THE POTENTIAL OF DEVELOPING THEIR SOFTWARE IN THE LOCAL LANGUAGE, OR BY LOCAL COMPANIES THAT JUST DID THAT.
NOW, WE ALL HEARD THAT IT'S NOT IN ALL LANGUAGES, AND THERE ARE MANY OTHERS, OTHER LANGUAGES THAT HAVE THE PROBLEMS. BUT IT'S HAPPENING.
WEB SITES IN EACH COUNTRY ARE USUALLY LOCAL, LOCAL IN LANGUAGE, AND DEVELOPED LOCALLY. AND THE BROWSING EXPERIENCE IN EACH COUNTRY IS USUALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER. ANY COUNTRY, ANY LANGUAGE HAS ITS OWN POPULAR WEB SITES. SOMETIMES THERE ARE WEB SITES LIKE GOOGLE THAT ARE AVAILABLE IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, BUT STILL, YOU HAVE YOUR LOCAL LANGUAGE, YOUR LOCAL WEB SITE.
NOW, THIS IS JUST A -- HOW MY -- I DON'T SEE ALL OF IT, BUT THIS IS HOW MY COMPUTER BACK HOME LOOKS LIKE. AND WHAT YOU CAN SEE IS THAT EVERYTHING IS IN HEBREW. YOU DON'T SEE IT THERE FOR SOME REASON, BUT THE START BUTTON IS IN HEBREW.
MY WORD DOCUMENT, EVERYTHING IS IN HEBREW.
SAME AS POWERPOINT. AND OF COURSE ALL OTHER APPLICATIONS. YET -- OUR WEB SITE IS IN HEBREW. YET THE ONLY THING HERE THAT IS STILL IN ENGLISH IS THE DOMAIN NAME. THE ONLY THING.
AND AGAIN WE GO TO MY OUTLOOK OR OUTLOOK EXPRESS. IT'S IN HEBREW. THE ONLY THING THAT IS STILL IN ENGLISH IS THE E-MAIL ADDRESS.
SO ENGLISH DOMAIN NAMES ARE A BARRIER. THEY ARE A BARRIER FOR PEOPLE THAT LITERALLY DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH, BUT THEY ARE ALSO A BARRIER FOR PEOPLE THAT KNOW A LITTLE ABOUT ENGLISH BUT FEEL THAT THIS IS A PRACTICAL BARRIER OR PSYCHOLOGICAL BARRIER.
USUALLY THESE PEOPLE ARE COMING FROM THE LOWER INCOME GROUPS IN MANY COUNTRIES. AND WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT THOSE THAT KNOW ENGLISH, COMING FROM A HIGHER INCOME GROUP, CAN USE THE INTERNET, ENJOY ITS BENEFITS, ITS ECONOMICAL BENEFITS, ITS SOCIAL BENEFITS. AND THOSE FROM THE LOWER INCOME GROUPS CANNOT.
SO DISTRIBUTION, WEALTH DISTRIBUTIONS JUST GROW IN THESE COUNTRIES.
SO WHY IDN.IDN? I THINK MOST OF US KNOW THE ANSWER. THE FIRST THING IS THAT IT'S ELIMINATING THE LAST LANGUAGE BARRIER. THE INTERNET WILL BE MORE ACCESSIBLE. MORE PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO USE IT AND TO ENJOY THE VARIETY OF OPPORTUNITIES. AND ANOTHER THING, VERY IMPORTANT THING, WORDS ARE MORE COMPREHENSIBLE IN YOUR OWN LANGUAGE.
AND THE LAST NOTION IS IT'S EASIER TO REMEMBER. FOR SOMEONE, I CAN SPEAK FOR MYSELF AS A HEBREW SPEAKER, IT'S EASIER FOR ME TO REMEMBER A DOMAIN NAME OR A NAME OF A COMPANY THAT IS WRITTEN IN HEBREW THAN IN OTHER LANGUAGES, IN ENGLISH OF COURSE.
OTHER VALUES THAT WE GET FROM IDN IS COMING FROM SOLVING THE PROBLEM THAT THE CONVERTED PRESENTATION OF WORDS OR NAMES IN ENGLISH, INTO ENGLISH, IS SOMETIMES AWKWARD OR DISTORTED. WHAT I MEAN HERE IS THAT MANY TIMES COMPANIES HAVE -- OR ORGANIZATIONS HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TAKING THEIR NAME AND JUST TRY AND WRITE THE PRONOUNCE -- THE PHONETIC WAY THAT IT'S PRONOUNCED IN ENGLISH. AND, YOU KNOW, FOR SOMEONE THAT DOESN'T SPEAK ANOTHER LANGUAGE, YOU WON'T UNDERSTAND IF YOU ARE AN ENGLISH SPEAKER. BUT IF YOU ARE AN ARABIC SPEAKER OR HEBREW SPEAKER OR CHINESE SPEAKER, YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. IT LOOKS VERY AWKWARD.
AND THE THING THAT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT IDN ONCE IT IS IMPLEMENTED -- NOT ONLY THOSE, BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE MAY THINK THAT YEAH, IT'S ONLY FOR THE PARTS WHO DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH, IT'S FOR THEM. NO. HEBREW SPEAKING PEOPLE, CHINESE SPEAKING PEOPLE THAT KNOW ENGLISH WILL STILL USE THEIR OWN LANGUAGE DOMAIN NAMES. IT WILL BE EASIER FOR THEM. IT WILL BE MORE COMFORTABLE FOR THEM TO USE THEIR OWN LANGUAGE DOMAIN NAMES.
ANOTHER THING THAT WILL HAPPEN IS THAT COMPANIES, WEB SITE OWNERS, AND OTHERS WILL JUST ADVERTISE THEIR NAMES IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGES BECAUSE IT'S EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO REMEMBER THOSE NAMES.
AND ANOTHER THING THAT I THINK THAT IS AS IMPORTANT AS THE DOMAIN NAMES IS THAT THIS WILL BRING INTERNATIONALIZED E-MAIL THAT WILL BE COMMONLY USED LOCALLY, MAINLY FOR PEOPLE JUST COMMUNICATING WITH THEMSELVES IN A COUNTRY OR USING THE SAME LANGUAGE.
THIS IS JUST A PRESENTATION HERE OF HOW IT WOULD LOOK IN HEBREW.
THERE'S ANOTHER THING THAT I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED HERE DURING THE DAY, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT IT DIRECTLY, IS THE RIGHT FOR CULTURAL EXPRESSION FOR DIFFERENT LANGUAGES.
FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THAT MOST OF US WILL AGREE THAT THERE IS A BASIC RIGHT FOR EVERY NATION AND EVERY CULTURE TO EXPRESS FREELY. THE INTERNET NOW IS ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT MEDIA, AND A MEANS FOR EXPRESSION. BUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THAT ADVERTISEMENT IN COUNTRIES THAT ARE NOT ENGLISH SPEAKING, ADVERTISEMENT SIGNS, TV SHOWS, ALL KINDS OF THINGS ARE PRESENTED IN SOME PART IN THE LOCAL LANGUAGE AND IN SOME PART IN ENGLISH.
NOW, I HAVE SOME EXAMPLES HERE.
THIS IS JUST A BILLBOARD FROM ISRAEL.
YOU'LL SEE EVERYTHING IS IN HEBREW, AND THEN THERE'S A LONG, PROBLEMATIC DOMAIN NAME IN ENGLISH.
THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT, ACTUALLY, OF RECRUITMENT.
YOU SEE THAT THE DOMAIN NAME OR THE E-MAIL ADDRESS IS "INTEL."
INTEL WAS SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE THEIR OWN LOGO, THEIR OWN NAME OF THE COMPANY IN HEBREW.
YOU'LL SEE HERE ON THE LEFT THAT INTEL HAS A HEBREW LOGO.
BUT THEY HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE BUT USING THE E-MAIL ADDRESS AND THE DOMAIN NAME OF INTEL IN ENGLISH.
THESE ARE JUST EXAMPLES OF SOME BUSINESS CARDS I GOT.
EVERYTHING IS IN HEBREW.
JUST THE -- THE E-MAIL ADDRESS AND THE DOMAIN NAME IS IN ENGLISH.
IT CAME TO A POINT THAT PEOPLE IN A COMPANY OR NAME JUST USING -- THIS IS VERY COMMON, JUST USING THE DOMAIN NAME AS THE NAME OF THEIR COMPANY, IN ENGLISH.
SO THIS IS AN ISRAELI COMPANY, OPERATING JUST LOCALLY.
THE NAME IS IN ENGLISH.
SO THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERNET HAS ALSO LED MANY COMPANIES, AS I SAID, TO USE THESE ENGLISH LETTERS, AS I SHOWED.
AND ALL OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS ARE SEEN BY MANY AS A KIND OF A CULTURAL ENFORCEMENT OF ENGLISH OVER THE LOCAL LANGUAGE.
NOW, I THINK THAT THOSE THAT INVENTED THIS SOLUTION DIDN'T MEAN THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN.
BUT THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING.
AND THE SOLUTION IS HAVING IDN AND IDN.IDN.
NOW, I THINK MOST PEOPLE HERE AGREE WITH WHAT I'M SAYING.
BUT I WANT TO SHOW OUR PERSPECTIVE.
IDN.IDN VERSUS IDN.ASCII, AS IT WAS SAID HERE, THIS IS NOT A GOOD SOLUTION FOR SEVERAL LANGUAGES, CHINESE OR JAPANESE OR KOREAN OR ARABIC, OR HEBREW.
IT'S VERY, VERY PROBLEMATIC.
THE PARTIAL SOLUTION DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE LANGUAGE BARRIER.
IT DOESN'T ALLOW A FULL OR FREE CULTURAL EXPRESSION AT THE SAME TIME.
AND THERE ARE SOME OTHER LIMITATIONS.
IT WAS MENTIONED HERE BEFORE.
BUT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IN HEBREW, SINCE YOU WRITE FROM RIGHT TO LEFT, WHAT YOU NEED TO DO WHEN YOU USE -- THE CURRENT SOLUTION, YOU DO WWW FROM THE LEFT, THE -- THIS IS JUST THE DOMAIN.
THIS IS THE DOMAIN IN HEBREW.
AND YOU WRITE IT FROM RIGHT TO LEFT.
AND THEN.COM FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.
THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE.
THIS IS -- WILL NEVER WORK.
THIS WILL WORK.
RIGHT TO LEFT IN YOUR OWN LANGUAGE.
THIS IS.COM IN HEBREW.
DOMAIN.COM IN HEBREW.
SO OUR PERSPECTIVE OF THIS IS THAT IDN.IDN IS THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION.
THIS IS WHAT WE ALL NEED TO PURSUE.
NOW, IN ISRAEL, AT DECEMBER 2000, WE LAUNCHED HEBREW DOMAIN NAMES.
AND YOU SEE HERE PICTURES OF US WITH THE MINISTER OF COMMUNICATION.
THIS WAS PUBLISHED IN ALL THE LEADING NEWSPAPERS, ALL THE LEADING WEB SITES.
AND, ACTUALLY, IT WAS ALSO ON THE RADIO AND ON THE 9:00 NEWS, THE PRIME TIME NEWS IN ISRAEL AT THE SAME DAY, IT WAS -- IT WAS A BIG FUSS ABOUT IT IN ISRAEL.
WE HAD ABOUT A FEW THOUSAND NAMES REGISTERED IN A FEW DAYS.
AND LATER ON, ABOUT 200,000 DOWNLOADS OF THE CLIENT FOR USING IT.
BUT THE PROBLEM WE SAW SINCE THEN, THAT SINCE IT'S NOT RESOLVING IN THE ROOT, SINCE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE TO -- A CLIENT THAT YOU HAVE TO INSTALL ON EACH COMPUTER, THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE, PRACTICALLY, TO DO, OR VERY HARD MAYBE.
IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT VERY HARD.
WE'RE STILL TRYING TO PUSH IT TO GET MORE RESOLUTION ON MORE -- THROUGH MORE COMPUTERS, BUT IT'S PROBLEMATIC.
I'M FINISHING.
IT'S ALMOST THE END.
SO HOW SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED?
TECHNICALLY, I THINK THAT RFCS PUBLISHED BY THE IETF SHOULD BE THE GUIDELINES FOR IDN.IDN.
AND AS I SAID, THE ITLDS, THE INTERNATIONAL TLDS HAVE TO BE ENTERED INTO THE ROOT.
IF IT WON'T HAPPEN, THIS WON'T BE A REAL SOLUTION.
WE WILL STILL BE LEFT WITH A PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION.
AND ON THE OPERATIONAL OR POLICY SIDE, I THINK THAT ICANN -- OR WE THINK IS THAT ICANN SHOULD NOMINATE A REGISTRY FOR EACH LANGUAGE AND SHOULD USE A KIND OF A BIDDING PROCESS THAT IT USES FOR A GTLD REGISTRY.
NOW, I WANT TO SAY -- WE TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE HERE -- I WANT TO SAY THAT MAYBE THE SOLUTION IS THAT ICANN WILL DECIDE ABOUT A GENERAL PROCESS OF HOW YOU -- HOW IT'S GOING TO DO IT AND THEN CHANGE IT A LITTLE CASE BY CASE, LANGUAGE BY LANGUAGE, OR MAYBE SCRIPT BY SCRIPT.
I THINK THE PREFERENCE SHOULD BE GIVEN TO LOCAL PARTIES THAT HAVE IMPLEMENTED IDN WHEN THEY APPLY FOR IT.
AND, YEAH, ALLOW THE USE OF ITLDS IN THE LANGUAGE IT IS OPERATING.
THEN IN EITHER PARALLEL TLDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE.
SO, NOW, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I KNOW THAT BEFORE PEOPLE SAID, OKAY, THIS IS GOING TO BE PROBLEMATIC ON THE BRANDING SIDE.
BUT WE CAN FIND POLICIES HOW TO MANAGE THAT.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS POSSIBLE.
OR YOU CAN DECIDE THAT YOU JUST LIMIT IT FOR A FEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.
BUT THIS SHOULDN'T BE A BARRIER FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IDN.IDN.
AND, AS I SAID, IT SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE ROOT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THAT'S IT.

(APPLAUSE.)
>>TINA DAM: THANK YOU.
SO I REALIZE WE ARE RUNNING OVER TIME, BUT WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS LEFT.
AND I'M GOING TO PASS THE WORD TO BRUCE TONKIN, CHAIR OF THE GNSO COUNCIL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THIS WILL BE EASY.
MY NAME IS BRUCE TONKIN, AND I'M CHAIR OF THE GNSO COUNCIL.
THE GNSO COUNCIL HAS THE ROLE, I GUESS, OF RECOMMENDING TO THE ICANN BOARD POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.
AND I GUESS THE MESSAGE FROM THIS SESSION THAT WE'RE HEARING LOUD AND CLEAR IS THAT PEOPLE DO WANT TO INTRODUCE DOT IDNS INTO THE ROOT, AND CERTAINLY THE GNSO WOULD SUPPORT THAT.
SO TO DO THAT, THE FIRST STEP FOR US TO, I GUESS, MAKE THIS HAPPEN IS, WE NEED TO DEVELOP A CLEAR POLICY THAT WE CAN THEN PRESENT TO THE BOARD, AND THEN THE BOARD CAN THEN INITIATE A PROCESS TO INTRODUCE THESE IDNS.
I THINK THE APPROACH FROM THE GNSO FIRSTLY IS TO TAKE THE OUTPUT OF THIS SESSION AND FIRST REQUEST THAT THE STAFF PRODUCE A REPORT THAT IDENTIFIES ALL THE ISSUES.
AND THEN WHAT WE WOULD DO IS TRY AND, I GUESS, START WITH SOME HIGH-LEVEL POLICY OBJECTIVES OR PRINCIPLES FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF IDNS.
AND THEN FROM THAT, PROBABLY SELECT A SMALL INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION, PRETTY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID WITH THE INITIAL INTRODUCTION OF NEW TLDS LIKE DOT BIZ AND DOT INFO IN 2000, WHERE RATHER THAN MAKING IT VERY GENERAL AND SAYING, HEY, YOU KNOW, LET'S HAVE HUNDREDS OF THESE THINGS, WE WOULD PROBABLY START WITH A VERY LIMITED ROUND THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH A SET OF POLICY PRINCIPLES THAT ARE DEVELOPED IN THE FIRST HALF OF NEXT YEAR.
SO I GUESS WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS TO TRY AND IDENTIFY SOME CLEAR POLICY PRINCIPLES TO START WITH IN THE FIRST SIX MONTHS, IDENTIFY A SMALL STEP FORWARD, AND THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT STEP FORWARD WOULD BE TOWARDS THE SECOND HALF OF NEXT YEAR.
IN DOING THIS, THOUGH, THE GNSO REALIZES THAT, NATURALLY -- AND WE'VE ALSO HEARD MANY OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED WITH CCTLDS CLEARLY ALSO WANT TO HAVE IDNS RELATED TO CCTLDS.
AND RATHER THAN HAVING TWO ACTIVITIES DOING THE SAME THING WITH COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE, WE'RE HOPING TO WORK CLOSELY WITH THE CCNSO COUNCIL FIRSTLY BY JOINTLY REQUESTING AN ISSUES REPORT, AND THEN PROBABLY MOVING TOWARDS SOME SORT OF JOINT POLICY GROUP TO WORK ON THAT IN THE FIRST HALF OF NEXT YEAR.
SO I GUESS THAT'S SORT OF A STATUS REPORT ON WHERE WE'RE AT TO MEET YOUR NEEDS WITH RESPECT TO ACTUALLY MAKING SOMETHING HAPPEN.

>>TINA DAM: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BRUCE.
OUR LAST SPEAKER IS DAVID MAHER FROM PIR.
>>DAVID MAHER: AND MY SLIDES ARE NOT COOPERATING.
BUT WHAT I HAVE TO SAY CAN BE SAID VERY BRIEFLY, WHICH I'M SURE WILL MAKE YOU ALL HAPPY.
THE POSITION OF PIR IS THAT WHATEVER SYSTEM OF IDNS ARE ADOPTED, EACH GTLD, SUCH AS DOT ORG, WHICH IS OUR REGISTRY, SHOULD HAVE THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THAT REGISTRY.
THIS WAS AN ISSUE THAT WAS ADDRESSED EARLIER IN THE DISCUSSION.
AND OUR POSITION I THINK IS VERY CLEAR AND VERY POSITIVE THAT HOWEVER YOU REPRESENT DOT ORG -- AND I HAD A WONDERFUL SLIDE THAT DOES HEIROGLYPHS, WE DON'T THAT THERE WILL BE AN IDN IN HIEROGLYPHS, BUT IF THERE IS AN IDN IN CHINESE, GREEK, CYRILLIC, WHATEVER, WE BELIEVE WE SHOULD CONTROL THAT.
IT SHOULD BE PART OF THE DOT GTLD GLOBAL REGISTRY.
WE STRONGLY SUPPORT ICANN AND ITS WORK.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE -- IT'S A VERY -- IT'S ESSENTIAL TO FOLLOW THE TECHNICAL STANDARDS.
AND WE HAVE A PROPOSAL.
AND THAT IS THAT PIR IS READY TO COOPERATE WITH THE OTHER REGISTRIES IN AN EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM.
WE'D LIKE TO START WITH WHAT ARE PROBABLY THE TWO LARGEST WORLD LANGUAGES, CHINESE AND ARABIC, AND COOPERATE IN A TEST BED FOLLOWING THE ACCEPTED TECHNICAL STANDARDS.
AND WE ARE WILLING TO PUT SOME TIME AND MONEY INTO THIS. WE HOPE THAT OTHER REGISTRIES WILL JOIN US, AND THE ULTIMATE GOAL, WE BELIEVE, IS TO MAKE IDN.IDNS AVAILABLE GLOBALLY.
THANK YOU.
(APPLAUSE.).
>>TINA DAM: THANK YOU, DAVID.
WE HAVE MADE IT TO THE END OF A VERY LONG DAY. AND I THINK IT'S VERY APPARENT TO EVERYBODY THAT WE KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE NEED TO SOLVE.
WE ALSO HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA OF DOMAIN ISSUES THAT RELATES TO THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE.
THE RESULTS OUT OF THE WORKSHOP IS GOING TO GO INTO THE IDN PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER WORK. AND THE IDN WORKSHOPS AT THE ICANN MEETINGS IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAPPEN TO GET PEOPLE TOGETHER, LIKE WE HAD TODAY, AND HAVE DISCUSSIONS ON ALL OF THESE TOPICS.
AMADEU, I WAS ACTUALLY NOT GOING TO OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION. APOLOGIES. I HOPE THE DISCUSSIONS CAN CONTINUE OUTSIDE WHERE I KNOW THAT THE COCKTAIL HAPPY HOUR HAS STARTED.
I DID PROMISE VINT TO GIVE AND PASS ON HIS APOLOGIES FOR NOT BEING HERE AT THE CLOSING NOTE. HE DID HAVE ANOTHER MEETING THAT HE HAD TO GO TO.
SO LET ME JUST SAY THANK YOU FOR ALL THE PANELS AND THE PRESENTERS TODAY, EVERYBODY WHO PARTICIPATED.
GETTING EVERYBODY TOGETHER IN A WAY LIKE THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT, IT'S WHAT'S GOING TO MOVE US FORWARD IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
THANK YOU.
(APPLAUSE.)

(7:43 P.M.)

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers