ICANN|ARCHIVES

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

>>VINT CERF: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
MY NAME IS VINT CERF. I AM CHAIRMAN OF ICANN. I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU TO TAKE YOUR SEATS SO WE CAN GET THIS WORKSHOP UNDERWAY. AS I THINK MANY OF YOU KNOW, IT'S FILLED WITH A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL.

I WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY, FIRST OF ALL, TO THANK JOHN KLENSIN AND TINA DAM AT ICANN FOR ORGANIZING THIS WORKSHOP.

THE WHOLE SUBJECT OF INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES IS OF INTENSE INTEREST TO WHOEVER DEALS ON A REGULAR BASIS WITH NON-LATIN CHARACTER SETS. HOWEVER, IT'S A VERY COMPLEX AREA. THE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF INTERNET DID NOT CONTEMPLATE INCORPORATING THESE ALPHABETS IN THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM. AND SO I THINK THAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE COURSE OF THIS WORKSHOP HOW MUCH EFFORT HAS ALREADY GONE INTO ACCOMMODATING THIS EXTENSION AND ALSO HOW DIFFICULT AND COMPLICATED IT'S TURNING OUT TO BE. SO I HOPE AT THE END OF THE THAT YOU WILL COME AWAY WITH THE SAME APPRECIATION FOR THAT THAT MANY OF US HAVE.

I NEED TO MAKE AN APOLOGY TO YOU THAT SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEPART FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AT 9:30. WE HAVE A MATTER THAT HAS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF. AND BECAUSE OF TIME ZONE PROBLEMS, SINCE WE'RE 12 HOURS AWAY FROM THE EAST COAST OF THE U.S. AND 15 HOURS AWAY FROM THE WEST COAST, WE WERE UNABLE TO SCHEDULE THIS PARTICULAR MATTER AT A TIME THAT WOULDN'T INTERFERE WITH OUR PARTICIPATION IN THE WORKSHOP. SO SOME OF US WILL DEPART FOR A LITTLE WHILE AND COME BACK. I DON'T WANT ANY OF YOU TO GET THE IMPRESSION THAT WE ARE LEAVING BECAUSE WE ARE NOT INTERESTED. WE ARE LEAVING SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THIS TIME ZONE ISSUE. BUT WE WILL BE BACK.

AND WITH THAT, I THINK I WILL TURN THIS OVER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF TODAY'S WORKSHOP, PAUL TWOMEY.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, VINT.

THE CHAIR ARRANGEMENTS FOR TODAY WILL BE MYSELF AND SHARIL TARMIZI FROM THE (INAUDIBLE) AND SHARIL WILL MAKE SOME COMMENTS. UNFORTUNATELY, THE CHAIR IS CAUGHT IN THE SAME DIFFICULTY THAT VINT POINTED TO. AND, SECONDLY, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY HOW IMPORTANT WE THINK TODAY'S SYMPOSIUM IS, AND, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THIS, WE WILL BE VERY INTERESTED TO SEE THE DISCUSSION AND THE INVOLVEMENT FROM THE MANY STAKEHOLDERS WHO HAVE INTEREST IN THIS ARENA. AND REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO QUITE A LONG DISCUSSION.

THE PROGRAM TODAY, AND ESPECIALLY INCLUDING THIS EVENING, HAS BEEN PROGRAMMED TO ALLOW YOU TO ENSURE THAT YOU CAN INFORMALLY MEET AND DISCUSS AND CONTINUE TO HOLD DISCUSSIONS WITH PEOPLE ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT HAVE EMERGED DURING THE DAY. SO WE'VE ACTUALLY GOT THIS ROOM FREE THIS EVENING. WE'VE GOT -- I THINK WE'VE GOT SOME REFRESHMENT AVAILABLE AFTER THE SYMPOSIUM. SO, PLEASE, IF THERE ARE NOT OPPORTUNITIES TO ASK THE QUESTIONS DURING THE SYMPOSIUM, HAVE THEM WRITTEN DOWN, HAVE NOTES, KNOW WHO YOU ARE GOING TO TARGET. BECAUSE WHEN WE FINISH, YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION AT THE END, WHICH I THINK WILL BE VERY VALUABLE.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU, PAUL.

SELAMAT DATANG.

GOOD MORNING, SELAGAT PAMI AS THEY SAY HERE IN MALAYSIA. I AM HONORED TO BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CO-CHAIR THIS SESSION, TOGETHER WITH PAUL TWOMEY.

IDN IS AN ISSUE OF GREAT INTEREST IN THIS REGION AND THIS PARTICULAR PART OF THE WORLD SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS IN THIS PART OF THE WORLD THAT NON-ASCII SCRIPTS ARE PREVALENT AND WIDELY USED. IN MANY CASES, THE LACK OF IDN IN THE PAST HAS ACTUALLY BEEN ONE OF THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THE ISSUE OF DIGITAL DIVIDE, BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE TO KNOW THE ENGLISH ALPHABETS TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE INTERNET.

I HAVE PERSONALLY BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS AREA SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING, AND I AM GLAD TO SAY THAT WE HAVE COME TO A STAGE WHERE IT'S SUFFICIENTLY MATURE TO INTRODUCE THIS INTO THE DNS SYSTEM. BUT CHALLENGES CONTINUE TO EXIST SIMPLY BECAUSE THIS IS JUST THE WAY IT WORKS.

SO THANK YOU, PAUL. BACK TO YOU.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: WELL, OUR FIRST PRESENTATION THIS MORNING IS LED OFF BY JOHN KLENSIN, AND A PRESENTATION WHICH WE'RE VERY GLAD THAT ISOC HAS HELPED PUT TOGETHER. SO I WILL ASK JOHN TO COME TO THE PODIUM, AND ALSO, I THINK ALSO RECOGNITION SOME FOR THE REST OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE, WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK FOR ALL THEIR EFFORTS.

THIS SYMPOSIUM IS VERY MUCH AN INITIATIVE OF THE CONSTITUENCIES OF ICANN, AND HAS IN ITS ORIGINS REQUESTS FROM VARIOUS PARTS OF ICANN'S CONSTITUENCIES THAT IN KL THERE COULD BE DISCUSSION ABOUT IDNS.

SEEING THAT VARIOUS CONSTITUENCIES ALL ASK FOR THE SAME THING, THE CONSTITUENCIES DECIDED IT WAS BEST TO HAVE ONE SINGLE DAY DEDICATED TO THE TASK.

AND THE PLANNING COMMITTEE WHICH COMES FROM THE VARIOUS CONSTITUENCIES HAS HELPED COORDINATE THAT. AND I WISH TO EXPRESS MY THANKS FOR IT.

JOHN, ARE YOU READY?

>>JOHN KLENSIN: SORRY. WE WERE JUST VERIFYING THE LOCATION OF ONE OF THE SPEAKERS.

GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. I'D LIKE TO START OUT BY THANKING EVERYONE WHO HAS PARTICIPATED IN PUTTING THIS TOGETHER, INCLUDING THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR THE OVERALL EFFORT, FROM CCNSO, HIRO HOTTA AND NAI-WEN HSU, BRUCE TONKIN FROM GNSO, HANG WEE FROM ALAC, CHRISTOPHER WILKINSON FROM THE GAC, AND ESPECIALLY TINA DAM, WHO HAS PUT UP WITH ALL OF THE REST OF US IN TRYING TO DRAW THIS TOGETHER.

AS PAUL MENTIONED, THE MORNING EFFORT IS A TUTORIAL PUT TOGETHER BY ISOC AND FOLLOWING UP ON A SIMILAR TUTORIAL THAT WE DID IN BARCELONA A FEW WEEKS AGO AT INET. WE LEARNED A LOT AT BARCELONA FROM WHAT WE COVERED AND WHAT WE DIDN'T COVER. AND I HOPE THIS EFFECTIVELY REFLECTS THAT AS WELL AS A LOT OF INPUT FROM THE ICANN COMMUNITY.

YOU'LL NOTICE THESE FIRST TWO SLIDES DON'T APPEAR TO BE ABOUT IDNS. BUT THEY ARE ABOUT IDNS. AND THEY'RE ABOUT A THEME WHICH I'LL BE COMING BACK TO SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE MORNING. AND THAT IS THAT WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS OPPORTUNITY HERE WITH THE IDN SITUATION AND WITH INTERNET INTERNATIONALIZATION IN GENERAL, BUT IT'S ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY TO CAUSE OURSELVES A GREAT MANY PROBLEMS.

WE'LL BE EXPLORING SOME OF THEM. AND THIS SLIDE MAY BEGIN THE EXPLORATION.

THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE NAME OF THIS TALK IN TWO LANGUAGES, ONE SCRIPT, MORE OR LESS, AND IT NAMES THE SPEAKERS. IT IS MY SUPPOSITION THAT NO ONE IN THIS ROOM CAN READ ALL OF THIS. IT IS MY SUPPOSITION THAT VERY FEW PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM WILL BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY ALL OF THE LANGUAGES AND SCRIPTS PRESENT ON THE SLIDE.

OUR OPPORTUNITY HERE, AND THE IMPORTANT ONE, IS TO MAKE THE INTERNET ACCESSIBLE FOR THOSE WHO USE THESE LANGUAGES AND SCRIPTS WHICH ARE NOT ENGLISH AND ASCII. OUR OTHER OPPORTUNITY IS TO CREATE AN INTERNET IN WHICH NONE OF US CAN COMMUNICATE EXCEPT WITHIN OUR OWN COMMUNITIES. AND WE NEED TO NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT SECOND OPPORTUNITY.

THAT'S THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THAT SLIDE. ITS IMPORTANT ASPECT IS THAT ALL OF THE NAMES ARE SPELLED WRONG EXCEPT MINE. BUT MOST OF YOU CAN SOMEHOW MANAGE TO READ MOST OF IT.

TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ABOUT SCRIPTS, I CANNOT PRONOUNCE THE THINGS ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN. SOME OF YOU CAN. THE FIRST LINE IS IN MALAY IN THE JAWBI SCRIPT WHICH IS ARABIC BUT NOT USED FOR WRITING ARABIC PRECISELY. THE SECOND, IF IT'S SURVIVED MY THIRD BOUT WITH POWERPOINT IS ARABIC. I'M NOT CERTAIN WHAT THE THIRD LINE IS. THE FOURTH LINE IS A TRANSLITERATION OF TIN WEE TAN INTO TAMIL. THE FOURTH ONE IS JAMES SENG'S REAL NAME WRITTEN IN SIMPLIFIED CHINESE. AND I CAN'T PRONOUNCE IT. THE THIRD LINE IS IN CYRILLIC SCRIPT BUT NOT IN RUSSIAN, IT'S IN BULGARIAN. AND THEY DON'T USE PRECISELY THE SAME CHARACTERS THE RUSSIANS USE. THE FOURTH LINE IS PATRIK FALTSTROM'S NAME. AND I CAN ALMOST PRONOUNCE THAT. AND THE FINAL LINE IS KENNY HUANG'S NAME AND NOT ONLY CAN I NOT PRONOUNCE IT BUT I HAVEN'T YET BEEN ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT IS.

WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO TALK ABOUT THIS MORNING IS INTERNATIONALIZATION. NOT IDN SPECIFICALLY, BUT THE QUESTION ABOUT HOW WE MAKE THE NETWORK USABLE TO PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT AREAS SPEAKING DIFFERENT LANGUAGES. IDNS ARE POSSIBLY A PART OF THAT SOLUTION, PROBABLY ARE. THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE KEY TO THAT SOLUTION. BUT IF WE HAVE IDNS AND NOTHING ELSE, WE HAVE NOTHING.

I PROMISE TO START BY ATTACKING A MYTH. THE MYTH IS THIS NETWORK WAS DESIGNED ENTIRELY BY A BUNCH OF GEEK ENGINEERS WHO SPOKE ONLY ENGLISH, WEREN'T WORRIED ABOUT THE REST OF THE WORLD, AND HAD NO INTEREST AT ALL IN WHETHER OR NOT THE NETWORK WAS ACTUALLY USABLE FOR ANYTHING, ONLY TO FIGURE OUT IF THEY COULD MAKE THE TECHNOLOGY WORK.

IT'S NOT TRUE. THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE USABILITY AND IMPLICATIONS OF A NETWORK LIKE THIS BEFORE THE FIRST PACKET WENT DOWN THE WIRES. YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE IN THE ROOM WHO WERE ON THE PACKET SIDE, PEOPLE IN THE ROOM WHO WERE ON THAT DISCUSSION SIDE. ISSUES ABOUT INTERNATIONALIZATION AND NETWORK CAME UP IN 1970. NOT IN THE PACKETS, BUT IN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HOW TO DESIGN THE APPLICATIONS. WE, OF COURSE, FAILED MISERABLY.

THIS TUTORIAL IS NOT ABOUT ANSWERS. THIS AFTERNOON, YOU START WORKING ON ANSWERS. THE TUTORIAL IS ABOUT THE QUESTIONS AND THE ISSUES AND THE DECISIONS.

AS I SAID EARLIER, PART OF WHAT I'M GOING TO KEEP COMING BACK TO IS THAT MANY OF THE EASY ANSWERS FOR INTERNATIONALIZATION ARE REALLY GOOD IF YOU'VE GOT AN ISOLATED, HOMOGENEOUS POPULATION THAT KNOWS BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THEY'RE TALKING WITH EACH OTHER THAT THEY'RE ALL SPEAKING THE SAME LANGUAGE, USING THE SAME SCRIPTS, AND USING THE SAME CODINGS. THAT'S A VERY EASY PROBLEM.

THE ABILITY TO MAKE THAT WORK DOES NOT IMPLY A SOLUTION TO THE INTERNATIONALIZATION PROBLEM, BECAUSE WHAT THE EASY WAYS OF MAKING THAT WORK DO IS TO LET THOSE PEOPLE COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER. THEY DON'T COMMUNICATE WITH ANYONE ELSE AND NO ONE ELSE COMMUNICATES WITH THEM.

ALL THE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INVOLVE POLICY TRADEOFFS IN WHICH THOSE TWO SETS OF ISSUES ARE BALANCED AGAINST EACH OTHER IN AN INTELLIGENT WAY. I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS. WE MAY START WORKING ON THEM THIS AFTERNOON.

SO WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT EXAMINING THE IDNS, BUT TALK ABOUT THE IDNS IN THE GENERAL CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONALIZATION AND LOCALIZATION. AND THE GENERAL CONTEXT OF NAVIGATION ON THE INTERNET. HOW DO WE ACTUALLY FIND SOMETHING AND ACCESS IT. WE'RE GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PHYSICS OF THE ENVIRONMENT, THINGS THAT YOU CAN'T DO AND STILL HAVE THE INTERNET WORK PROPERLY IN A GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT.

AND WE'RE GOING TO START IDENTIFYING THE POLICY ISSUES. MY GUESS IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE POLICY ISSUES IDENTIFIED THIS AFTERNOON THAT WON'T COME UP THIS MORNING. AND POLICY ISSUES IDENTIFIED OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS THAT WE DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND TODAY.

INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES THEMSELVES AREN'T THE PROBLEM. AS I SAID EARLIER, THEY MAY BE PART OF THE SOLUTION. THE PROBLEM, AS I SEE IT, IS HOW WE MAKE THE INTERNET FULLY INTERNATIONAL AND FULLY INTERNATIONAL WITH AS LITTLE ENGLISH BIAS AS POSSIBLE.

OUR GOALS SHOULD BE TO GET TO PINT WHERE ENGLISH IS JUST ANOTHER LANGUAGE ON THE INTERNET RATHER THAN THE ONE TO WHICH EVERYBODY TURNS IF NOTHING ELSE WORKS, OR RATHER THAN THE ONE WHICH DOMINATES WITH EVERYTHING ELSE BEING SOME STRANGE, FUNNY ADD-ON.

THE TERM INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME OR IDN IS USED IN MANY WAYS. STRICTLY SPEAKING, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOMAIN NAME LABELS THAT REPRESENT NAMES THAT CONTAIN CHARACTERS WHICH AREN'T IN THE VERY LIMITED ASCII SUBSET USED FOR HOST NAMES. THE CURRENT STANDARD ONLY ENTERS HOST NAME TYPE THINGS INTO THE DNS. IT RELIES ON APPLICATIONS AND ON THE CLIENT MACHINE TO GET THE IDNS INTO A CODING WHICH CAN BE USED AND TRANSLATED IN AND OUT.

THAT CODING HAS A NUMBER OF STRENGTHS. ITS MOST IMPORTANT ONE IS IT DOESN'T WRECK THE INTERNET. IT'S GOT SOME WEAKNESSES, SOME OF WHICH HAVE TO DO WITH SOME CHARACTERS GETTING MAPPED ONTO OTHER ONES IN WAYS THAT DON'T REVERSE. WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THAT LATER.

BUT WE SOMETIMES HAVE IDN TALKING ABOUT A FULLY QUALIFIED DOMAIN NAME OR OTHER KINDS OF THINGS WHICH ARE NOT THEMSELVES IN THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM. IF YOU ASK THE TYPICAL USER OF THE NETWORK WHETHER THEY WANT INTERNATIONALIZATION AND YOU EXPLAIN TO THEM THAT INTERNATIONALIZATION HAS TO DO WITH THE ABILITY TO WRITE IN ANY SCRIPT AND COMMUNICATE IN ANY LANGUAGE, IF THEY FULLY UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, THE ANSWER WILL CERTAINLY BE "NO." IF I DON'T READ OR SPEAK ARABIC, MY ABILITY TO TRANSMIT ARABIC MAKES VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE TO ME PERSONALLY. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE CAPABILITY ON THE NETWORK, BUT I CAN'T USE IT. AND THE REASON WHY I CAN'T USE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH THE TECHNOLOGY; IT HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT I HAVE NEVER SUCCEEDED IN LEARNING ARABIC.

SO WHAT USERS WANT IS SYSTEMS THAT ARE LOCALIZED, THAT ARE ADAPTED TO THEIR PARTICULAR LANGUAGE, TO THEIR WRITING SYSTEM, TO THE CHARACTER CODES THEY USE, IN SOME CASES, THEIR LOCATION AND THEIR INTERESTS. AND FROM THAT STANDPOINT, INTERNATIONALIZATION IS A MEANS TO GETTING GOOD LOCALIZATION, WHILE PRESERVING INTERNET OPERABILITY. SO WE END UP WITH GLOBAL INTEROPERABILITY, BUT VERY GOOD LOCALIZATION.

AS I SAID EARLIER, THERE ARE LOTS AND LOTS OF EASY SOLUTIONS TO THIS PROBLEM. WE CAN PUT UP TRICK DNS SERVERS WHICH DON'T QUITE CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS. WE CAN TRY TO ROUTE DNS QUERIES UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES TO THINGS WHICH ARE NOT DNS SYSTEMS, AND DO OTHER KINDS OF LOOKUPS. WE CAN JUST PUT STRINGS IN THE DNS WHICH WE KNOW REPRESENT OUR CODES SO WE HOPE THAT NOBODY WHO IS LOOKING FOR SOMETHING IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE EVER ENCOUNTERS THOSE THINGS BECAUSE THEY WILL GET VERY CONFUSED. WE CAN DISCOVER THAT WE HAVE INTEROPERABILITY AMONG TWO PEOPLE WHO SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE, BOTH OF WHOM KNOW THAT THAT LANGUAGE IS WHAT'S COMING DOWN THE WIRE AND ANNOUNCE THAT WE HAVE SOLVED THE PROBLEM.

WELL, WE'VE SOLVED THE PROBLEM WITH THOSE TWO PEOPLE COMMUNICATING WITH EACH OTHER AND NO ONE ELSE. SO WE NEED TO LOOK FOR LOCAL SOLUTIONS AND GLOBAL INTEROPERABILITY, NOT THESE TRICKS.

WE NEED TO LOOK FOR FLEXIBILITY AND SAFETY.

AND INTERNATIONALIZATION SOLUTION WHICH STOPS THE INTERNET FROM WORKING IN A GLOBAL WAY IS NOT, I HOPE, WHAT ANY OF US ARE LOOKING FOR.

WE'RE STUCK WITH UNICODE, AND UNICODE HAS SOME PROBLEMS, WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT LATER IN THE MORNING. BUT WE NEED TO WORK AROUND THOSE PROBLEMS.

AND BE GLAD THAT WE FINALLY GOT A SINGLE CHARACTER SET WHICH REPRESENTS ENOUGH OF THE CHARACTERS IN USE IN THE WORLD THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY DO THIS INTERNATIONALIZATION JOB. THAT'S WHERE THE WORK IN THE EARLY 1970S GOT HUNG UP.

AND THE FIRST TWO OF THESE ISSUES, THE LOCAL SOLUTIONS AND GLOBAL INTEROPERABILITY IN THE BALANCE, AND THE FLEXIBILITY AND SAFETY AND NOT DOING SOMETHING WHICH CAUSES THE INTERNET TO WORK LESS WELL IMPACT ALMOST EVERY DECISION ABOUT INTERNATIONALIZATION. IT'S A TENSION BETWEEN THE NOTION THAT EVERY CULTURE OR COUNTRY OR COMPANY OR PERSON MAKES ITS OWN DECISIONS OR THEIR OWN DECISIONS INDEPENDENTLY AND DOES THINGS THEIR WAY, VERSUS THE MAJOR STRENGTH OF THE NETWORK AND THE ABILITY TO SMOOTHLY INTEROPERATE GLOBALLY, PERMITTING NEXT GENERATION OF INNOVATIONS AND PERMITTING GLOBAL COMMUNICATION. WE CAN PROBABLY GET BOTH TOGETHER, BUT IT IS HARD WORK.

THE END-TO-END PRINCIPLE OF THE INTERNET PERMITS MORE INDEPENDENT DECISION-MAKING THAN OTHER NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES WHICH REQUIRE THINGS TO BE DECIDED AND MANAGED MORE CENTRALLY.

IF SOMEBODY COMES ALONG AND TELLS YOU THE NEXT-GENERATION NETWORK WILL WORK MUCH, MUCH BETTER THAN THE INTERNET BECAUSE IT CENTRALIZES THE CONTROL AND MAKES EVERYTHING WORK SMOOTHLY BECAUSE IT ALL GOES THROUGH SOME APPROVED PROVIDERS, DON'T EXPECT THAT TO DELIVER INTERNATIONALIZATION TO YOU IF YOU ALSO CARE ABOUT YOUR OPERATION.

WE HAVE HAD PROTOCOLS RUNNING ON OTHER NETWORKS AND INDEED ON THE INTERNET IN WHICH THE STANDING JOKE WAS THAT IF YOU RECEIVED A MESSAGE, AN E-MAIL MESSAGE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE WAY IN WHICH YOU WOULD RESPOND TO THAT MESSAGE WAS TO PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL THE CALLER, BECAUSE THE ODDS THAT YOU COULD GET THE ANSWER BACK USING THE SAME COMMUNICATIONS CHANNEL WERE VERY LOW BECAUSE OF THESE INTEROPERABILITY AND CENTRALITY AND LOCAL OPTIONS AND LOCAL PROFILE PROBLEMS.

IN THIS AREA, A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS HAVE THE ANSWER, BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR. BUT AS I SAID, IT'S HARD, AND THE SIMPLE AND OBVIOUS SOLUTIONS COULD BE A GLOBAL DISASTER. WE REALLY HAVE TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS DEEPLY.

GETTING BOTH GLOBAL INTEROPERABILITY AND GOOD LOCALIZATION REQUIRES THAT WE WORK TOGETHER AND DO SO IN GOOD FAITH, AND WITH DUE RESPECT FOR EACH OTHER AND FOR THE MANY LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCE THESE PROBLEMS INVOLVE. THAT'S WHY THOSE TWO SLIDES WERE UP THERE AT THE BEGINNING. IF WE GET INTO A MENTALITY IN WHICH EACH OF US SAYS, "MY LANGUAGE IS IMPORTANT AND I DON'T CARE IF ANYTHING ELSE WORKS," THEN WE WILL END UP WITH AN INTERNET THAT DOESN'T WORK.

FLEXIBILITY AND SAFETY ISSUE IS A TRADEOFF BETWEEN THE MAXIMUM FREEDOM TO IMPLEMENT ANY PROTOCOL ONE WANTS IN ANY WAY ONE WANTS, AND STABILITY AND SECURITY.

THIS NETWORK WORKS BECAUSE WE ARE ALL WORKING WITH EACH OTHER. UNICODE IS A CHARACTER SET WHICH IS DESIGNED TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE CHARACTERS IN USE IN LANGUAGES IN THE -- IN WRITING LANGUAGES IN THE WORLD TODAY. THEY WERE A COMMITTEE. LIKE A GOOD COMMITTEE, THEY MADE DECISIONS ABOUT TRADEOFFS.

SEVERAL OF THOSE TRADEOFFS MADE UNICODE FAIRLY POOR FOR THE DNS APPLICATIONS WHICH WE'RE TRYING TO USE IT. AND FOR UNIFORM RESOURCE IDENTIFIER APPLICATIONS. AND FOR OTHER THINGS, INCLUDING CONTENT.

EVEN WHERE UNICODE IS POSSIBLY THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION, IT MAY BE INCONSISTENT WITH CODING METHODS USED IN CERTAIN COUNTRIES AND INCONSISTENT -- AND IS INCONSISTENT INTERNALLY. DIFFERENT KINDS OF DECISIONS WERE MADE APPLYING DIFFERENT RULES IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CODE SPACE.

THE MOST COMMONLY KNOWN EXAMPLE IS THEY CHOSE TO TAKE THE LANGUAGES AND SCRIPTS WHICH USE CHINESE CHARACTERS AND PUT THEM TOGETHER, AND THEN THEY CHOSE TO TAKE THE LANGUAGES AND SCRIPTS THAT USE LATIN CHARACTERS OR GREEK CHARACTERS OR CYRILLIC CHARACTERS, WHICH OVERLAP A GREAT DEAL, AND TAKE THEM APART. SO IF YOU HAVE A RULE WHICH WORKS TOGETHER, IT DOESN'T WORK WELL IN THE APART CODE OF THE SPACE. AND VICE VERSA.

WE'VE GOT SOLUTIONS WHICH WORK AROUND THOSE PROBLEMS, BUT WE ALL NEED TO UNDERSTAND THEY ARE COMPROMISES. UNFORTUNATELY, IF WE START LOOKING FOR ALTERNATIVES TO UNICODE, THERE ARE TWO OF THEM. ONE OF THEM DOESN'T EXIST, WHICH IS A VERY BAD ALTERNATIVE. THERE ARE NO OTHER COMPLETE UNIFORM UNIVERSAL CHARACTER SETS. AND THE OTHER SET OF ALTERNATIVES IS MUCH WORSE.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A CHARACTER SET WHICH IS CODED FOR INFORMATION PROCESSING USE, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS TAKING FAIRLY ABSTRACT CHARACTERS, MAYBE NOT THE SAME CHARACTERS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT A PRINTED PAGE OR TALK ABOUT IN OUR NORMAL LANGUAGES, AND WE TAKE THOSE ABSTRACT CHARACTERS AND WE ASSIGN THEM CODE POINTS.

WHEN WE GET THROUGH ASSIGNING CODE POINTS, AS FAR AS THE COMPUTER IS CONCERNED, A CHARACTER IS NOTHING BUT A STRING OF BITS. AND THAT'S IMPORTANT, BECAUSE IF WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET THE STRING OF BITS BACK INTO CHARACTERS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION.

ESSENTIALLY, WHAT THESE PEOPLE IN THE CHARACTER CODING BUSINESS ARE DOING IS TAKING THE CHARACTERS THEY'RE INTERESTED IN, PUTTING THEM IN SOME ORDER, AND THEN NUMBERING THEM. IF THEY'RE IN THE KIND OF UNIVERSAL CHARACTER SET BUSINESS OF UNICODE FOLKS WERE IN, THEY'RE PUTTING THEM INTO GROUPS WHICH THEY CALL SCRIPTS OR SOMETHING ELSE. AND THEN THEY'RE ORDERING THEM AND NUMBERING THEM.

THE ACTUAL FORM OF THE CHARACTERS ARE RARELY STANDARDIZED. IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE UNICODE STANDARD, YOU WOULD SEE A LOT OF WORDS DESCRIBING WHAT A CHARACTER IS. AND A LOT OF DISCLAIMERS THAT THE GLYPHS WHICH THEY PUT IN THE TABLES ARE JUST REPRESENTATIVE. WE DON'T TRY TO -- WE DON'T STANDARDIZE GLYPHS AND WE CERTAINLY DON'T STANDARDIZE FONTS. THAT'S A PROBLEM BECAUSE IF THERE'S A CHARACTER SET THAT I'M USING AND READING EVERY DAY, I CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT IS FONT-VARIATION AND WHAT IS A DIFFERENT CHARACTER. IF THERE'S A CHARACTER SET THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND AND DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ OR HOW TO USE, I CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT CHARACTER AND DIFFERENT FONTS, DIFFERENT CHARACTER AND DIFFERENT TYPING LAYOUT, AND IN SOME CHARACTER SETS, I CAN'T TELL WHERE ONE CHARACTER ENDS AND ANOTHER CHARACTER BEGINS. YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE CHARACTERS IN ORDER TO DO THAT. THE COMPUTER MAY OR MAY NOT BE COMPLETELY CONVENIENT FOR IT.

WE TALK A LOT ABOUT SCRIPTS AND LANGUAGES. IN THE PECULIAR VOCABULARY OF THESE CODING ENVIRONMENTS, A SCRIPT IS A COLLECTION OF RELATED CHARACTERS. IT'S VERY COMMON FOR SEVERAL LANGUAGES TO SHARE MOST BUT POSSIBLY NOT ALL CHARACTERS OF THE SAME SCRIPT. THERE WERE SOME COMES IN THAT OPENING SLIDE.

AND WE'VE CREATED A LOT OF CONFUSION FOR OURSELVES BY VERY OFTEN USING THE SAME NAME FOR A SCRIPT AS WE USE FOR ONE OF THE LANGUAGES WHICH USES IT. SO WE'RE LUCKY THAT WE HAVE A NAME LIKE CYRILLIC, WHICH IS THE NAME OF A SCRIPT.

THERE IS NO SUCH LANGUAGE. AND IT'S USED FOR RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN AND BULGARIAN AND A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS. WE -- BUT THE MORE COMMON CASES, WE HAVE A SCRIPT WE CALLED ARABIC, WHICH IS USED FOR A NUMBER OF LANGUAGES, INCLUDING ARABIC. AND MOST OF THOSE LANGUAGES WHICH USE THE ARABIC SCRIPT DO NOT USE EXACTLY THE SAME CHARACTERS FROM IT THAT THE ARABIC LANGUAGE USES.

WE HAVE TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL ABOUT WHETHER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT LANGUAGES OR SCRIPTS. IF WE DEFINE A SCRIPT ONLY IN TERMS OF ITS USE IN A PARTICULAR LANGUAGE, WE LOCK THOSE OTHER LANGUAGES OUT. UNICODE CONSORTIUM GIVES NAMES FOR SCRIPTS AND LANGUAGE BINDINGS, BUT THEIR SCRIPT NAMES ARE -- WELL, AS I SAID IN THE SLIDE, THE PRECISION IS VERY LOW. IF YOU RELY ON THOSE SCRIPT NAMES TO START TALKING ABOUT LANGUAGES OR POSSIBLY EVEN TO START TALKING ABOUT SCRIPTS, YOU MAY GET YOURSELF VERY CONFUSED, OR EVERYBODY ELSE VERY CONFUSED.

MOST OF THE LANGUAGES IN THE WORLD ARE SPOKEN BY AT LEAST SOMEONE IN MANY COUNTRIES, SOMETIMES TRAVELERS, SOMETIMES EMIGRES. PEOPLE MIGRATE AND TAKES LANGUAGES WITH THEM. LANGUAGES EVOLVE DIFFERENTLY OVER TIME IN DIFFERENT PLACES. WRITING SYSTEMS EVOLVE EVEN MORE QUICKLY THAN LANGUAGES DO. AND OVER ENOUGH TIME, A GIVEN LANGUAGE IN A GIVEN COUNTRY MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN THE SAME LANGUAGE OR SUPPOSEDLY SAME LANGUAGE IN SOME OTHER COUNTRY, WHETHER IT'S THE SAME LANGUAGE OR DIFFERENT LANGUAGE IS A MATTER OF CONVENTION, NOT SCIENCE. AND CERTAINLY NOT OF UNICODE.

THE DNS ITSELF DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT LANGUAGES, IT DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT SCRIPTS, IT KNOWS ABOUT CHARACTERS ONE AT A TIME. BUT AS I SAID EARLIER, IF WE SUCCEED IN SOLVING THE DOMAIN NAME INTERNATIONALIZATION PROBLEM AND WE DON'T SOLVE THE CONTENT PROBLEM, WE DON'T HAVE MUCH TO DO. FINDING SOMETHING WHICH I CAN'T READ IS ALMOST AS USELESS AS NOT BEING ABLE TO FIND IT.

BUT THE WAY IN WHICH WE SOLVED THE CONTENT PROBLEM OVER THE YEARS IS WITH WHAT WE CALL TAGGING. WE'VE INVENTED SYSTEMS OVER THE YEARS IN WHICH EITHER I CALL SOMEBODY UP ON THE TELEPHONE AND SAY I'M ABOUT TO SEND YOU A FILE AND WHEN YOU GET THAT FILE THE BITS ARE IN THE KOI 8 ENCODING OF RUSSIAN CYRILLIC AND YOU NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DECODE THEM. AND THIS, AS THE MAIL SYSTEMS I REFERRED TO BEFORE, INVOLVE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME ON THE PHONE TO COMMUNICATE HOW TO MAKE THE COMPUTER SYSTEMS WORK. OR WE FIGURE OUT A WAY TO TRANSMIT THE INFORMATION TO THE RECIPIENT AS PART OF THE MESSAGE, OR ATTACH THE MESSAGE.

WHEN WE START MAKING THAT PROCESS SYSTEMATIC, IT'S WHAT WE TALK ABOUT AS TAGGING, WE ATTACH A TAG TO THE MESSAGE WHICH TELLS THE RECIPIENT WHAT IT IS. WE DISCOVERED LAST WEEK, IN TRYING TO PUT THE FINAL ISSUES OF THE SEMINAR TOGETHER, IS PLEASE TYPE YOUR NAME IN CHINESE CHARACTERS SO I CAN GET IT OUT OF THE MESSAGE AND PASTE IT INTO THE TITLE SLIDE, TURNS OUT TO BE A HARD QUESTION.

IT'S A HARD QUESTION BECAUSE WE HAVE SENDERS WHO HAVE CHARACTER SETS AND MAIL (INAUDIBLE) USER AGENTS ON THEIR MACHINES WHICH ASSUME THAT IF THE MESSAGE IS ANY MESSAGE AT ALL OR THE MESSAGE CONTAINS NON-ASCII CHARACTERS, THEN IT HAS TO BE IN A PARTICULAR CHARACTER SET. AND THEY WILL TAG AND LABEL THAT MESSAGE THAT WAY, AND IF THE RECIPIENT ISN'T PREPARED TO DEAL WITH THAT, THE RECIPIENTS MAIL USER AGENT MAY TURN TO TRASH.

WE HAVE MAIL USER AGENTS ON THE RECEIVING SIDE, OR MAIL SYSTEMS ON THE RECEIVING SIDE THAT IF A MESSAGE COMES IN THAT CONTAINS NON-ASCII CHARACTERS, NOT NON-ASCII IN THE SENSE THAT WE KNOW BUT NON-ASCII IN THE SENSE THAT THEY DON'T LOOK THAT WAY AT THE BIT LEVEL, THEY WILL ASSUME BASED ON THEIR GENERAL EXPERIENCE WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE CODED IN. AND IF I RECEIVE SOMETHING IN CHINESE AND MY SYSTEM DECIDES IT'S ACTUALLY IN EUROPEAN LATIN SCRIPT, WHAT I WILL SEE ON MY SCREEN, IF I'M LUCKY, IS A SERIES OF QUESTION MARKS. AND IF I'M NOT LUCKY I'LL SEE NONSENSE. SO THIS TURNS OUT NOT TO BE AN EASY QUESTION.

AND IT'S NOT AN EASY QUESTION NOT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE CODING SYSTEMS, DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW TO SEND THESE CHARACTERS. IT'S NOT AN EASY QUESTION BECAUSE THE APPLICATIONS HAVE TO WORK AND INTEROPERATE.

WITH UNICODE WE TOOK A MAJOR STEP FORWARD, AND IT WAS A MAJOR STEP FORWARD IN MANY OF THESE CONTENT INTERNATIONALIZATION ISSUES AND ALL OF THE DNS ONES.

WE DON'T HAVE A PLACE IN DNS TO PUT TAGS. SO IF I'M TRANSMITTING SOMETHING TO YOU THAT'S NOT ASCII IN THE DNS AND THE DNS NAME, I EITHER HAVE TO CALL YOU UP AND TELL YOU HOW TO READ IT, WHICH IS EXTREMELY INCONVENIENT FOR THE DNS, OR WE'VE GOT TO HAVE SOME SORT OF UNIVERSAL CHARACTER SET WHICH REPRESENTS EVERYTHING. UNICODE PROVIDES THE LATTER. AND AS I SAID, THERE ARE NO OTHER CHOICES.

THE CHOICE WHICH WAS MOST PREVALENT BEFORE UNICODE INVOLVED INCLUDING IN THE CHARACTER STRINGS WHICH WERE BEING SENT CODING FOR THE CHARACTER CODING WHICH ONE WANTED TO INTERPRET IT WITH. AND OUR EXPERIENCE WITH IT WAS VERY BAD, AND THE REASONS WHY ARE A WHOLE OTHER TOPIC. BUT IT DOESN'T WORK WELL.

UNLESS YOU KNOW IN ADVANCE THAT THE NUMBER OF SCRIPTS YOU'RE GOING TO BE SWITCHING BETWEEN IS EXACTLY TWO AND YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS LET PEOPLE ACCESS INFORMATION AND THE INTERNET IN THE LANGUAGES AND SCRIPTS WHICH COME NATURALLY TO THEM. AND I WANT TO STRESS, AS I'VE SAID SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE IN TALKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE, THAT WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PROBLEM IS WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE. BECAUSE IF THE PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE IS TO REGISTER AS MANY NAMES AS POSSIBLE NO MATTER HOW MUCH CONFUSION IT CREATES, AND IF WE CONSIDER THE CONFUSION AN ADVANTAGE BECAUSE WE MAKE MONEY RESOLVING THE CONFUSION, THEN WE HAVE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SET OF GOALS THAN THOSE OF US WHO ARE TRYING TO MAKE INTERNATIONALIZATION WORK.

SO WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S BROKEN AND NEEDS FIXING.
SO WHAT ISN'T WORKING ADEQUATELY TODAY?

WELL, WE HAVE PROBLEMS WITH INDIVIDUAL DOMAIN NAME LABELS. DNS MOSTLY WORKS IN TERMS OF FULLY QUALIFIED DOMAINS. IF WE HAVE ONE NAME AND ONE SCRIPT, A SECOND LABEL IN THE SECOND SCRIPT AND A THIRD LABEL IN A THIRD SCRIPT IT'S GOING TO MAKE PERFECTLY GOOD SENSE TO COMPUTERS BUT PEOPLE MAY NOT LIKE IT AT ALL.

IT'S REALLY HARD BECAUSE OF THE UNDERLYING -- THE WAY THE UNDERLYING PROTOCOLS WORK, AND BECAUSE SOME DECISIONS MADE VERY EARLY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NETWORK BY A LAZY APPLICATIONS DESIGNERS. I TAKE SOME OF THE BLAME. WE'VE TENDED TO EXPOSE, OVER THE YEARS, A LOT OF THE UNDERLYING WORKING OF PROTOCOL IN THE WIRES TO END USERS. WHEN THE WEB WAS BEING DESIGNED, THE ASSUMPTION WAS MADE THAT NO ONE WOULD EVER LOOK AT A URL MUCH LESS PUT IT ON THE SIDE OF A BUS.

IF YOU NEVER LOOK AT A URL OR PUT A URL ON THE SIDE AFTER BUS, AS AN END USER YOU MAY NOT CARE WHAT A URL LOOKS LIKE AND THE INTERNATIONALIZATION PROBLEM CHANGES COMPLETELY. BUT IF YOU DECIDE YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THESE DOMAIN NAMES AND END USERS HAVE TO LOOK AT THESE DOMAIN NAMES AND URLS, AND YOU DECIDE THAT THE DOCTRINE IS NO ASCII CHARACTERS BECAUSE MY POPULATION DOESN'T READ THEM OR UNDERSTAND THEM, THEN WE END UP WITH ALL SORTS OF INTERESTING PROBLEMS.

THE DNS REQUIRES THAT LABELS IN A DOMAIN NAME BE SEPARATED BY SOMETHING, AND THAT SOMETHING IS, BY CONVENTION, A PERIOD. SO IF WE HAVE THE STRING ON THE SECOND LINE HERE, NONE OF THOSE CHARACTERS ARE IN ASCII. IT IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF THIS DIFFERENT LABEL, DIFFERENT CHARACTER PROBLEM. BUT THE SEPARATORS WHICH TELL US WHICH LABELS ARE WHICH ARE ASCII PERIODS.

IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE TO WRITE DOWN THE STRING HTTP, THE PROTOCOL WHICH USES THAT STRING RECOGNIZES IT ONLY AS HTTP. YOU CAN TRANSLATE IT INTO SOME OTHER LANGUAGE OR CHARACTER SET, BUT AT THAT POINT YOU'RE NOT USING THE URL. YOU'RE USING A TRANSLATION. IF YOU DECIDE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT TRANSLATION CAPABILITY, YOU COULD DO ALL KINDS OF OTHER THINGS, WHICH WE MOSTLY WILL NOT TALK ABOUT TODAY. BUT THEY MAY BE MORE INTERESTING THAN WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

AND URIS CONTAIN ALL SORTS OF SPECIAL CHARACTERS WHICH MEAN THINGS AND THEY ARE ALL IN ASCII. E-MAILS CONTAIN ALL SORTS OF CHARACTERS WHICH MEANS THINGS AND THEY ARE ALL IN ASCII.

AND IN SOME LANGUAGES AND SOME CULTURES WE TEND TO WRITE THINGS LEFT TO RIGHT AND IN OTHER LANGUAGES AND CULTURES, WE TEND TO WRITE THINGS RIGHT TO LEFT. IN ENGLISH, TO TALK ABOUT MY HAVING AN E-MAIL ADDRESS WHICH IS WRITTEN IN TERMS OF A USER NAME OR MAILBOX AT A MACHINE, OR AT A DOMAIN NAME, MAKES PERFECTLY GOOD SENSE.

IN AN ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THE CONVENTIONS ARE SUCH THAT WE WOULD ALWAYS TALK ABOUT THE SYSTEM FIRST AND THEN THE FAMILY NAME AND THEN THE FIRST NAME, IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL, AND IN ADDITION THAT, "@" SIGN IS NOT ONLY AN ASCII CHARACTER, BUT IT'S AN ASCII CHARACTER WHICH WE DON'T LEARN IN SCHOOL BECAUSE IT'S A VERY ODD CHARACTER.

WE HAVE A DEPLOYMENT PROBLEM. THE INTERNET, FOR BETTER OR WORSE, IS NOT JUST THE WORLDWIDE WEB, AND THE HTTP AND HTTPS PROTOCOLS, WHICH ARE TYPICALLY USED WITH IT.

THE GOOD NEWS IS FROM CONTENT EXCHANGE AND CONTENT USABILITY STANDPOINT, THE TWO SHARE A GREAT DEAL OF DESCRIPTIVE STRUCTURE AND A GREAT DEAL OF MECHANISM. THE BAD NEWS IS YOU CAN'T CHANGE ONE WITHOUT CHANGING THE OTHER AND THE BAD NEWS IS YOU CAN'T CHANGE WITHOUT THE OTHER.

WHEN WE FIX THE CONTENT INTERNATIONALIZATION PROBLEM FOR E-MAIL A DOZEN YEARS AGO, WE FIXED THE CONTENT INTERNATIONALIZATION PROBLEM FOR THE WEB. LOTS OF LITTLE DETAILS HERE AND THERE BUT THE GENERAL OVERALL PROBLEM GOT FIXED.

BUT ONE OF THE EXPERIENCES WE'VE HAD ON THE INTERNET IS IF A NEW APPLICATION COMES ALONG THAT IS COMPLETELY NEW AND DIFFERENT AND FILLS A GAP THAT NOBODY REALIZES THEY HAD BEFORE, BRIGHT NEW IDEA, VERY EXCITING, IT DEPLOYS VERY, VERY QUICKLY. IN THE LAST DECADE AND A HALF WE'VE SEEN IT WITH THE WEB, WITH FILE SHARING APPLICATIONS, WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS. BUT WHEN SOMETHING COMES ALONG WHICH IS INTENDED TO REPLACE A FACILITY OR A PROTOCOL WHICH IS REASONABLY WIDELY DEPLOYED AND WORKS REASONABLY WELL, OR ALMOST WORKS REASONABLY WELL, OR IS BARELY TOLERABLE, WE FIND IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO GET RID OF.

WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF EFFORTS OVER THE YEAR WHICH HAVE COME FORWARD AND SAID, YOU KNOW, IF WE REDESIGNED E-MAIL FROM THE BOTTOM-UP WE COULD MAKE THIS A BETTER WORLD. NONE OF THEM HAVE GONE ANYWHERE, AND IF YOU WANT A PREDICTION, THE LATEST ROUND ISN'T GOING ANYWHERE EITHER. AND THE REASON IS IN ORDER TO MAKE THOSE KIND OF SWITCHOVERS, YOU END UP, IF YOU WANT TO COMMUNICATE, HAVING TO MAINTAIN BOTH ENVIRONMENTS FOREVER, AND YOU END UP HAVING TO TRANSLATE BETWEEN THEM.

IF THE NEW ONE OFFERS A GREAT DEAL OF NEW FUNCTIONALITY AND NEW CAPABILITY, THE TRANSLATIONS BETWEEN THEM WON'T WORK PROPERLY. THEY WILL LOSE INFORMATION PROBABLY IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. IF IT DOESN'T OFFER A GREAT DEAL OF NEW CAPABILITY AND FUNCTIONALITY, PROBABLY NO ONE WILL BOTHER WITH IT, BECAUSE OF THE PAIN AND SUFFERING.

WE DEPLOYED THESE CONTENT CHANGES AND THE CAPABILITIES OF HANDLING INTERNATIONALIZED CONTENT AND MULTIMEDIA CONTENT WITHIN THE E-MAIL ENVIRONMENT, BY SPENDING A GREAT DEAL OF TIME FIGURING OUT HOW TO INSTALL WITHOUT MESSING UP ANYBODY'S EXISTING E-MAIL ENVIRONMENT. IT DIDN'T CAUSE THINGS TO BREAK. MAY HAVE CAUSED THINGS TO LOOK VERY UGLY BUT NOT TO BREAK.

I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT CONFUSION AND FRAUD AS WE LOOK AT MULTIPLE CHARACTER SETS BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THESE ARE NOT CAUSED BY INTERNATIONALIZATION. WE HAVE MOST OF THE PROBLEMS WITH ASCII OR WITH THE COMBINATION OF WEAK SOFTWARE AND BAD USER HABITS.

I DON'T KNOW HOW TO CURE BAD USER HABITS AND WE SEEM INCAPABLE OF CURING THE BAD SOFTWARE PROBLEM. BUT IT MEANS IN LOOKING AT INTERNATIONALIZATION THAT DO NO HARM MAY BECOME ANOTHER IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE.

SOME OF MY SECURITY COLLEAGUES SAY THAT RUNNING CERTAIN SOFTWARE WHICH IS VERY PREVALENT IN THE NETWORK TODAY IS LIKE SUPPLYING GUNS AND BULLETS TO CRIMINALS AND THEN EXPECTING THEM TO NOT SHOOT YOU.

THIS IS UNFORTUNATELY HARD TO READ, THERE'S TOO MUCH INFORMATION ON THE SCREEN BUT MANY OF YOU HAVE SEEN THIS OR VARIATIONS OF IT.

YOU GET AN E-MAIL MESSAGE. IT SEEMS TO CONTAIN A URL WHICH POINTS TO SOMETHING THAT YOU NEED TO COMMUNICATE WITH, AND IT SAYS YOU NEED TO CLICK ON THIS URL AND UPDATE YOUR DATA. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WHAT THE FISHER HAS DONE IS TO RIGHT A LINK INTO THE MESSAGE, OR WHAT LOOKS TO THE USER LIKE A LINK, AND PUT SOMETHING UNDERNEATH IT WHICH IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. IF THE USER CAN'T ACCESS THE UNDERLYING LINK AND IS A LITTLE BIT STUPID OR CARELESS, THIS TURNS INTO A BIG IDENTITY THEFT PROBLEM.

WE KNOW HOW TO DESIGN SOFTWARE WHICH CAN CHECK THE LINK THAT'S UNDERNEATH WITH THE LINK ON TOP AND HAVE WARNINGS BUT THAT SOFTWARE IS NOT WIDELY DEPLOYED. GUNS AND BULLETS IN THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS.

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH IDNS? THAT PARTICULAR PROBLEM IS EASY TO DETECT BY PEOPLE WHO ARE CAREFUL OR CAREFUL SOFTWARE, OR A COMBINATION OF THEM BUT NOW LET'S LOOK AT THIS PARTICULAR STRING. WE LOOK AT SOMETHING WHICH, IF WE ASSUME THIS IS ALL ASCII, LOOKS LIKE HTTP COLON SLASH SLASH ABH.COM. AND IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT THE UNDERLYING LINK, THE UNDERLYING LINK WOULD LOOK PRESUMABLY JUST LIKE THAT.

BUT THIS MAY NOT BE THAT AT ALL. IT MAY BE IN GREEK. AND IF WE HAD WRITTEN IT IN LOWER CASE RATHER THAN UPPER CASE WE WOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD IMMEDIATELY THAT IT WASN'T WHAT WE THOUGHT IT WAS. THIS BECOMES VERY HARD TO CHECK MECHANICALLY. SO AS WE DEPLOY MORE INTERNATIONALIZATION, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GET MORE CAREFUL OR WE'RE GOING TO UNCOVER MORE RISKS.

AS I SAY, WE HAVE THIS WITH ASCII. THIS IS NOT A NEW PROBLEM. WITH ASCII, WITH MOST FONTS, COMPUTER HAS NO PROBLEMS. WITH MOST FONTS, SHOWING THINGS ON SCREENS, WE CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LOWER CASE L AND A ONE. AND IN SOME CASES WE CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A ZERO AND AN UPPER CASE L.

WHEN WE START MIXING INTO THIS PUZZLE DIFFERENT SCRIPTS, AS WE SAW WITH THE GREEK EXAMPLE, ALMOST EVERY CONTEMPORARY ALPHABETIC SCRIPT IN USE IN THE WORLD TODAY HAS A COMMON ORIGIN. AND BECAUSE THOSE COMMON ORIGINS EXIST, CHARACTER SIMILARITIES ARE INEVITABLE.

WHEN I WAS IN BANGKOK SEVERAL MONTHS AGO I SAW A BIG SIGN ON A BILLBOARD. IT HAD THREE CHARACTERS WHICH LOOKED JUST ABOUT LIKE THE ONES ON THE SCREEN. AND RED WHITE AND BLUE STRIPES BEHIND IT. AND THERE ARE CERTAINLY FONTS FOR WRITING ASCII AND ROMAN CHARACTERS WHICH LOOK VERY MUCH LIKE THOSE TO THE POINT THAT IF I DIDN'T KNOW BETTER, I WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT THAT AND SAID, "AH, IT SAYS U.S.A.." WELL, I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT IT SAID BUT U.S.A. IS NOT WHAT IT IS.

AND WE RUN INTO THESE PROBLEMS IN EVERY SINGLE LANGUAGE.

(INAUDIBLE) POINTED OUT TO ME SOME WEEKS AGO THAT THERE'S THIS WONDERFUL STRING WHICH IF WE READ IT IN ENGLISH LOOKS LIKE PECTOPAN, BUT IF THEY'RE IN CYRILLIC WITH MINOR FONT VARIATIONS IT'S SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. IT'S NOT PRONOUNCE THE SAME WAY, DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME MEANING, WHATEVER THE MEANING OF PECTOPAN MIGHT BE.

AND THEN WE HAVE SOME PROBLEMS WITH CHINESE CHARACTERS. THEY'RE NOT UNIQUE TO CHINESE CHARACTERS. WE'VE GOT MOST OF THE PROBLEMS I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT WITH CHINESE CHARACTERS WITH ALMOST EVERY OTHER CHARACTER SET IN THE WORLD. ALMOST EVERY OTHER SCRIPT. OVER TIME, SCRIPTS EVOLVE. SOMETIMES CHANGES GET MADE IN AN EVOLUTIONARY FASHION BECAUSE PEOPLE GET LAZY. SOMETIMES CHANGES GET MADE BY GOVERNMENTS AND COMMITTEES, BUT THEY EVOLVE.

THE THING WHICH IS DIFFERENT ABOUT CHINESE IS THAT WITHIN THE LIFETIMES OF MANY OF US, WE HAVE SEEN A MAJOR LANGUAGE REFORM, OF WRITING SYSTEMS, BUT WE'VE SEEN MAJOR -- NOT ONLY -- NOT QUITE SO MAJOR WRITING REFORMS IN AN EVEN SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME WITH GERMAN. THIS IS NOT AS USUAL A SITUATION AS WITH CHINESE BUT THE TWO PARTICULAR SITUATION WITH CHINESE IS WE HAVE TRADITIONAL CHARACTERS IN USE IN SOME PLACES AND TRADITIONAL CHARACTERS IN OTHERS, AND WE HAVE LANGUAGES IN USE THAT DON'T USE THE SIMPLIFIED FORM. AND I WILL COME BACK TO THAT. AND JAMES WILL COME BACK TO THAT IN EVEN MORE DETAIL.

TO CONSIDERABLE EXTENT WHEN THE DNS WAS DESIGNED, IT WAS DESIGNED AS A NETWORK FACING IDENTIFIER FOR COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND THE PEOPLE WHO USED THEM AT THE LOW LEVELS TALK ABOUT HOSTS. TALK ABOUT THE NETWORK.

SO WE HAVE TENSION BETWEEN A NETWORK FACING IDENTIFIER AND THE USER FACING NAME OF A PRODUCT, COMPANY OR ORGANIZATION. CONSTRAINTS ARE DIFFERENT. IF SOMEBODY SPENT A LOT OF TIME INVENT AGO TRADEMARK NAME THEY WANT TO SPELL IT AND LOOK AT IT THE WAY THEY WRITE IT OR THE WAY THEY SEE IT. COMPUTERS DON'T CARE VERY MUCH.

AND THERE ARE SOME CONSTRAINTS IN THE SOLUTIONS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE DNS WORKS. WE CAN'T TAG STUFF. IT'S HARD TO REPRESENT PICTURES. IT'S HARD TO DECIDE THAT SOME CHARACTER STRING IS GOING TO GET PRESENTED EXACTLY THE WAY YOU WANT IT TO GET PRESENTED. THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS ON LENGTH. THERE ARE SOME VERY NASTY LIMITATIONS ON UNIQUENESS.

DNS DOES NOT SUPPORT A SEARCHING OR MATCHING MECHANISM IN WHICH YOU CAN SAY WELL, IT'S ALMOST THE SAME AS THAT ONE SO RETURN IT. OR THESE TWO THINGS ARE SIMILAR SO LET'S RETURN BOTH OF THEM. PEOPLE TRY THAT; THEY MESS UP OTHER PEOPLE'S APPLICATIONS.

AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THOSE THINGS AND THE FACT THAT CYBERSQUATTERS AND OTHER CRIMINALS ARE OFTEN SMARTER THAN WE ARE OR STAY AHEAD OF US, THERE IS A LOT OF POTENTIAL FOR CONFUSION OR FRAUD. SOME OF IT ACCIDENTAL, SOME OF IT DELIBERATE.

BUT DNS LABELS THEMSELVES ARE TRADITIONALLY JUST ARBITRARY STRINGS OF WHATEVER CHARACTERS ARE PERMITTED. AND FROM THAT STANDPOINT, WE STARTED OUT WITH THE HOST NAME RULES WITH A VERY SMALL SET OF PERMITTED CHARACTERS, AND THE ONLY THING THAT IDNS DO IS TO EXPAND THE LIST OF PERMITTED CHARACTERS. ANYTHING ELSE IS APPLICATION SOFTWARE AND CONVENTIONS.

SO WHILE THE REQUIREMENT FOR NON-ASCII STRINGS IS VERY CLEAR, AND I HOPE NO ONE QUESTIONS THAT ANYMORE, CAUTION IS IN ORDER BECAUSE OF THE TRAPS AND THE RISKS, AND CAUTION IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS IN WHICH, IF WE ARE TOO PERMISSIVE AND TOO FLEXIBLE AND IT GETS US INTO TROUBLE, IT'S VERY, VERY HARD TO CHANGE OUR MINDS AND GO BACK. WE'LL BE LIVING WITH THE TROUBLE FOREVER.

AND THERE ARE PLACES WHERE THE DNS CAN'T HELP.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IS A PROBLEM ABOUT LANGUAGES AND USERS, AND USAGE. IT IS NOT A PROBLEM ABOUT SCRIPTS. AND IT IS ESPECIALLY NOT A PROBLEM ABOUT INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERS.

ONE NEEDS LOCAL MATCHING RULES WHICH MAKE SENSE.

THE STANDARD FOR IDNS DOES A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MAPPING BETWEEN CHARACTERS WHICH ARE SIMILAR OR RELATED. PROBABLY THE MAPPING DECISIONS WHICH WERE MADE WERE THE VERY BEST DECISIONS WHICH COULD BE MADE GIVEN THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE LIMITATIONS AT THE TIME. ONE COULD HAVE MADE OTHER DECISIONS. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER. THERE'S SOME EVIDENCE THAT MANY OF THEM WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE.

IF YOU SAY THAT AROUND THE IETF, THEY WON'T BELIEVE YOU'RE QUOTING ME. SO WE NEED TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT LOCAL MATCHING RULES AND THE DNS DOESN'T DO WELL WITH LOCAL. AS SOON AS YOU DECIDE SOMETHING IS GOING TO BE RESOLVED ONLY BY YOUR SERVERS AND OUR CACHES IN YOUR WAY, YOU'RE CREATING A GLOBAL INTEROPERABILITY PROBLEM. SO WE NEED, IN ORDER FOR PEOPLE TO GET ALONG WITH THIS, WHAT WE HAVE NEEDED FOR CENTURIES. THE ABILITY TO SEARCH AND THE ABILITY TO RESOLVE AMBIGUITY. SEARCHING AND RESOLVING AMBIGUITY SAYS THAT NEAR MATCHES COME BACK TO THE USER OR SOME OTHER SOFTWARE AND SOMETHING GETS DONE WITH THEM. DNS IS ONLY GOOD AT RETURNING TWO ANSWERS. THE ONE YOU ASKED FOR AND NO.

AND THE MORE WE GO DOWN THIS PATH, IF WE WANT GOOD LOCALIZATION AT THE END AS WELL AS GLOBAL INTEROPERABILITY, WE START NEEDING TO WORRY ABOUT ATTRIBUTE STRUCTURE LIKE LANGUAGE, LOCATION, ENTRY, AND BUSINESS TYPES AND MAYBE PURPOSE AND SCRIPT AND INTENT AND CONTEXT.

AND WE CAN'T DO THOSE VERY WELL IN DNS. OUR ONLY TOOL FOR DOING THOSE THINGS IN DNS IS STRUCTURING. BUT WE CAN'T STRUCTURE WELL WITHIN A LABEL. THEY'RE NOT LONG ENOUGH AND THEY DON'T HAVE CLEAR STRUCTURE. SO WE DO IT WITH DNS HIERARCHY, BUT THAT INTRODUCES SOME OTHER ISSUES.

SO AS I SAID, IT'S YES OR NO OR NO. NO HINTS, NO ALTERNATIVES.

IF WE COMPLETELY LOCALIZE AND WE IGNORE THE GLOBAL ISSUES, WE TEND TO FRAGMENT THE NETWORK. IF I DEVELOP A REALLY GOOD SYSTEM FOR ME TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE FOUR OTHER PEOPLE WHO SPEAK KLINGON OR SEVERAL HUNDRED OTHER PEOPLE WHO SPEAK KLINGON AND THAT'S ONLY GOOD FOR COMMUNICATION AMONG THOSE SPEAKERS, THEN DON'T EXPECT TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEM OR EXPECT THEM TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU BUT THEY MAY BE VERY HAPPY BECAUSE THEY MAY NOT CARE UNTIL ISSUES LIKE COMMERCE AND TRADE AND NEWS AND LETTERS INTRUDE.

THE ABILITY TO TRANSLATE OR TRANSLITERATE CHARACTERS BETWEEN SCRIPTS OR BETWEEN CODINGS, OR WITHIN AN ENVIRONMENT, MAY BE VERY IMPORTANT OR THEY MAY NOT BE IMPORTANT AT ALL DEPENDING UPON THE LANGUAGE AND SCRIPT AND USER AND THE APPLICATION. I MENTION SIMPLIFIED AND TRADITIONAL CHINESE. VERY IMPORTANT CASE.

JAPANESE AS MOST OF YOU KNOW COULD BE WRITTEN IN TWO WAYS. EITHER PHONETICALLY OR IN CHARACTERS DERIVED FROM CHINESE. SOME OF US HAVE HAD A VERY INTERESTING EXPERIENCE ABOUT JAPANESE. WE ASKED A JAPANESE COMPUTER SCIENTIST WHETHER THERE'S A NEED TO WORK A PARTICULAR WORD WRITTEN PHONETICALLY OR IN KANJI, AND THE COMPUTER SCIENTISTS ALMOST ALWAYS SAY NO, NO ONE WOULD NEED TO MAKE THAT MATCH. AND THEN WE ASKED SOMEBODY ON THE STREET IN JAPAN WHO IS NOT A HEAVY USER OF THE INTERNET AND HASN'T BEEN IMMERSED IN THESE ISSUES, AND HE SAYS OF COURSE, ANY TEN-YEAR-OLD CAN DO THAT. THE DIFFERENCE IS IN CULTURE, CULTURE INTERFACE AND AGENTS, BUT THE DNS CANNOT SOLVE THAT PROBLEM, AND ANY SOLUTION WE COME UP WITH CANT THE DNS AND THE INTERNET IN THE PROCESS. AT LEAST I HOPE THEY CAN'T.

THERE ARE SEVERAL LANGUAGES, THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES BEING THOSE WHO USE HEBREW AND ARABIC SCRIPT, IN WHICH VOWELS AND ACCENT MARKS AND OTHER SORTS OF THINGS LIKE THAT ARE OPTIONAL. THE LANGUAGE CAN BE WRITTEN EITHER WITH OR WITHOUT THEM. IS IT IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE TO INCLUDE THEM AT ALL?

I DON'T KNOW. LOCAL ISSUE. BETTER SOMETHING CAN BE RESOLVED LOCALLY OR WITHIN THE CONTENT OF THAT SCRIPT. IF YOU PERMIT THEM AND PERMIT HAVING THEM NOT THERE, THEN THEY HAVE TO MATCH.

IT'S AN INTERESTING PROBLEM. THE ANSWER IS SOMETIMES, OR BETTER DECIDE LOCALLY. AND IF THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT WORDS WHICH ARE THE SAME WITHOUT THE VOWELS BUT DIFFERENT WITH THE VOWELS, THEN THERE'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THOSE TWO WORDS MATCH UNDER THE RULE LET'S JUST THROW THE VOWELS AWAY.

HAS TO BE THE CAPABILITY TO LOCALIZE PROPERLY BY MAKING THOSE DECISIONS LOCALLY. IT'S NOT A DNS PROBLEM F WE TRY TO GET INVOLVED, WE WILL MESS UP THE DNS AND WE WILL GET IT WRONG.

AND THERE'S SOME INTERESTING TYPOGRAPHIC CONVENTIONS.

THERE'S A FUNNY SITUATION IN THAT WE STARTED THIS STUFF WITH LATIN SCRIPTS AND IT LOOKS FROM THE OUTSIDE AS IF THE LATIN SCRIPTS OUGHT TO BE THE EASY ONE BECAUSE ASCII IS PART OF THEM. THOSE SCRIPTS, BASED ON ROMAN WRITING SYSTEMS ARE USED TO WRITE MORE DIFFERENT LANGUAGES IN THE WORLD THAN ANYTHING ELSE, AND THEY'RE USED IN DIFFERENT WAYS.

AND BECAUSE PEOPLE DISCOVERED THEY NEED TODAY PUT THINGS ON COMPUTERS LONG BEFORE WE HAD THESE COMPLICATED MULTI-LINGUAL -- MULTI-SCRIPT CHARACTER SETS, THEY DEVELOPED TYPING CONVENTIONS. INDEED, THEY DEVELOPED THESE TYPING CONVENTIONS WITH TYPEWRITERS. CALLED TYPE.

SO THERE'S A CONVENTION IN GERMAN THAT YOU CAN ALMOST ALWAYS WRITE UMLAUT AS OE, BUT SOME THINGS WRITTEN AS OE DON'T TRANSLATE BACK TO UMLAUT, AND IT'S VERY HARD TO GET IT RIGHT. IN FACT, YOU NEED DICTIONARIES. AS SOON AS YOU NEED DICTIONARIES YOU'VE IMPOSED ENTIRELY NEW RULE ON DNS THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN BEFORE AND THAT'S WHAT'S GOT TO BE IN THE DNS HAS GOT TO BE WORDS. A B C3 FIVE 55 IS A PERFECTLY FINE DNS LABEL BUT IT'S A LOUSY WORD.

AND A VARIATION OF THE SLIDE, I PUT ON A NOTE BOARD A FEW YEARS AGO, BY NOW YOU SHOULD BE AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT FRIGHTENED IF I'VE BEEN AS ALL SUCCESSFUL. THE QUESTION IS HOW DID WE GET HERE, WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT?

ANCIENT HISTORY LESSON.

WHEN THE ARGUMENT STARTED ON THE ARPANET ABOUT HOW HOST NAMED SHOULD BE REPRESENTED, THERE WAS ONLY ONE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD FOR CHARACTER SETS ON COMPUTERS AND IT WASN'T FINISHED YET. IT WAS CALLED ISO 646 AND IT'S STILL WITH US. AND ISO 646 THROUGH MOST OF ITS LIFE WAS DEFINED AS HAVING TWO REPRESENTATIONS, ONE OF WHICH WAS CALLED THE BASIC VERSION; THE OTHER ONE OF WHICH WAS CALLED THE INTERNATIONAL REFERENCE VERSION. THE INTERNATIONAL REFERENCE VERSION IS ALSO CALLED ASCII. SAME CHARACTERS, SAME CODING, SAME RULES. BUT THE BASIC VERSION RESERVES A DOZEN, HALF A DOZEN CHARACTER POSITIONS FOR NATIONAL USE.

SO IF YOU'RE TRYING TO DESIGN SOMETHING FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT YOU DON'T DARE USE THOSE INTERNATIONAL USE POSITIONS BECAUSE IT WILL SHOW UP AS DIFFERENT CHARACTERS SPENDING ON WHICH COUNTRY YOU'RE IN OR WHICH LANGUAGE YOU THINK YOU'RE SPEAKING. SO THERE'S A LONG SET OF DISCUSSIONS, SOME OF WHICH PREDATES THE ARPANET ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD REPRESENT THESE NAMES TO BE SAFE. AND ONE OF THE ANSWERS IS CLEARLY NO CHARACTERS IN THE INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL USE POSITIONS.

ANOTHER RULE IS, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WRITE THINGS DOWN ON PAPER AND HAND THE PAPER TO OTHER PEOPLE AND WE ALL WRITE FUNNY, THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO PERMIT BOTH HYPHENS AND UNDERSCORES IN DOMAIN NAMES BECAUSE YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO TELL THEM APART.

SO WE CAME BACK 20 YEARS LATER, DECIDED WE NEED TODAY LEARN ABOUT OTHER KINDS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION PROBLEMS, CAME UP WITH WEB AND CAME UP WITH MIME. MIME WAS DEVELOPED FOR E-MAIL. THE WEB USES IT, SO THE WEB PEOPLE WOULD TELL YOU IT WAS DEVELOPED FOR THE WEB AND E-MAIL USES IT. THEY'RE BOTH RIGHT. AND MIME ITSELF IS A SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING AND STRUCTURING CONTENT OTHER THAN SIMPLE ASCII TEXT.

WE STARTED THE PROJECT TO WORRY ABOUT MULTIPLE LANGUAGES AND SCRIPTS, IT GOT HIJACKED BY THE MULTIMEDIA PEOPLE. WHAT WE CAME OUT WITH IS RECENTLY SATISFACTORY FOR BOTH. AND IT HAD BETTER BE REASONABLY SATISFACTORY BECAUSE THE ODDS OF GETTING RID OF IT ARE PRETTY LOW.

BUT AS I SAY, WE STARTED WORRYING ABOUT INTERNATIONAL CHARACTERS IN THE ARPANET AND SOME THINGS WHICH FED INTO IT IN THE 1970S. INDEED, SOME OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS I WAS AWARE OF STARTED IN '68. THAT WAS BEFORE THERE WERE ANY PACKETS ON WIRES.

THE CHARACTER SET STANDARDS WEREN'T READY. WE COULDN'T DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN KEEP OURSELVES OUT OF SERIOUS TROUBLE. THERE WERE NO INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED CHARACTER STANDARDS FOR ANYTHING BUT ROMAN CHARACTERS AND THERE WASN'T MUCH FOR ROMAN.

WEB FOLKS RECOGNIZE THE REQUIREMENT FOR INTERNATIONALIZATION EARLY. BEING IN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT SAT ON A FRENCH/SWISS BORDER PROBABLY HELPED. BUT THE DETAILS WEREN'T WORKED OUT UNTIL THE MID '90S AND EVERYTHING WAS DONE BY TAGGING. MIME IS A TAGGING SYSTEM. I HAVE A CYNICAL COLLEAGUE WHO CLAIMS MIME IS ABOUT DOCUMENTING INTEROPERABILITY. SOMETHING IS LABELED, IT ARRIVES ON MY DESKTOP, AND I KNOW EXACTLY WHY I CAN'T READ IT, WHICH IS BETTER THAN NOT KNOWING EXACTLY WHY I CAN'T READ IT, ALTHOUGH BEING ABLE TO READ IT IS BETTER.

WHAT WE KEEP SAYING ABOUT MIME AND OTHER THINGS IS THE FEWER OF THOSE CONTENT TYPES WE HAVE AROUND, THE MORE INTEROPERABILITY WE HAVE. WELL, WE'RE LOSING THAT RACE.

THE APPLICATIONS PROTOCOLS THEMSELVES ON THE INTERNET ARE BY AND LARGE DEFINED IN TERMS OF ASCII OR AT LEAST SEVEN-BIT CHARACTERS. IT'S NOT AN ACCIDENT. IT'S NOT IGNORANCE. IT'S NOT AMERICAN ARROGANCE. ALTHOUGH THERE IS SOME OF THAT IN ALL OF THIS, NO DOUBT.

WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT THE ITU RECOMMENDATIONS WHERE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT PROTOCOL ELEMENTS, EITHER SEND THOSE PROTOCOL ELEMENTS AROUND IN OBSCURE NUMBERED CODES OR THEY SEND THEM AROUND IN ALPHABETS WHICH ARE EVEN MORE RESTRICTED THAN ASCII HOST NAMES.

IF WE DECIDE OUR ONLY SOLUTION IS TO WAIT FOR ALL THE APPLICATIONS TO BE UPGRADED, IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG WAIT, AND IT'S GOING TO INVOLVE SOME UNPREDICTABILITY BECAUSE AT NO TIME WILL THE SENDER KNOW WHAT CAPABILITIES THE RECEIVER HAS. WE KNOW HOW TO FIX THAT PROBLEM. THE WAY WE FIX THAT PROBLEM IS TO ANNOUNCE THAT ON AUGUST 1ST WE WILL SHUT DOWN THE INTERNET AND WHEN WE BRING IT BACK UP EVERYONE ELSE WILL BE USING THE NEW SYSTEM.

IF ANYBODY BELIEVES WE COULD DO THAT TODAY, I HAVE A BRIDGE I'D LIKE TO SELL YOU, TO USE AN OLD AMERICAN SAYING.

SO WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT SOME ALTERNATIVES TO UPGRADING AND ESPECIALLY REPLACING APPLICATIONS. IN THE INTERNATIONALIZATION SPACE WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT PLUG-INS AND PATCHES. WE WILL FIX YOUR BROWSER SO THAT IT WORKS DIFFERENTLY AND DOES INTERNATIONALIZATION WELL.

OUR EXPERIENCE SO FAR IS IT DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL. YOU DON'T GET A CONSISTENT USER EXPERIENCE FROM ONE USER TO THE NEXT.

I DO SOMETHING ON MY SCREEN, I CALL UP SOMEBODY AND TELL THEM WHAT TO TYPE AND IT DOESN'T WORK IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT. WE GETS DIFFERENCES FROM ONE USER TO THE NEXT, BETWEEN VERSION 3 OF MY BROWSER AND VERSION 4 OF MY BROWSER OR BETWEEN SERVICE PACK ONE AND SERVICE PACK TWO.

THE IDNA STANDARD, AS JAMES WILL TELL YOU AT LENGTH, ENDS UP WITH SOMETHING CALLED PUNYCODE IN THE DNS. PUNYCODE IS UGLY. NO USER WAS REALLY EXPECTED TO LOOK AT IT. AND WE WILL SUCCEED WHEN USERS DON'T HAVE TO.

BUT THERE ARE SITUATIONS, ESPECIALLY TODAY, WHEN DEALING WITH AND LOOKING AT AND WRITING PUNYCODE IS INEVITABLE AND PROBABLY SOME OF THOSE CONDITIONS WILL BE WITH US FOR QUITE A WHILE.

IF I GO TO A USER WHO HAS BEEN SURVIVING IN THE NETWORK FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS OR 20, AND THAT USER HAS BEEN DEALING WITH SOME UGLY TRANSLITERATION OF HER NAME INTO A DIFFERENT CHARACTER SET, AND HATING IT EVERY TIME IT'S WRITTEN, FOR US TO COME BACK TO THAT USER TODAY AND SAY, " BOY, ARE WE GOING TO IMPROVE YOUR LIFE, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT UGLY TRANSLITERATION WHICH YOU HATE BUT WHICH YOU CAN MANAGE TO REMEMBER, AND SO CAN YOUR FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES, AND REPLACE IT WITH A STRING THAT STARTS WITH XN AND TWO HYPHENS AND IS COMPLETELY UNINTELLIGIBLE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO YOU BELIEVE THAT'S AN IMPROVEMENT."

MOST USERS ARE GOING TO LOOK AT US AS IF WE ARE CRAZY.

IMPORTANT TRANSITION PROCESS, BUT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE GETTING INTO.

AT THAT POINT, I AM GOING TO STOP AND CATCH MY BREATH AND TURN THIS OVER TO PROFESSOR TIN WEE TAN, IF HE'S HERE.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: YES.

>>JOHN KLENSIN: WHEW. I DIDN'T SEE YOU COME IN.

WOULD YOU LIKE A MICROPHONE?

BY MEANS OF VERY LIMITED INTRODUCTION AS HE'S WALKING IN AND GETTING HIS COMPUTER PLUGGED IN, PROFESSOR TAN IS ARGUABLY THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.

WHILE MANY OF THESE INTERNATIONALIZATION ISSUES GO BACK A VERY LONG TIME AND WE HAVE BEEN WORRIED ABOUT THEM FOR A VERY LONG TIME, HE WAS THE PERSON WHO STOOD UP AND SAID, INTERNATIONALIZING DOMAIN NAMES IS IMPORTANT AND IT'S TIME WE STARTED DOING IT RIGHT NOW.

IS THAT OKAY? AND I WILL LET YOU TAKE OVER.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: SORRY, JUST AS A REMINDER TO PEOPLE SITTING IN THE HALL. IF YOU NEED POWER, IT'S ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM. AND THERE'S CABLE CONNECTIVITY ALSO, WIRED CONNECTIVITY, ON THIS SIDE. ON THAT FAR SIDE, IT'S JUST WIRELESS AND YOU'RE ON BATTERIES. SO IT'S WIRELESS, NO POWER, WIRELESS, NO POWER, WIRELESS, SOME POWER, WIRED AND POWER. THANK YOU. JUST TO LET YOU KNOW SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO OUT AND RECHARGE. YOU CAN CROSS OVER.

>>JOHN KLENSIN: FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE OTHER PART OF THE PROBLEM, WE WILL TAKE A BREAK, VERY BRIEF BREAK, AFTER PROFESSOR TAN IS FINISHED. THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND FINISH THE REST OF IT.

>>TIN WEE TAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JOHN. GIVES ME GREAT PLEASURE TO ADDRESS THIS AUDIENCE.

AND MY NAME IS TIN WEE TAN OR TAN TIN WEE, DEPENDING ON WHICH CONVENTION YOU ARE USING. BUT I LIKE TO USE THE CHINESE CONVENTION JUST TO CONFUSE PEOPLE A LITTLE BIT. SO MY NAME HAS BEEN FOUND IN ALL KINDS OF PERMUTATIONS. BUT, ANYWAY, IT WAS MY FAULT.

THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES STARTED WHEN WE SAT AROUND AND DECIDED THAT WE HAD TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE MULTILINGUAL ISSUE. IT STARTED IN A BIG WAY IN 1998 WITH THE FIRST WORKING IMPLEMENTATION OF POSSIBLY YOU COULD SAY IT WAS A PRIMITIVE ASCII-COMPATIBLE ENCODING SYSTEM WHICH WAS THEN CALLED UTF 5, WHICH WE PLAYED AROUND WITH AT THE INTERNET R & D UNIT OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE AROUND ABOUT MARCH OR SO OF 1998.

AND THE FIRST VERSIONS ACTUALLY WORKED ON OUR SYSTEMS, AND WE WERE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT IT. AND BECAUSE AT THAT TIME I WAS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC NETWORKING GROUP, APNG, THE OLDEST ASIA-PACIFIC INTERNET ORGANIZATION, WE DECIDED TO EXPAND THAT INTO A COMMISSION TO EXPLORE THE WIDER RAMIFICATIONS OF THE IDN ISSUE. THIS LED TO A FORMATION OF AN ASIA-PACIFIC TEST BED IN WHICH WE TESTED IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS, IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES THROUGHOUT THE ASIAN REGION, BECAUSE THAT WAS WHERE MOST OF THE INTEREST OCCURRED.

SO TOWARDS THE SECOND HALF OF 1998, WE WENT AROUND ALL THE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AND INTRODUCED THE CONCEPT OF IDN TO THEM. AND, OF COURSE, EVERYBODY WAS SAYING IT JUST IS IMPOSSIBLE, IT'S TECHNICALLY NOT FEASIBLE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. AND WE ROLLED OUT OUR MACHINES AND WE SHOWED THAT IT WORKED. AND PEOPLE WERE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE IT WAS TALKED ABOUT BEFORE BY PEOPLE LIKE MARTIN DÜRST ABOUT HOW ONE COULD IMPLEMENT MULTILINGUALIZED DOMAIN NAMES OR INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES WHICHEVER YOU LIKE TO CALL IT. AND PEOPLE SAID IT WAS NOT REALLY POSSIBLE. BUT HERE WE WERE SHOWING PEOPLE A DEMONSTRATION OF A WORKING MODEL.

AROUND ABOUT THAT TIME, IF YOU CAN RECALL FAR BACK ENOUGH, IN 1998, AUGUST, IN SINGAPORE, IFWP, THE FORUM FOR -- ON THE WHITE PAPER, WAS GOING AROUND THE WORLD. AND WE DEMONSTRATED THAT IN AUGUST 1998, SINGAPORE.

BUT, OF COURSE, THE EARLY ENTITY -- THE PRECURSOR ENTITY OF MEETINGS -- OF THE ICANN MEETINGS AS WE KNOW OF TODAY WERE FOCUSED ON TRYING TO GET EVERYBODY TOGETHER, AND FOR SURE, MULTILINGUAL DOMAIN NAMES WAS DEFINITELY NOT ON THEIR RADAR SCREEN.

BUT QUIETLY, PEOPLE IN THE ASIAN REGION WERE EXTREMELY INTERESTED, AND THERE WAS AROUND ABOUT THE END OF 1998 AN EXPLOSION OF INTEREST AMONGST PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY SAW, MOSTLY FOR THE FIRST TIME, HOW MULTILINGUAL DOMAIN NAMES COULD BE IMPLEMENTED.

THE MOTIVATIONS FOR IDN BEFORE 1998 WERE VERY WELL ARTICULATED BY MARTIN DÜRST, WHO WAS WORKING WITH THE W3C, THE WORLDWIDE WEB CONSORTIUM, ABOUT THAT TIME. AND HE WAS TOYING AROUND WITH THIS IDEA. AND HE WROTE A PAPER JUST TO PROVE FRIENDS WRONG, THAT IT COULD ACTUALLY -- HE COULD ACTUALLY PRODUCE A PAPER THAT POINTED TO A WORKABLE SOLUTION FOR SUPPORTING MULTILINGUAL CHARACTERS IN THE DOMAIN NAME. AND THIS WAS THE EARLIEST ACADEMIC PROOF THAT IDN WAS POSSIBLE IN THE DNS, AROUND ABOUT '96, '97.

BUT THE UNDERLYING THAT IDN MOVEMENT, THAT IDN PHENOMENON IN 1998 WAS A PHENOMENOLOGICAL ONE, AND THAT WAS OF THE PENT-UP DEMAND IN A LOT OF COUNTRIES BEING INTRODUCED TO THE WORLDWIDE WEB AND EXCITED BY THE CONCEPT THAT MY LANGUAGE COULD APPEAR ON THE INTERNET, MY WEB PAGES COULD BE RENDERED IN MY LANGUAGE, AND I CAN START PUBLISHING THINGS ON THE WEB IN MY OWN LANGUAGE.

SO THE WIDER PRE-1998 MOTIVATIONS THAT PROVIDED THAT UNDERGROUND -- UNDERLYING GROUNDSWELL WAS MULTILINGUALISM AT ITS CORE. AND HERE TODAY, WE ARE SITTING IN THE WSIS MEETINGS AND SO ON, TALKING ABOUT MULTILINGUALISM AND THE NEED TO SUPPORT THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY, WELL THE ROOTS, THE UNDERLYING CURRENTS, WERE WILL BE STIRRING BEFORE 1998. AND HOW THAT TRANSLATED INTO THIS DESIRE TO PUSH IDN FORWARD.

SO I HOPE IT GIVES YOU A FLAVOR AND UNDERSTANDING SOMEWHAT OF WHY WE HAVE THAT -- THIS IDN MOVEMENT AND TODAY THIS IDN WORKSHOP WHERE SO MANY OF YOU HAVE TURNED OUT TO LISTEN TO A TUTORIAL, COORDINATED BRILLIANTLY BY JOHN KLENSIN.

SO THAT MULTILINGUAL INTERNET WAS ALREADY STARTING AS FAR BACK AS 1995, WHEN, IN END OF '93, WHEN THE MOSAIC WEB BROWSER STARTED, TOWARDS 1994 TO 1995, WHEN, WITHIN OUR RESEARCH GROUP, WE STARTED INTRODUCING TAMIL INTERNET MULTIPLE LANGUAGES ON ONE PAGE, CHINESE SCRIPT E-MAIL, WEB ANTHOLOGY -- MULTILINGUAL CHARACTERS ON THE WORLDWIDE WEB, INCLUDING KEYBOARD INPUT SYSTEMS.

THESE KINDS OF MULTILINGUAL ACTIVITY STRETCHED ACROSS MANY DIFFERENT LANGUAGES.

I THINK I MAY HAVE LOADED THE WRONG VERSION OF THE SLIDE. EXCUSE ME FOR A MOMENT.

OKAY. I WILL CARRY ON WITH THE OLD VERSION.

SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? THE MULTILINGUAL CONTENT HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE AND SOME OF US MAY REMEMBER IN 1996 ISOC, WHICH IS THE COORGANIZER OF THIS WORKSHOP, TIED UP WITH ALIS BY INTRODUCING MULTILINGUAL CHARACTERS. WHAT ABOUT LABELS? YOU CAN ADDRESS THE CONTENT, BUT HOW ABOUT THE LABELING? BECAUSE IN ORDER TO GET TO CONTENT, YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO KEY IN THE LABEL, YOU KNOW, TO GET TO WHAT YOU WANT.

SO -- LET ME PUT THIS UP.
SO THESE ARE THE LABELS.

AND PEOPLE STARTED ASKING, CAN THEY BE MULTILINGUAL, TOO. AND WE HAVE SHOWN THAT MULTILINGUAL INTERNET LABELS IS POSSIBLE. OUR SOLUTION WAS TO IMPLEMENT IMMEDIATELY WHATEVER UNICODE WE HAD INTO THE ASCII-COMPATIBLE ENCODING UTF 5 AS THE EARLIEST FORM OF WHAT WE NOW KNOW OF AS THE ACE, WHICH JOHN HAS MENTIONED AS PUNYCODE. AND, OF COURSE, THERE ARE LOTS OF PROBLEMS IN IMPLEMENTING ANY TECHNOLOGY. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE PROBLEMS. IT CANNOT BE PERFECT.

AND WE COULD EITHER TAKE THE PURIST APPROACH AND SAY EVERYTHING MUST BE PERFECT BEFORE WE CAN MOVE TO TAKE THE FIRST STEP FORWARD, OR WE CAN SAY, WELL, LET'S REACH A CERTAIN LEVEL OF THRESHOLD, AND IF WE ARE FAIRLY SATISFIED THAT ABOUT 80% OF THINGS CAN GO FORWARD, THE ADVANTAGES OF HAVING THAT TECHNOLOGY IN IMMEDIATE USE FAR OUT WEIGHS THE 20% OF PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE TO OVERCOME ALONG THE WAY.

WHY NOT JUST SHOOT FOR THE MOON, YOU KNOW?

AND FIGURE OUT THE PROBLEMS, BECAUSE WE HAVE BRILLIANT ENGINEERS LIKE JOHN KLENSIN OUT THERE WHO WILL FIX THE PLANE AS WE FLY IT, YOU KNOW.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>TIN WEE TAN: SO IDN OF THE DNS MOVED FORWARD ON THAT BASIS. SOLVING THE FINAL BARRIER TO WIDESPREAD ADOPTION OF THE INTERNET IN NON-ENGLISH-SPEAKING COMMUNITIES WAS A SERIOUS CONCERN OF OURS. AND THE TEST BED WAS SPONSORED BY APNG. PEOPLE STARTED CRITICIZING US, SAYING THAT, WELL, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY COMMERCIAL INTEREST HERE. NOBODY WILL BE INTERESTED. AND IT'S -- EVEN IF YOU COULD ARGUE THAT IT WAS POSSIBLY 90% TECHNICALLY VIABLE, WELL, THERE WON'T BE AN ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY HERE. IT WOULDN'T TAKE OFF AT ALL.

SO WE DECIDED TO TACKLE NOT JUST THE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS, CONCURRENTLY, WE WANTED TO PROVE TO THE WORLD THAT WE COULD DO IT COMMERCIALLY AS WELL. AND AT THAT TIME OUR UNIVERSITY WAS EXTREMELY SUPPORTIVE OF SPINNING OFF COUNTRIES, ENTREPRENEURSHIP, AND SO FORTH.

SO WE GOT TO ONE OF OUR UNIVERSITY WHOLLY-OWNED COMPANIES TO HELP OUT HERE AND GIVE US SOME FUNDING TO PUSH THIS FORWARD. SO CONCURRENTLY, WHILE THE RESEARCH WAS GOING ON, WHILE THE TEST BED DEPLOYMENT WAS GOING ON, HERE WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE A BUSINESS OUT OF THAT.

THE RESEARCH CONTINUED IN THE FORM OF RESEARCH GRANTS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA, WHO FUNDED US IDN. BY THE TIME WE GOT THE MONEY, WE HAD ALREADY DONE IT COMPLETELY FOR IPV4, SO WE DECIDED TO LOOK INTO IPV6.

SO THE WEB SITE THERE SHOW YOU SOME OF THE OLD INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THOSE EARLY HEYDAYS.

SO THIS PROJECT NOW -- THOSE THAT COULD BE COMMERCIALLY VIABLE SPUN OFF TO FORM THE COMPANY I-DNS.NET. AND FUNDED BY GENERAL ATLANTIC PARTNERS.

AND SEATED THERE IS JAMES SENG, MY FORMER STUDENT, WAS APPOINTED AS CTO.

AND AROUND ABOUT THAT TIME, WE GOT INTERESTED, BECAUSE PEOPLE TOLD US, WELL, YOU CAN HAVE ALL THESE COMPANIES FORMING UP AND EVERYONE HAD THEIR OWN STANDARDS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PROBLEMS. WE HAD BETTER GET A WORKING GROUP GOING ON IDN.

BY THE ITF, IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT PROPER STANDARDS WERE ADHERED TO.

AND JAMES, VERY ENTHUSIASTICALLY, LEAPT FORWARD, AND YOU WILL -- THE REST WAS HISTORY. IT TOOK US A LONG TIME, THREE YEARS OR SO, IN ORDER TO GET THERE. BUT I THINK JAMES, BEING THE NEXT SPEAKER, WILL ELABORATE ON THAT.

AND I THINK JOHN HAS ALREADY COVERED VERY MUCH THOSE ISSUES.

THERE WERE DOZENS OF COMPANIES HOPPING ON THE BANDWAGON. AND IN 2000, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS THE PEAK OF THE DOT-COM FEVER. SO EVERYBODY WAS JUMPING IN. SO RESEARCH WAS GOING ON, STANDARDIZATIONS WAS GOING ON, COMMERCIALIZATION WAS GOING ON, LAUNCHES LEFT, RIGHT, AND CENTER. PEOPLE ALL REALLY HYPED UP AND VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS. BUT OVER THE YEARS, WE HAVE SEEN THAT THROUGH ALL THAT WHOLE LIST OF PARTIES THAT WERE INVOLVED, INCLUDING A LOT OF NICS, A LOT OF COMPANIES WERE OFFERING HALF SOLUTIONS BY 2000.

THE INTEROPERABILITY ISSUE BECAME EXTREMELY URGENT, BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE INTRODUCING A LOT OF DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS THAT WERE INCOMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER. SOME OF THE POINTS WERE RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY JOHN A FEW MINUTES AGO.

SO WE SAID, WELL PEOPLE WERE SAYING, WELL, WE BETTER GET THINGS ORGANIZED BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WERE GOING RATHER THAN CONVERGENTLY, ON DIVERGENT PATHS. WE DECIDED TO GET AROUND TO THE CONFERENCE IN SEOUL AND FORMED WHAT WE CALLED THE MULTILINGUAL INTERNET NAMES CONSORTIUM, OR MINC, AS AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION GOING FORWARD.

YOU MIGHT BE ASKING IN RETROSPECT WHY COULDN'T WE GET, WHY COULDN'T WE HAVE GOTTEN ICANN TO DO THIS AND SO ON. BUT YOU MUST UNDERSTAND, BACK IN 2000, THAT THE RADAR SCREEN OF ICANN WAS CHOCKFULL WITH A LOT OF HEAVY-DUTY POLITICAL PROBLEMS. AND DEFINITELY IDN WAS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR THE RADAR SCREEN OF ICANN. IN FACT, I CONSIDER TODAY'S WORKSHOP AN EXTREMELY DRAMATIC, GREAT LEAP FORWARD, IF YOU COULD CALL IT, BECAUSE THIS WAS -- IS WHEN ICANN HAS NOW FINALLY BROUGHT IDN DIRECTLY INTO ITS RADAR SCREEN. IT HAS TAKEN US FROM 1998 UNTIL TODAY TO REACH THIS POSITION.

AND THERE WE WERE, TRYING TO GET EVERYBODY ORGANIZED BY FORMING A CONSORTIUM OF MORE THAN 20 FOUNDING MEMBERS. AND THE FOUNDING PERIOD WAS IN JULY 2000.

WE WANTED TO BE INCLUSIVE IN MINC, BECAUSE WE UNDERSTOOD THAT WE WERE TACKLING ALL THOSE PROBLEMS THAT JOHN MENTIONED PERTAINING TO LANGUAGES, PERTAINING TO SCRIPTS. AND WE HAD TO ADOPT PRINCIPLES THAT WILL HELP US MARRY THE TWO DIVERGENT CONCERNS, ON THE ONE HAND, THE ENGINEERS, AND ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASPIRATION OF THE MULTILINGUAL MASSES. AND WE MUST NOT BREAK THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THE HIERARCHY. AND YET, AT THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE TO SUPPORT AS MANY LANGUAGES AS POSSIBLE, IF NOT ALL, AND SUPPORT AS MANY SCRIPT ENCODINGS AS DESIRED, AS REQUIRED, TO AVOID AMBIGUITY, TO PROVIDE THE DEGREE OF UNIQUENESS AND THE CERTAINTY THAT THE DNS ALREADY EXISTED. AND YET, AT THE SAME TIME, WORK EVERYWHERE FOR EVERYONE.

SO THE ADVICE GIVEN TO US WAS, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, FOLLOW IETF PROCESS. MINIMIZE DISRUPTION AS FAR AS POSSIBLE. FOLLOW THAT RED FLAG THAT JOHN HAS ALREADY INDICATED THAT 1ST AUGUST MIGHT BE THE DATE. HARMONIZE SOLUTION, ADOPT THE SIMPLEST SOLUTION GOING FORWARD. AND TAKE THE PATH OF LEAST CONSTERNATION OR LEAST ASTONISHMENT, WHICH IS ONE OF THE FAVORITE PHRASES OF JOHN.

SO MINC WAS FORMED IN ORDER TO COORDINATE THE RESEARCH ACTIVITY, TO COORDINATE THE INDUSTRY PLAYERS, TO COORDINATE THE POLITICS, TO COORDINATE THE INTERNATIONAL GROUPS, THE LANGUAGE GROUPS.

ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT WE DISCOVERED AS WE WENT ALONG, FIXING THE PLANE AS IT TOOK OFF, WAS, ESSENTIALLY, LEARNING HOW TO HANDLE ALL THE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE GROUPS. AND TOGETHER WITH THE LANGUAGE GROUPS CAME WITH A HUGE BAGGAGE OF CULTURE AND EMOTIONAL FEELING ATTACHED TO THAT CULTURE AND TO THE LANGUAGE.

SO WE TACKLED ONE OF THE BIGGEST -- ONE OF THE BIGGER PROBLEMS WAS THAT SOMEBODY TOLD US PEOPLE WILL USUALLY FIGHT FOR THEIR LANGUAGES, THERE'S ONLY ONE LANGUAGE IN THE WORLD WHERE PEOPLE WILL DIE FOR THEIR LANGUAGE, AND THAT WAS THE TAMIL LANGUAGE. AND THERE WAS THIS TAMIL IN THE WORLD AND THIS SRI LANKA SITUATION. AND SO, OF COURSE, I IN THE CONTEXT OF SINGAPORE, WE HAVE A HUGE POPULATION OF -- A LARGE POPULATION OF TAMIL-SPEAKING INDIANS. SO WE SAID WHY NOT START FROM THERE. AND, OF COURSE, I HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN TAMIL INTERNET BACK IN '95.

SO WE SAID, OKAY, WHY NOT HELP AS A TEST CASE THIS GROUP, A DIASPORIC GROUP OF INDIANS WHO WOULD DIE FOR THEIR LANGUAGE, RIGHT, AND FIGURE OUT HOW WE SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. AND OVER THE YEARS, WE HAVE SEEN THE GROWTH AND FORMATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM FOR IT IN TAMIL, INFITT.

AND THROUGH THE TEST CASE OF THIS ORGANIZATION, WE HAVE UNDERSTOOD HOW TO FORM LANGUAGE GROUPS THAT INVOLVES A DIVERSE COMMUNITIES LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, SPEAKING AND USING THE SAME LANGUAGE AND THE SAME SCRIPT WITH ALL THEIR DIFFERENT ASPIRATIONS BEING DIASPORIC AND HOW WE UNIFY THAT, THESE DIASPORIC ASPIRATIONS WITH THOSE OF THEIR MOTHER LAND IN TAMIL NANDO STATE IN INDIA, HOW TO PROMOTE LEVEL OF AWARENESS AMONGST THESE PEOPLE AND HOW TO TECHNICALLY COORDINATE THEM. AND THOUSAND PROMOTE UNDERSTANDING AND COORDINATION AMONGST THESE DIFFERENT GROUPS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ONE SINGLE LANGUAGE, ONE SINGLE SCRIPT, RIGHT, AND WITH MANY GROUPS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

WE HAVE DONE THAT ALSO WITH THE ARABIC COMMUNITY, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLICATED, BECAUSE NOT ONLY IN THE CASE OF TAMIL, ONE LANGUAGE USES -- ONE LANGUAGE GROUP USES ONE SCRIPT.

BUT IN THE CASE OF ARABIC SCRIPT, THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT GROUPS THAT ACTUALLY ALSO USE THE ARABIC SCRIPT. SO HOW DO WE SOLVE THAT PROBLEM?

THE OTHER PROBLEM WHICH WE ALSO TRIED TO TACKLE WAS THAT OF THE HAN CHARACTER SETS, WHICH IS BEING USED BY THE CHINESE-SPEAKING PEOPLES, THE JAPANESE-SPEAKING PEOPLE IN THE FORM OF ONE OF THE THREE MAJOR SCRIPTS THAT THEY USE, THAT'S KANJI.

AND, OF COURSE, THE KOREAN PEOPLE, HANJA, IN ADDITION TO THEIR HANGEUL SCRIPT.

SO THREE DIFFERENT LANGUAGES IN THE CONTEXT OF HAN CHARACTERS USING THAT SAME SCRIPT OR DIFFERENT SUBSETS OF THOSE SCRIPTS. AND WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE CHINESE, JAPANESE, AND KOREAN PEOPLE, WE HAVE MANAGED TO FORM THE JET, JOINT ENGINEERING TASK FORCE, WHICH I THINK JAMES WILL BE SPEAKING ABOUT.

AND THEY HAVE UNDERGONE TREMENDOUS DEBATES AND DISCUSSION AND REACHED SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT TO MOVE FORWARD.

SO COMING BACK TO MINC, HERE WE ARE, SPINNING OFF GROUPS THAT COULD UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE THAT HAD -- THE LEGITIMACY TO HANDLE THE LANGUAGES THAT BELONGED TO THEM, THAT THEY GREW UP WITH, THEY WERE TAUGHT, HANDED DOWN FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION.

LANGUAGE IS SOMETHING VERY CLOSE TO EACH INDIVIDUAL ETHNIC GROUP, AND IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO PROVIDE THAT KIND OF RESPECT FOR THESE LANGUAGE GROUPS, EVEN THOUGH WE MAY KNOW THE BEST ANSWER, WELL, EVERYBODY THINKS THEY HAVE THE BEST ANSWER, BUT WE STILL HAVE TO INCLUDE AN ELEMENT OF RESPECT FOR THESE PEOPLES, BECAUSE THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THEY GREW UP WITH.

AND EVEN IF IT DOESN'T -- IT HALF WORKS, THE TECHNOLOGY HALF WORKS, WELL, IT'S THEIRS; RIGHT?

SO THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT THROUGH THIS EXPERIENCE THAT WE HAD OF GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF LOOKING AT THE TECHNOLOGY, LOOKING AT THE COMMERCIAL ASPECTS, LOOKING AT THE INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION AND COOPERATION AMONGST DIFFERENT LANGUAGE GROUPS, THE PROCESS OF HELPING THESE LANGUAGE GROUPS SPIN OFF, CREATE THEIR OWN ORGANIZATION, HELPING THEM MOVE FORWARD, AND TRYING TO HELP THEM TO TALK TO EACH OTHER AND COOPERATE WITH EACH OTHER, HAS CERTAINLY HELPED US OPEN OUR EYES TO THE CHALLENGES WHICH HAVE BEEN MENTIONED BY JOHN EARLIER ON.

THERE WERE, OF COURSE, MANY FOUNDING MEMBERS. AND WE ARE INDEED GRATEFUL TO THESE FOLKS, BECAUSE THESE WERE THE BRAVE FOLKS THAT LEAPT FORWARD INTO IDN, THE IDN MOVEMENT WITH US IN THOSE EARLY DAYS.

SO COMING BACK TO THE BASIC QUESTION. WHY DO WE REALLY NEED MULTILINGUAL NAMES? LABELS?

WELL, BECAUSE IT'S NATURAL TO HUMAN BEINGS. IT'S PART OF OUR BUILT-IN CULTURAL IDENTITY. AND WE MUST USE LOCAL LANGUAGES FOR LOCAL MESSAGES.

THE OTHER PROBLEM IS THAT ROMANIZED CHARACTERS ARE DIFFICULT TO MANY, MANY PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS OR PEOPLE WITH LESS EDUCATION.

I THOUGHT AT ONE STAGE THAT THE DIGITAL DIVIDE WILL EXPAND TREMENDOUSLY IN A RUNAWAY FASHION BECAUSE E-COMMERCE WILL TAKE OFF IN A BIG WAY. AND TO A CERTAIN WAY IT DID DURING THE DOT-COM FEVER. AND THAT THE MULTILINGUAL MASSES URGENTLY NEEDED THIS TO MOVE FORWARD. BUT AS WE SEE, EVEN IN CHINA, PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO LEARN ENGLISH BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZE THAT THIS WAS ECONOMICALLY THE BEST BET THEY HAVE IN ORDER TO SUCCEED IN LIFE, BECAUSE AS JOHN MENTIONED EARLIER, LOTS OF PEOPLE USE THE ROMANIZED CHARACTERS. BUT THEN THERE WILL ALWAYS BE THOSE WHO ARE LAGGING BEHIND.

AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO US, ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF WSIS, THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN INFORMATION SOCIETY THAT WE NEED TO BRIDGE THAT DIGITAL DIVIDE, HOWEVER YOU LIKE TO LOOK AT IT. WE NEED TO LOOK AFTER THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE A LITTLE BIT BEHIND, LAGGING ALONG THE WAY, AND HELP THEM ALONG.

AND THIS HAS BEEN THE GREATEST LIBERATING FORCE OF THE INTERNET, REACHING OUT TO PEOPLES WHO ARE DISENFRANCHISED, REACHING OUT TO PEOPLE WITHOUT THE POWER, WITHOUT THE VOICE, AND EMPOWERING THEM.

SO WHAT BETTER WAY THAN TO COME UP WITH A LABELING SYSTEM THAT WILL ALLOW THESE PEOPLE AT LEAST HAVE A CHANCE TO MOVE FORWARD IN LIFE.

SO THE VISION OF THAT IDN MOVEMENT IS ESSENTIALLY SOLVING THAT FINAL BARRIER, SO TO SPEAK, FOR WIDESPREAD ADOPTION OF THE INTERNET IN NON-ENGLISH-SPEAKING COMMUNITIES.

AND IN THE WAKE OF 9/11, THE IRAQ WAR, SECOND ONE, PROBLEMS IN THE GULF, AND SO ON, ALL THE MORE REASON WE NEED TO BE SENSITIVE TO THE NEEDS AS WELL AS TO THE CULTURAL VALUES OF THOSE PEOPLES WHOM WE ARE TRYING TO HELP IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE DIGITAL DIVIDE, IN ORDER TO GIVE ALL PEOPLES OF THE WORLD THE BEST CHANCE TO SUCCEED IN THE INTERNET WORLD, IN E-COMMERCE, IN THE FUTURE OF THE DIGITAL KNOWLEDGE AGE.

THERE WERE MANY IDN NAYSAYERS. THEY TOLD US IN 1998, "IT IS NOT TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE." BUT WE HAVE PROVEN, MAYBE NOT 100%, MAYBE NOT EVEN 90%, NOT EVEN 80%, SOME SAY WORSE THAN 50%, BUT AT LEAST IT DOES WORK TO A CERTAIN DEGREE. THE NAYSAYERS HAVE TOLD US THERE IS NO DEMAND AND THERE IS NO INTEREST. WE HAVE FOUND THAT THERE WAS PLENTY. ON THE FIRST DAY OF LAUNCH OF CHINESE CHARACTER IDNS, THERE WERE 20,000 PEOPLE SIGNED UP, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THEN SOME PEOPLE SAID TO US THAT THERE WON'T BE ANY SERVICE PROVIDERS. BUT PLENTY CAME FORWARD. AND AFTER THE DOT-COM CRASH, A LOT OF THEM CRASHED ALONG, TOO. WHILE WAITING FOR IDN TO BE IMPLEMENTED, MIND YOU.

SOME PEOPLE SAID THAT NO ORGANIZATION WILL DO IT. LOOK AT ICANN. IT'S DEALING WITH A LOT OF PROBLEMS TODAY.

IT HAS NO TIME TO DO IDN TODAY. IT HAS TO FOCUS ON GETTING ALL THE CCTLDS TOGETHER. I SEE SOME CCTLDS HERE. RIGHT?

BUT WE HAVE SHOWN THROUGH THE MULTILINGUAL INTERNET NAMES CONSORTIUM THAT IT CAN BE DONE, WITH ALL THE GROUPS THAT WE HAVE SPUN OUT, THAT WE HAVE FOR THE TAMIL GROUPS, THE ARABIC GROUPS, THE CHINESE GROUPS, THE HAN CHARACTER GROUPS.

AND NOW, TODAY, ICANN. IT'S HAPPENING.

THEN SOME PEOPLE SAID, NO, NO, NO, WE CAN'T GO FORWARD WITHOUT STANDARDS. AND WE HAVE DONE SO, AND JAMES IS THE LIVING EXAMPLE OF HAVING STRUGGLED WITH THIS, ALONG WITH JOHN KLENSIN, WITH THE RFCS THAT YOU WILL HEAR OF LATER THIS AFTERNOON.

THEN PEOPLE CAME ALONG WITH ALL THESE PEOPLE IMPLEMENTING THESE RFCS, NO DOUBT THERE IS STANDARD RFCS, BUT THERE WERE MANY WAYS OF IMPLEMENTING AN RFC, YOU KNOW, AND IT MIGHT NOT BE INTEROPERABLE. BUT LAST YEAR WE HAD INTEROPERABILITY TESTING.

THEN THERE WAS THE PROBLEM OF NO LANGUAGE TABLES. THERE ARE PLENTY OF VARIANTS. EVERY LANGUAGE IS DIFFERENT. WELL, WE ARE STARTING TO WORK ON IT. MINC TABLES IS ONE OF THE EXAMPLES. ICANN HAS ALREADY STARTED IT.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY HERE, WE ARE BEGINNING TO SEE THAT THE RIGHTS OF THE COMMUNITY SURFACING.

THE ISSUE OF LEGITIMACY THAT HAS BEEN DOGGING THE PAST EVERY SINGLE STEP OF ICANN HAS BEEN TAKING HAS BEEN DOGGED BY ISSUES OF LEGITIMACY. WHAT RIGHT DOES SOMEBODY ELSE SOMEWHERE IN ANOTHER PART OF THE WORLD THAT DOES NOT HAVE -- DOES NOT USE MY LANGUAGE BUT MAY BE AN EXPERT IN MY LANGUAGE IN AN ACADEMIC SENSE, WHAT RIGHT DOES HE HAVE TO TELL ME HOW I SHOULD SPEAK MY LANGUAGE AND HOW I SHOULD WRITE MY LANGUAGE AND HOW I SHOULD WRITE MY SCRIPT?

WHO GETS TO DECIDE ON MY LANGUAGE? WELL, IT HAS TO BE ME AND US. THOSE OF US WHO SPEAK THE LANGUAGE. AND THIS NECESSARILY LEADS TO A CERTAIN DEGREE OF SENSITIVITY THAT WE MUST GIVE TO LANGUAGE EMPOWERMENT GROUPS THAT WILL SELF-ORGANIZE, THAT WE WILL WANT TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO COME FORWARD VOLUNTARILY TO SOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS THAT ARE CLOSE TO THEIR HEARTS. AND EMPOWER THEM. AND THAT IS WHERE THE LEGITIMACY OF AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION DRAWS ITS RIGHT TO MAKE PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT AFFECT THESE LANGUAGE GROUPS.

FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR THAT KIND OF LEGITIMACY MAY LEAD TO FAR MORE DOOM AND DISASTER THAN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IDN.

SO THEY SAID THERE'S NO VEHICLE TO CARRY THIS FORWARD, BUT TODAY, THERE IS MINC, THERE'S ICANN, THERE'S ITU, THERE'S THE WSIS PROCESS, U.N, ICT TASK FORCE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ANY OF WHICH COULD TAKE ON THIS BALL AND RUN WITH IT FOR THE NEXT MILE.

WE HAVE LIT THE TORCH, 1998. WE HAVE RAN WITH IT IN MULTIPLE SECTORS. FROM THESE FALLING HANDS, SOMEBODY HAS TO PICK THIS UP, PICK UP THIS TORCH AND CARRY THE RACE FORWARD TO THE NEXT LAP. WHO WILL THAT BE?

CAN ICANN? I CAN OR I CANNOT DO IT. THE CHALLENGES ARE NO LONGER TECHNICAL. IT HAS MOVED INTO THE REALM OF POLICY, AND POLITICS. IT REQUIRES THE SKILLS OF DIPLOMACY AND THAT OF STATESMANSHIP, FAR BEYOND THE ENGINEERING OR THE TECHNICAL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU, PROFESSOR TAN.

>>JOHN KLENSIN: AT LEAST THE SPEAKERS, AND PROBABLY SOME OF YOU, COULD USE ABOUT A 15-MINUTE BREAK. SO LET'S TRY TO TAKE IT NOW. WE HAVE A LOT OF MATERIAL TO COVER, SO PLEASE, LET'S PLAN ON OUR GETTING STARTED IN ABOUT 15 MINUTES.

(BREAK)

>>JOHN KLENSIN: WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MATERIAL TO GET THROUGH SO WE'RE GOING TO START AND HOPE THE PEOPLE MILLING AROUND THE HALLS WILL NOTICE AND COME RUNNING IN.

BEFORE I TURN THE FLOOR OVER TO JAMES, I WANT TO ANSWER A QUESTION THAT I'VE BEEN ASKED SEVERAL TIMES AND ASK A FAVOR OF YOU. THE QUESTION IS ARE THESE SLIDES AVAILABLE, AND THE ANSWER IS THEY WILL BE UP ON THE ISOC WEB SITE AT ABOUT NOON TODAY. AND I'LL GET A URL UP AS SOON AS I HAVE IT IN HAND.

AND THE REQUEST FOR YOU IS THAT I SOMETIMES LOOK AT HOW MUCH MATERIAL WE HAVE TO COVER AND THE SLIDES AND START GOING A LITTLE BIT TOO FAST EVEN FOR NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS. AND IF YOU FIND THAT I'M ACCELERATING BEYOND YOUR ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING, PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR AND START WAVING THEM OR SOMETHING AND I'LL TRY TO SLOW DOWN.

AND MY APOLOGIES FOR SPEEDING UP THIS MORNING WITHOUT NOTICING AND WITHOUT GIVING YOU THAT WARNING BEFORE I GOT STARTED.

JAMES.

>>JAMES SENG: GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. HMM.

I JUST WONDER, HOW MANY PEOPLE WAS HERE IN 2000? WHEN I FIRST GAVE THE PRESENTATION ON IDN IN L.A. CAN YOU PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? WOW, THAT IS QUITE FEW.

I KNOW SOME OF YOU MIGHT -- THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS FOR MANY TIMES, PROBABLY HEAR ME MANY TIMES, AND YOU DO SEE ME REUSE MY SLIDES AGAIN AND AGAIN, BUT I PROMISE THIS TIME THERE WILL BE TOTALLY NEW SLIDES, SO WHATEVER YOU SEE TODAY WILL BE A FIRST TIME BECAUSE I JUST WROTE THEM LAST NIGHT ON THE TRAIN HERE TO KL.

SO LET ME GET STARTED.

MOST OF YOU WILL REMEMBER ME AS THE FORMER CO CHAIR OF THE IETF/IDN WORKING GROUP BUT I'M NOW CURRENTLY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF (INAUDIBLE) DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. BUT TODAY I'M HERE IN MY OWN PERSONAL CAPACITY SO ANY OPINION I EXPRESS HERE TODAY MAY OR MAY NOT BE IETF'S POSITION. I JUST WANTED TO GET MY HAT CORRECT IN THIS.

AND I WAS HAVING A DISCUSSION WITH JOHN ON HOW TO DO THIS SESSION, AND I WAS ASKED SPECIFICALLY TO GO INTO A BIT OF DETAIL ON HOW THE IETF IDN FUNCTIONS ACTUALLY WORKS. SO I'M GOING TO GIVE MAYBE, SAY, 15 SLIDES ON HOW DO YOU ACTUALLY GET INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME WORKS, AND MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION ON WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR THE NEXT STEP. I WON'T GO INTO THE BACKGROUND BUT LET'S JUMP INTO THE GIST OF THE PROBLEM.

THERE ARE MANY -- MANY, IGNORING THE SIDE TRACKS, BUT THERE ARE MANY THREE DIFFERENT PRONGS AS FACED BY THE IETF WHEN WE WERE DESIGNING THE IDN WORK. THE FIRST IS HOW DO WE ACTUALLY ENCODE NON-ASCII CHARACTERS INTO THE DNS? DOMAIN NAMES HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN SERIAL NINE AND YOU WANT TO PUT HEBREW, ALL OF THOSE INTO THE DNS STRING, HOW DO YOU ACTUALLY ENCODE THEM INTO THE DNS?

THERE IS ALSO A TRADITION OF SAYING UPPER CASE AND LOWER CASE ARE EQUIVALENT. SO HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THIS EQUIVALENT CHARACTERS IN INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES? AND LASTLY, HOW IT ACTUALLY WORKS. THERE ARE MANY PROPOSALS. SOME SAY LET'S DO IT THIS WAY, LET'S CHANGE THE DNS SYSTEM, I SAY NO LET'S NOT CHANGE THE DNS, LET'S CREATE A NEW SYSTEM TO DO THE IDN, SO ON AND SO FORTH. THESE ARE THE MAIN THREE DEBATES THAT RAN OVER THREE YEARS IN THE IETF ON HOW DO WE RESOLVE THE PROBLEM.

SO I'M HERE TO PRESENT -- I WON'T SAY A SOLUTION BUT HERE IS REALLY PRESENTING WHAT THE IETF HAS COME UP WITH AFTER THE THREE YEARS OF WORK.

SO LET ME JUMP IN WITH THE FIRST PART. THE FIRST PART IS ENCODING.

AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE TRADITIONAL OLD PROTOCOL HANDLED EIGHT OH TO NINE, BUT THE MAIN THING IS DOMAIN NAMES ARE NOT ONLY USED FOR WEB SURFING. THIS IS ONE THING MANY PEOPLE IGNORE. MOST PEOPLE SAY I CAN TYPE IN THIS ON MY WEB BROWSER, THAT'S DOMAIN NAME FOR ME. BUT NO, DOMAIN NAME IS A VERY IMPORTANT PIECE OF INTERNET. WEB SERVER, INSTANT MESSAGING, SO ON AND SO FORTH, SO WHEN WE FIRST INTRODUCE INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES, WE CANNOT LOOK AT THE PROBLEMS ONLY FOR THE WEB SURFING. THERE WILL BE LAYER VIOLATIONS ON WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DESIGN.

I THINK WE'RE ALSO AWARE OF IS PEOPLE WANT THEIR OWN LANGUAGE, LANGUAGE, IN THE DOMAIN NAMES. THIS GETS TO BE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THERE IS A CONFUSION BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND SCRIPTS, WHICH JOHN TALKS ABOUT THIS MORNING.

A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCES. MOST PEOPLE SAY I SPEAK ARABIC, I WRITE ARABIC SCRIPTS. BUT WHAT, DO YOU REALIZE ARABIC SCRIPTS ARE USING DIFFERENT LANGUAGES FROM PERSIAN, TO FARSI TO JAWI. YOU SAY I'M CHINESE, I WRITE CHINESE SCRIPTS, BUT IT'S USING JAPAN, KOREA, AND ALSO VIETNAMESE, THE OLD WRITING WHICH THEY CALL CHONAN, IT'S ACTUALLY IN CHINESE. CHINESE SCRIPT. SORRY. SO THERE IS A CONFUSION BETWEEN SCRIPT AND LANGUAGE.

SO WHEN PEOPLE SAY I WANT MY OWN LANGUAGE, THEN THAT BECOME -- YOU HAVE TO LISTEN, ARE YOU REALLY WANT YOUR OWN SCRIPTS OR YOU WANT YOUR OWN LANGUAGE IN THE DOMAINS?

I ALREADY TOLD YOU ABOUT THE DEBATES ABOUT THE PROPOSAL THAT'S BEEN PUT FORWARD BY THE IETF IS THE RFC 3492 OR PUNYCODE. JOHN MENTIONED BEFORE, IT SOUNDS PUNY BUT IT'S A CUTE NAME THAT WE DECIDE IT SOUNDS FOR THIS ENCODING. IT BASICALLY USES UNIQUE CODE. FUNDAMENTALLY, IT DERIVE ITS CHARACTER SET FROM UNICODE. THE LIMITATION OF COURSE IS UNICODE IS A SCRIPT-BASED ENCODING. IT'S SCRIPT BASED, NOT A LANGUAGE BASED.

IF YOU LOOK A LOT OF THE LOCALIZED ENCODING SCHEMES, LIKE A 51, ISO 59 DASH ONE AND TWO, OR IN CHINA, GB 30, THEY ARE LANGUAGE ENCODING SET. HOWEVER, UNICODE IS A SCRIPT. IT'S A SCRIPT-BASED ENCODING. SO BY USING UNICODE, IT ENABLES US TO ENCODE SCRIPT IN THE DNS, NOT LANGUAGE. PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THIS LIMITATION WHICH I WILL COME TO LATER.

PUNYCODE IS ALSO WHAT WE CALL ASCII COMPATIBLE ENCODING. WHAT IT MEANS IS YOU TAKE THE UNICODE 3, WHICH MAYBE UTF-8, UTF-16, IF YOU PUT IT ON THE SCREEN IT'S A BUNCH OF STRINGS BUT YOU TRANSFORM THEM INTO A STRING OF ASCII. SO FOR EXAMPLE, I HAVE THE THREE CHINESE CHARACTER, (INAUDIBLE), WHICH IS OVER THERE. IN SOME ENCODING, UNICODE, AND THEN YOU TRANSFORM THEM TO A PUNYCODE WHICH WILL GET YOU A STRING LIKE XN DASH BS 3 AW DOT DOT DOT DOT; RIGHT? NOW USING PUNYCODE, WE HAVE A METHOD TO ENCODE THIS INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES INTO THE DNS. AND THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE A CHANGE OF THE DNS INFRASTRUCTURE. THE INFRASTRUCTURE REMAINS INTACT.

IF WE WERE TO USE OTHER ENCODING SCHEME THAT MAY REQUIRE ALTERING ALL OF THE DNS SYSTEM, LIKE YOUR NAME SERVER, HOSTING SERVER, AND THAT WOULD BE A BIG DISRUPTION. BY USING A PUNYCODE, IN A WAY YOU'RE ACTUALLY ENCAPSULATING THE INTERNATIONALIZED CHARACTERS INTO THE ASCII SET, AND YOU OVERCOME THAT PROBLEM NOW ALLOWING YOU TO ENCODE INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES WITHOUT CHANGING THE INFRASTRUCTURE.

THE REASON FOR THIS IS FOR THE MINIMUM DISRUPTION TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE AS POSSIBLE.

AM I GOING TOO FAST? I HOPE NOT. OKAY. THIS ONE, I WILL GO A BIT SLOWER, THE SECOND PROBLEM ABOUT EQUIVALENT CHARACTERS BECAUSE THIS IS THE PART THAT'S MOST INTERESTING. I HAVE A FEW SLIDES ON THIS.

AS I FIRST MENTIONED, DOMAIN NAMES ARE TRADITIONALLY CASE INSENSITIVE. SO IF YOU RECEIVE AOL.COM IN UPPER CASE, YOU KNOW THAT IT'S ACTUALLY EQUIVALENT TO AOL.COM IN LOWER CASE. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN USED TO. IT DOESN'T MATTER, TYPE IN UPPER CASE OR LOWER CASE; THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. SO WHEN WE HAVE INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES THERE IS CERTAIN USER EXPECTATION THAT, SNAP, THAT'S HOW IT WORKS. IT SHOULD WORK; RIGHT?

SO THE CONCEPT OF UPPER CASE, LOWER CASE IS SIMPLE IN ENGLISH ALPHABETS, THERE'S ONLY 26 OF THEM BUT WHEN IT COMES TO NON-ENGLISH CHARACTERS IT BECOMES MORE INTERESTING. LIKE A WITH TWO DOT ABOVE IS EQUIVALENT TO A WITH TWO DOT ABOVE? YES, IT IS. BUT WHAT ABOUT "I"? IS I EQUAL TO I UPPER CASE OR I EQUAL TO I UPPER CASE WITH A DOT? ANYBODY SEEN AN I UPPER CASE WITH A DOT? ANYBODY KNOWS WHAT IS THE EQUIVALENT? I'M SURE YOU KNOW, SO JOHN AND MARTIN DURST -- MARTIN DURST IS HERE. HE'S THE GUY THAT WROTE THE INTERNET DRAFT BACK IN 1996 THAT STARTED IDN WHICH I DID MY WORK UPON.

I WITH A DOT ABOVE ACTUALLY IS USED IN TURKISH, BECAUSE TURKISH HAS A CHARACTER IS I WITH A DOT, WHICH IS MEANT TO I UPPER CASE WITHOUT A DOT. SO I WITH A DOT IS EQUIVALENT TO I UPPER CASE WITH A DOT. SO CASE FORWARDING DOESN'T MAKE SENSE NOW; RIGHT? UPPER CASE I AND LOWER CASE I IS NOT THE SAME DEPENDING ON THE LANGUAGE. IF YOU ARE ENGLISH, YES. THAT MAKES SENSE. THE FIRST ONE MAKES SENSE. BUT IF YOU ARE TURKISH, THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE I WITH AN UPPER CASE DOT TO MATCH TO I WITH AN UPPER CASE AND A DOT, AND SO ON. SO THIS BECOME A BIT CONFUSING WHEN IT'S NOT ENGLISH.

THERE'S ALSO DIFFERENT WAYS TO REPRESENT THE SAME CHARACTERS. I GO WITH LATIN. LATIN IS MORE INTERESTING. LIKE I SHOW A WITH TWO DOT ABOVE. THERE ARE ACTUAL TWO WAYS OF REPRESENTATION -- ACTUALLY, MORE THAN TWO WAYS BUT LET ME SHOW TWO WAYS I KNOW. IT'S KNOWN A COMPOSITE FORM, YOU PUT THEM INTO SINGLE CHARACTERS, IT'S REPRESENTED BY UNICODE. BUT TRADITIONALLY THERE IS ALSO A WAY TO KEY IN A WITH A TWO DOT BECAUSE ON THE KEYBOARD YOU ACTUALLY PRESS AN A AND TWO DOTS, AND THAT IS DECOMPOSED AS UNICODE 0061,0308. SO THESE ARE DIFFERENT BUT THEY HAVE TWO DIFFERENT UNICODE STRINGS BUT THEY NEED TO BE TREATED EQUAL.

WHAT ABOUT SIMILAR LOOKING CHARACTERS? I SHOW ABOVE ICANN. CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO ICANN? IMAGINE THAT AS A DOMAIN NAME. ICANN DOT OUGHT. ONE IS IN PURE ASCII, ONE IS INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES WITH A CYRILLIC A, CAPITAL LETTER A. I WONDER HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN SPOT THE DIFFERENCES?

ANYONE CAN SPOT THE DIFFERENCE? OKAY.

I HAVE ONE LITTLE HAND UP THERE. SO I WILL TAKE IT AS MOST PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO SPOT THE DIFFERENCE. WE TALK ABOUT SCAN, WE TALK ABOUT FISHING, IMAGINE SOMEONE RECEIVE AN E-MAIL FROM ICANN, WHICH IS NOT REALLY ICANN.

VARIANTS. THAT'S ANOTHER PROBLEM.

LET'S TAKE THE FIRST ROW, THE TWO CHINESE CHARACTERS. ANYONE CAN SPOT THE DIFFERENCE? IF YOU TELL ME YOU CAN SPOT THE DIFFERENCE, YOU ARE LYING BECAUSE TECHNICALLY THEY ARE THE SAME CHARACTERS. THEY ARE TECHNICALLY THE SAME CHARACTERS BUT ONE IS THE (INAUDIBLE) FORM OF THE OTHER. BUT THEY HAVE TWO DIFFERENT CODE POINT IN UNICODE, ONE IS F 900 AND THE OTHER IS 8 C4 8.

THERE'S DIFFERENT EVOLUTION OF FORMS, LIKE THE NEXT ONE, THE FIRST ONE IS USING TAIWAN, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, THE OTHER WAY IS THE WAY JAPANESE WRITE THE SAME CHARACTERS. TWO DIFFERENT CODE POINT AGAIN.

TRADITIONAL, SIMPLIFIED, ALL OF THIS. TRADITIONAL FORM THE FIRST PART, SIMPLIFIED FOR THE SECOND ONE IN JAPANESE. THIRD ONE IS SIMPLIFIED CHINESE, USED IN CHINA BUT THEY ARE CONSIDERED EQUIVALENT BECAUSE THEY BOTH REPRESENT TWO.

THERE ARE ALSO WAYS OF DECOMPOSING AND CONSTRUCT CHINESE CHARACTERS IN UNICODE. SO WE HAVE THE CODE POINT LIKE (INAUDIBLE), WHICH IS THE FIRST CHARACTER YOU SEE. IT CAN BE DECOMPOSED AND REPRESENTING UNICODE REPRESENTING 2 FF 19 (INAUDIBLE).

IF YOU ACTUALLY TYPE IT IN THE COMPUTER SCREEN AND PUT THE THREE TOGETHER, IT SHOULD COMPOSE FOR YOU TO REPRESENT 9B03. THAT IS WHAT WE CALL THE IDIOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTIVE LANGUAGE IN UNICODE. THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM.

THANK YOU. I CAN GO ON. THERE ARE MANY, MANY DIFFERENT EXAMPLES OF THIS IN UNICODE. BUT I'M NOT HERE TO GIVE YOU A PREMIUM OF ALL THE LANGUAGES. I CAN'T CLAIM I KNOW ALL THE LANGUAGES, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE THE AFTERNOON SESSION TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE ISSUES.

I'M HERE TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OVERVIEW ON THE PROBLEMS THAT WE FACE IN IETF. AND ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING WE DO NOT HAVE ALL THE NECESSARY EXPERTS WITHIN THE WORKING GROUP ON LANGUAGE ISSUES. WE'RE JUST STICKING TO THE UNICODE AND THE SCRIPT IS A REALLY GOOD IDEA.

WHICH GETS ME TO THE SECOND PART, WHICH IS THE SOLUTION. AFTER THREE AND A HALF YEARS WE CAME UP WITH RFC 3491, CALLED NAME PREP. BASED ON UNICODE NORMALIZATION FROM KC. IT'S A TECHNICAL DOCUMENT, PUBLISHED BY UNICODE CONSORTIUM. YOU LOOK UP UTR 15, THAT'S WHAT YOU CAN GET AND OF COURSE THE CASE FOLDING DOCUMENT CALLED UTR 21. I THINK 21 HAS BEEN DEPRECIATED BUT IT WAS A DOCUMENT.

THIS INTERNET DRAFT WAS WORKED JOINTLY HALF FROM IETF, HALF FROM THE UNICODE CONSORTIUM. WE HAVE THE PRESIDENT OF UNICODE CONSORTIUM MARK DAVIS INVOLVED AND GIVING INPUT ON THIS INTERNET DRAFT -- SORRY, RFC. NOT INTERNET DRAFT ANYMORE. RFC.

THE GOAL OF THIS, IT ACTUALLY TRIES TO MINIMIZE THE CONFUSION AND TO GIVE THE HIGHEST CHANCE OF GUESSING THE DOMAIN NAME RIGHT. THIS IS WHAT (INAUDIBLE) AT THAT TIME SAYS, THE LAW OF LEAST ASTONISHMENT, IF I KNOW HOW TO PRONOUNCE IT CORRECTLY. IF YOU'RE KEYING A DOMAIN NAME, YOU TRY TO GUESS WHAT THE BEST INTENT OF WHAT THE USER IS TRYING TO GET TO, AND YOU MAKE SURE THAT YOU RETURN THE PROPER RESULT TO THEM.

THE KEY HERE IS HIGHEST CHANCE. HIGHEST CHANCE. YOU NEVER SAY IT'S 100 PERCENT ACCURATE. YOU NEVER SAY IT'S PERFECT. IT'S ONLY A PERCENTAGE. IT GIVE YOU THE HIGHEST CHANCE OF GETTING THE DOMAIN NAME RIGHT.

SO THERE ARE SOME LIMITATION. THE LIMITATION NUMBER ONE IS BECAUSE WE ARE USING UNICODE, WE'RE DOING SCRIPTS, THE INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES USE WITH INTERNATIONALIZATION. WE DEAL WITH INTERNATIONALIZATION. WE PROVIDE A PLATFORM, A COMMON PROTOCOL WHICH ALL IMAGES -- SORRY, ALL SCRIPTS CAN BE ENCAPSULATED IN THE DNS AND GET THE HIGHEST CHANCE OF (INAUDIBLE). BUT IT DOESN'T DEAL WITH LANGUAGE SPECIFIC ISSUE. IT DOESN'T DEAL WITH ALL THE VARIANTS IN CHINESE. IT DOESN'T DEAL WITH THE TURKISH "I." IT DOESN'T DEAL WITH ARABIC. IT HAS IT'S ON FAVORITES DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU WANT TO USE FOR, THE POINTS AND DOTS ARE OPTIONAL IN ARABIC FORM. WE DON'T DEAL WITH THAT.

THE POINT HAS BEEN DEALT WITH IN THE NAME PREP, I THINK. I HAVE TO LOOK IN THE PAPERS. THE PAPERS ARE ABOUT 40, 50 PAGES. THE GIST OF THE DOCUMENT IS QUITE THIN. IT'S ONLY A FEW PAGES. WE PUBLISH TABLES OF HOW YOU ACTUALLY DO THE ENCODING SO YOU CAN PUT IN THE PROGRAM LANGUAGE SO IT'S NOT A VERY COMPLICATED DOCUMENT BUT I WOULDN'T SAY IT SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEM THAT THE USER IS EXPECTING.

THE OTHER PROBLEM, LIMITATION OF NAME PREP IS THAT WHAT THE USER REGISTER IS NOT NECESSARILY WHAT IS BEING REGISTERED INTO THE DNS. IT SOUNDS A BIT WEIRD. THAT MEANS IF I KEY IN (INAUDIBLE), THE USER THINKS I'M GETTING THAT STRING, BUT ACTUALLY IN THE ZONE FILE, IT'S ACTUALLY REPRESENT XN DASH DASH AS A PUNYCODE. AND SOMETIMES WHEN YOU DO THE REVERSE TRANSFORMATION YOU MAY NOT GET BACK THE ORIGINAL FORM THAT THE USER REGISTER IN THE FIRST PLACE. THIS IS A LIMITATION. IT'S A KNOWN LIMITATION. WE LIVE WITH IT. WE DECIDE TO GO AHEAD WITH IT.

IN CHINESE, PROBABLY NOT THAT MUCH. MAYBE YOU DO. MAYBE I KEY IN SOME OF THAT IN COMPATIBILITY FORM BUT WHEN I GET BACK, I GET THE NORMAL CHARACTERS FOR CHINESE.

SO IT MAY CAUSE CONFUSION BUT HOPEFULLY IT DOESN'T. FOR EXAMPLE, IF I WERE TO REGISTER UPPER CASE CHARACTERS IN INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES BUT ACTUALLY WHAT YOU GET BACK IN THE ZONE FILE IS A LOWER CASE. IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE (INAUDIBLE) TO RECOGNIZE THIS AND TO TELL THE USER WHAT YOU REGISTRY IS NOT NECESSARILY WHAT YOU GET IN THE ZONE FILE.

AFTER WE SOLVE THAT TWO PROBLEM, IT'S HOW DO WE PUT THEM TOGETHER? WE KNOW HOW TO DO ALL THIS NORMALIZATION AND HOW TO MAKE SURE THE SOMEWHAT EQUIVALENT CHARACTERS HAVE BEEN MATCHED, UPPER CASE, LOWER CASE AND ALL THE NORMALIZATION. WE ALSO KNOW HOW TO ENCODE THAT INTO DNS, AND THE NEXT DEBATE IS SHOULD WE DO IT ON THE SERVER SIDE OR CLIENT SIDE OR AS A PROXY OR DIFFERENT MECHANISM?

AFTER 20 YEARS, THE CONSENSUS IS THAT WE GO WITH WHAT WE CALL IT IDNA, INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME IN APPLICATIONS. IT'S RFC 3490:

SO THIS IS A BLOCK DIAGRAM THAT LITERALLY SUMMARIZES WHAT IT DOES. IT PUTS ALL THE TWO INTERNET DRAFT TOGETHER. YOU HAVE A USER ON THE TOP AND YOU HAVE SOME APPLICATION SERVER ON THE BOTTOM. WHAT IT CHANGES IS THE UPPER CASE STRING ITSELF. THIS IS THE WHOLE APPLICATION.

IT INTRODUCE TWO PROCESS -- ONE PROCESS, WHICH IS KNOWN AS NAMEPREP, RFC 3491, WHICH I TALK ABOUT JUST NOW. AND, OF COURSE, IN THE PUNYCODE PROCESSION, WHAT IT DOES IS IF THE USER ISSUED DOMAIN NAMES, THE APPLICATION INTERCEPT IT IT DOES A NAME PROCESS AND THEN CONVERTS IT TO PUNYCODE BEFORE IT SENDS UP TO THE DNS RESOLVER FOR RESOLVING OF THE NAMES. IT'S A VERY BEAUTIFUL SYSTEM IN THE SENSE THAT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE DNS INFRASTRUCTURE AGAIN.

NOTICE, I EMPHASIZE, WE DO NOT CHANGE THE DNS INFRASTRUCTURE. WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE INTERNET IS AS STABLE AS WE CAN. BUT MINIMIZING CHANGES TO THE CODE INFRASTRUCTURE.

THE APPLICATION IS -- BUT IT NEEDS TO DO IS APPLICATION NEEDS TO BE UPGRADED TO BE IDNA AWARE. OKAY? THIS IS HOW WE PUT THEM TOGETHER. VERY SIMPLE. ALL RIGHT? JUST GOES DOWN.

THE BEAUTY OF THIS SYSTEM IS THE USER IS NOT AWARE THAT THEY ARE USING IDN.

THE APPLICATION SERVERS AND THE DNS DOESN'T KNOW THERE IS ACTUALLY INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES. SO THERE IS VERY FEW SYSTEMS THAT NEED TO BE CHANGED. ONLY THE APPLICATION. THAT IS WHAT WE CALL MINIMUM DISRUPTION.

AND THE PART -- THE INTERNET DRAFT -- I'M SORRY, THE RFC WAS PUBLISHED IN MARCH 2003. SO I THINK WE ARE ONE YEAR DOWN THE ROAD NOW. AND I AM GOING TO SAY THERE ARE QUITE A LOT OF SOFTWARE THAT ACTUALLY SUPPORT IDNA TODAY. FOR EXAMPLE, MOZILLA 1.4 AND NETSCAPE 7.1 HAS SUPPORT FOR IDN. SO HAS SAFARI, OPERA. VERISIGN HAS BLOCKING. AND I AND A COUPLE FRIENDS HAS A PROJECT TO DO OPEN SOFT PLUG-IN FOR THIS. THESE ARE NOT -- SHORTLY, THERE IS ACTUALLY A LOT MORE SOFTWARE THAT SUPPORTS IDN, INCLUDING THINGS LIKE NOT WEB SURFING RELATED, JABBER HAS A SUPPORT FOR IDNA.

AND WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? WELL, NOW WE HAVE, ACTUALLY, A STANDARD.

IT'S A PROPOSED STANDARD IN IETF TERMINOLOGY, BUT THERE IS A STANDARD OUT THERE NOW THAT IS THE LEAST DISRUPTIVE STANDARD NOW TO DO IDN. AND NEITHER THE DNS NOR THE APPLICATION NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND UNICODE OR UNDERSTAND ACTUALLY I AM DEALING WITH IDN. THAT IS REALLY -- SO WE DO NOT NEED TO CHANGE TOO MUCH OF INFRASTRUCTURE. THE ONLY CATCH IS THAT THE APPLICATION NEEDS TO BE UPGRADED TO BE AWARE. THAT'S THE BIG PART.

IDNA DEALS WITH SCRIPTS, AS I MENTIONED. REMEMBER?

BUT IN THE VERY FIRST LINE, I TALK ABOUT THE USER ASPECT LANGUAGE THE ASPECT I USE MY OWN LANGUAGE. I WANT CHINESE DOMAIN NAME, I WANT ARABIC DOMAIN NAME. I WANT HAN IDEOGRAPHIC DOMAIN NAME. NO USER TELLS YOU I WANT HAN -- THEY SAY I WANT CHINESE DOMAIN NAME BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I USE.

THE OTHER THING IS IDN INTERNATIONALIZATION, BUT USER EXPECT LOCALIZATION. IF I AM CHINESE, I WANT CHINESE DOMAIN NAMES IN CHINESE AND SIMPLIFIED CHINESE DOMAIN NAMES WORKS. IT JUST WORKS.

THE PROBLEM IS IDN REQUIRES THE APPLICATION TO BE UPGRADED. I THOUGHT ABOUT THE MINIMUM DISRUPTION. THE GOOD NEWS IS WE DON'T NEED TO UPGRADE THE APPLICATION AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO DO IT BUT WE STILL NEED TO UPGRADE THE APPLICATION. BUT ON THE END USER, THE USER REALLY EXPECT IT TO JUST WORK. WHAT SHOULD I UPGRADE? I WANT TO KEY IN, PRESS "ENTER" AND IT WORKS.

THERE IS A DISPARITY BETWEEN THE USER EXPECTATION AND WHAT COMES UP. THERE IS STILL A GAP THAT WE NEED TO BRIDGE BETWEEN THE TWO. SO I MAY PROPOSE THE NEXT STEP WHICH I THINK WILL BE USEFUL.

ONE IS THAT LOCALIZATION SHOULD BE DONE, ANY LOCALIZATION WHICH THE USER EXPECTS SHOULD BE DONE AT THE LOCAL REGISTRY. IF ARE YOU A CCTLD PROVIDER, YOU SHOULD START THINKING ABOUT THESE, AND LOCALIZATION MAY INVOLVE LINGUISTIC ISSUES.

WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT MORE IN THE AFTERNOON SESSION, TALK ABOUT THE (INAUDIBLE) AT THE JET, WHICH, BY THE WAY, WAS NOT INVOLVING ME AT ALL.

I AM NOT A MEMBER OF. I NEVER REMEMBER IF MINC HAS ANY INVOLVEMENT IN JET. BUT WE HAVE (INAUDIBLE) IN JET WHICH WE TALK ABOUT MORE ABOUT THE CJK. AND, OF COURSE, ICANN HAS A REGISTRY FOR LANGUAGE TABLES, WHICH WE SHOULD -- IF WHEN YOU FINISH, YOU SHOULD REGISTER YOURSELF.

THIS IS ONE THING THAT I THINK THE CCTLD OR TLD OPERATORS IN GENERAL SHOULD START LOOKING AT. THE OTHER THING IS AWARENESS AND ADOPTION.

AWARENESS IN THE FIRST SENSE IS EDUCATING THE USER THAT NOT EVERYTHING IS JUST SIMPLE. YOU MAY INVOLVE UPGRADE APPLICATION OR INSTALLING A PLUG-IN IN ORDER TO WORK. IF YOU ARE LUCKY, USER ON MAC OR YOU ARE USING LINUX, IT PROBABLY WILL WORK. I HAVE SAFARI 1.3. SO IT WORKS PRETTY WELL. BUT IF ARE YOU USING INTERNET EXPLORER, YOU PROBABLY NEED TO INSTALL A PLUG-IN. I DO MICROSOFT.COM WITH A PATCH.

THE OTHER THING, OF COURSE, IS WE NEED TO ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS TO USE IDNA. AND I THINK THAT CANNOT BE DONE JUST BY ONE -- I BELIEVE MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DOING THAT. PEOPLE ARE TALKING TO VARIOUS PEOPLE, LIKE MICROSOFT, IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO EMBRACE IDNA. AND, FINALLY, THIS IS WORK FOR ICANN, IDN TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN.

PERSONALLY, I BELIEVE IT'S REALLY NEEDED. WE DO NEED TLD THAT IS IDN, BECAUSE SOME LANGUAGES DON'T MIX WELL WITH ENGLISH. IF YOU HAVE ARABIC STRING AND YOU PUT -- WHICH IS WRITTEN TRITE LEFT AND SUDDENLY INTRODUCE DOT-COM OR DOT SG AT THE BACK, IT BECOMES -- THE RENDERING LOOKS KIND OF (INAUDIBLE) ON THE STRING ITSELF. AND SECONDLY, OF COURSE, IT'S MORE INTUITIVE, BECAUSE YOU ARE ACTUALLY TYPING YOUR OWN LANGUAGE AND YOU DON'T NEED TO TOGGLE BETWEEN DIFFERENT ENCODINGS. HOWEVER, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE POLICY IS VERY DIFFICULT.

ICANN, I REMEMBER, ABOUT ONE AND A HALF YEARS AGO DID COME OUT WITH SOME CONSULTATION ON HOW TO DO THIS. I DON'T REMEMBER ANY CONCLUSION ABOUT THAT.

BUT IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT ISSUE AND THERE ARE A LOT OF POLICY QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AND TO ANSWER. THE ICANN COMMITTEE SHOULD REALLY DEBATE ABOUT THIS SERIOUSLY.

FOR EXAMPLE, SHOULD WE SET A PRECEDENT THAT THE GTLDS SHOULD GET IT TRANSLATED IDN? DOES THAT MEAN THAT ALL DOT-COM WILL GET DOT (INAUDIBLE) AND ONLY 200 OR 300 LANGUAGES AUTOMATICALLY? I'M NOT SURE. I'M NOT SURE WHETHER THAT'S THE RIGHT PATH. OR IT MIGHT BE. WE DON'T KNOW.

IT'S A PRECEDENT THAT WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ON WHAT TLDS, WHICH IS -- YEAH, I WILL TALK ABOUT THAT.

I WILL PROBABLY SAY SOMETHING ABOUT -- ANYWAY, HOPEFULLY ONE DAY WE WILL GET THIS. BY THE WAY, I SHOULD NOT SAY ONE DAY. THIS IS A WORKING THING.

I -- THE SAUDINIC POINT OF IMPACT WITH THE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, IF I AM NOT WRONG, SULTAN OSAMI, IS HE HERE?

YES. THANK YOU.

>> (INAUDIBLE).

>>JAMES SENG: SO OSAMI WAS THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY HELPED ME TO TYPE THIS IN MY MOZILLA BROWSER AT THAT TIME. AND, BINGO, THIS WEB SITE POP UP ON THE BROWSER. IF YOU LOOK AT ETISALAT, IT MATCHES THE DOMAIN NAMES EXACTLY. AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL SEE MORE OF THIS IN MORE APPLICATIONS IN THE FUTURE.

THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU, JAMES. WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME BACK AND JOIN ME OVER HERE?

JOHN, OKAY.

QUITE AN ILLUMINATING PRESENTATION, IF I MAY SAY.

THERE ARE SEVERAL PAPERS, JAMES HAD REFERRED TO SOME OF THE PAPERS ON THE ICANN WEB SITE, SOME OF THE EARLIER PAPERS ON IDN. YOU CAN GO TO THE SITE AND DOWNLOAD THEM. I DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC URL.

BUT THERE ARE SOME OF THESE EARLY ATTEMPTS AT TRYING TO CLASSIFY IDNS INTO THE VARIOUS CATEGORIES, SEMANTIC ASSOCIATIONS, LANGUAGE ASSOCIATIONS, AND VARIOUS OTHER TYPES. AND WE HAD A BOX CALLED "OTHERS" WHERE WE THREW EVERYTHING ELSE IN.

JOHN.

>>JOHN KLENSIN: OKAY.

REMEMBER, IF I START SPEAKING TOO QUICKLY, WAVE YOUR ARMS.

TO SORT OF REPRISE WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT IN TERMS OF THE DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMENTS I MADE EARLIER AND WITH THE REMARKS FROM PROFESSOR TAN OR FROM JAMES, SOME OF THE EARLY IDN APPROACHES INVOLVE TAKING EXISTING LOCAL CHARACTER SETS RATHER THAN UNICODE AND TRYING TO JUST USE THEM T WORKED WELL AS ALONG AS ONE WAS COMMUNICATING WITHIN A PARTICULAR COMMUNITY AND EVERYONE ELSE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY WAS USING THOSE CHARACTER SETS.

BUT IT CREATED A TAGGING PROBLEM WITH DNS AND CREATED PROBLEMS WITH SOME DNS CLIENT AND APPLICATION IMPLEMENTATIONS.

THE IDNA APPROACH, AS JAMES HAS INDICATED, ENDED UP USING A NAME FORMAT IN THE DNS, WHICH IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ORIGINAL HOST NAME RULES BUT IS A FORMAT THAT NOBODY USES. AND IT'S A FORM WHICH IS VERY EFFICIENT FOR STRINGS WHICH ARE ALL IN THE SAME SCRIPT AND SUCH THAT THE CHARACTERS ARE CLOSE TOGETHER IN THE UNICODE CODING, WHICH IS NOT A PROPERTY OF THE TRADITIONAL ENCODINGS OF UNICODE.

I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT PART OF WHAT WE NEEDED TO TALK ABOUT TODAY WAS SOME OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF HOW THE DNS WORKS AND HOW IT INTERACTS -- HOW THAT INTERACTS WITH SOME POSSIBLE METHODS OF DOING INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES AND OTHER THINGS.

ONE OF THOSE ISSUES IS THAT PERFORMANCE OF THE DNS DEPENDS VERY STRONGLY ON THE CACHING MECHANISMS WORKING. AND CACHING OCCURS NEAR THE SITE OF THE PERSON MAKING THE QUERY. AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, UNLESS ONE FORCES CACHING NOT TO OCCUR, WHICH HAS PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS, THE SITE WHERE THE DATA ARE LOCATED, THE FINAL ZONE WHERE THE DATA ARE LOCATED, HAS VERY LITTLE CONTROL OVER HOUR CACHING WORKS.

SO IF ONE COMES ALONG AND SAYS, OKAY, I'M GOING TO USE A DIFFERENT KIND OF WAY OF MAKING DNS WORK, A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF DNS RULES, AS SEVERAL EARLY POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS DID, THE ONLY PROBLEM IS YOU HAVE TO CONTROL THE CACHES TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THEY HAVE THE SAME RULES THAT YOU DO. AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE DECIDING TO SHUT THE INTERNET DOWN AND REPLACE ALL THE DNS CLIENTS AND SERVERS SITUATIONS.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, ALL THE THINGS WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IN OTHER CONTEXTS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN HEARING A GOOD DEAL ABOUT IN OTHER ICANN CONTEXTS, FOR GUARANTEEING THAT THE DATA THAT YOU'RE GETTING BACK FROM DNS IS THE CORRECT DATA, CORRECT INTEGRITY, CORRECT SOURCES, ARE VERY SENSITIVE IN DIFFERENT WAYS, DEPENDING ON THE METHOD, BUT THEY'RE ALL VERY SENSITIVE TO NONCONFORMING HANDLING OF DNS QUERIES.

IF YOU START GETTING INTO SITUATIONS WHERE YOU ASK FOR ONE THING AND SOMETHING ELSE COMES BACK IT HAS AN IMPACT OF NECESSITY ON THOSE SECURITY MECHANISMS, BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE TELLING YOU THAT WHAT YOU ASKED FOR AND WHAT YOU GOT AND WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE, THEY ARE ALL THE SAME.

THERE WILL BE A LITTLE BIT REDUNDANCY BETWEEN THIS AND SOME OF JAMES'S COMMENTS, BUT THERE ARE SOME ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SET OF STANDARDS CALLED IDNA. AND THERE ARE SOME ISSUES THIS DOESN'T ADDRESS.

THAT'S THE LATTER WHICH ARE MORE IMPORTANT BUT IT'S USEFUL THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE FORMER.

I WANT TO STRESS, AS I SAID AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TALK, THAT THIS SET OF STANDARDS, LIKE ANY OTHER ENGINEERING PROBLEM, IS A -- IS THE RESULT OF ANALYSIS OF A SET OF TRADEOFFS AND A SET OF ALTERNATIVES, SET OF COSTS OF DOING THINGS ONE WAY VERSUS ANOTHER WAY.

AND AS FAR AS WE KNOW, THE SOLUTION WE HAVE COME UP WITH IS AT LEAST AS GOOD AS ANY OF THE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES AND MUCH BETTER THAN MOST OF THEM.

THE NAMEPREP COMPONENT OF THIS, AS JAMES HAS INDICATED, TAKES SOME LOOK-ALIKE CHARACTERS IN FONT FORMS AND COLLAPSES THEM. IT'S NECESSARY THAT YOU DO THAT. BUT ONE MUCH ITS IMPLICATIONS ARE SOME THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO COLLAPSE UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES GET COLLAPSED AND SOME THINGS YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO COLLAPSE GET COLLAPSED ANYWAY. AGAIN, NO PERFECT SOLUTIONS.

BUT YOU NEED TO HAVE SOME AWARENESS AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS THING THAT CERTAIN THINGS THAT YOU THINK OF AS DIFFERENT CHARACTERS MAY NOT ACTUALLY BE DIFFERENT.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING WHICH HAS TO BE REFLECTED IN USER INTERFACES OR IN REGISTRY POLICY OR IN OTHER THINGS.

NAMEPREP TRIES TO PRESERVE ANALOGIES TO THE CASE MAPPING RULE FOR ASCII AND THE TRADITIONAL DNS.

THE CASE MAPPING RULE SAYS I CAN PUT EITHER UPPER-CASE LETTERS OR LOWER-CASE LETTERS INTO THE DNS IN A REGISTRATION, I CAN USE UPPER CASE OR LOWER CASE IN A QUERY, LOWER CASE MATCHES UPPER CASE.

THERE ARE MANY SCRIPTS AND LANGUAGES FOR WHICH THOSE RULES DO NOT HAVE EXACT ANALOGIES. SOME SCRIPTS DON'T HAVE LOWER CASE. AND THAT'S AN EASY PROBLEM. WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT. BUT THERE ARE SOME THINGS WHICH THE UPPER CASE CHARACTERS AND THE LOWER-CASE CHARACTERS MAY NOT EXACTLY MATCH. THEY MAY NOT BE REVERSIBLE.

IDNA PUTS ONLY THE LOWER-CASE CHARACTERS IN THESE PAIRS INTO THE DNS, AND THAT IS USUALLY THE RIGHT SOLUTION. BUT THERE ARE SOME SITUATIONS IN WHICH CHARACTERS EXIST ONLY IN A LOWER CASE AND HAVE NO UPPER-CASE EQUIVALENT. AND WE GET INTO PROBLEMS THERE IF WE TRY TO CUT THINGS TOO FINELY.

AGAIN, SOMETHING THAT REGISTRIES NEED TO UNDERSTAND, THAT REGISTRARS NEED TO EXPLAIN TO THEIR USERS, THAT USERS NEED TO BE AWARE OF OR PREVENTED FROM DOING ANYTHING WHICH WILL ASTONISH THEM WHEN THEY GET BACK THE RESULTS.

I MENTIONED THE GERMAN EXAMPLE EARLIER.

NAMEPREP AND IDNA ACCOMMODATE AND TREAT AS SEPARATE CHARACTERS A, O, AND U UMLAUT, BUT S SET, BECAUSE IT IS ONE OF THESE THINGS WHICH HAS NO UPPER CASE MAPPING, NAMEPREP DECIDES IT'S JUST TWO CHARACTERS IN A ROW AND THAT'S THE END OF IT.

I MENTIONED E-MAIL ADDRESSES BEFORE.

BY AND LARGE, YOU GO TO A USER AND SAY INSTEAD OF USING YOUR NAME OR SOMETHING RESEMBLING YOUR NAME, I WANT YOU TO USE A STRING OF NUMBERS OR SOMETHING INCOMPREHENSIBLE. THE USER DOESN'T LIKE THAT VERY MUCH. WE HAVE ACTUALLY HAD VERY LONG EXPERIENCE WITH THIS.

PEOPLE HAVE COME ALONG AND SAID IT'S MUCH BETTER FROM A SECURITIES STANDPOINT THAT INSTEAD OF HAVING JOHN AT SOME PARTICULAR SITE AS A USER NAME OR AS A MAILBOX NAME, WE SHOULD HAVE M3152. AND THE TYPICAL USER REACTION IS I DON'T WANT TO BE KNOWN AS "M3152." I HAVE A NAME. I SHOULD BE ABLE TO SPELL IT. I SHOULD BE ABLE TO SPELL IT CORRECTLY, SPELL IT IN MY CHARACTER SET. AND WE'VE GOTTEN THE FIRST TWO OF THOSE USUALLY.

BUT WHEN WE COME TO A USER AND SAY, OKAY, WE FIXED THINGS SO THE NAME OF YOUR ISP, WHICH IS SHOWING UP ON YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS, CAN NOW BE SPELLED IN NATIONAL CHARACTERS, BUT YOU CAN'T SPELL YOUR OWN NAME IN NATIONAL CHARACTERS, THE USER SAYS, "AND WHY IS THAT?" AND WE SAY, A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS ABOUT ENGINEERING WHICH USERS AREN'T INTERESTED IN HEARING.

SO TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, OUR NEXT PROBLEM HAVING TO SOME EXTENT SOLVED THE IDN PROBLEM IS WE HAVE TO SOLVE THE MAILBOX NAME PROBLEM. THAT TURNS OUT TO BE HARDER. IN THE INTERESTS OF TIME -- THAT'S ANOTHER LECTURE. BUT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, THE MAILBOX NAME PROBLEM IS MUCH HARDER. AND HOWEVER SENSITIVE PEOPLE ARE ABOUT THEIR SCRIPTS AND THEIR LANGUAGES AND THEIR CULTURES, THEY ARE VERY OFTEN MUCH MORE SENSITIVE ABOUT THEIR NAMES.

I'VE TOLD SOME PEOPLE A STORY FOR THOSE OF WHO YOU USE UNIX THAT THE REASON WHY THE BACK SPACE CHARACTER CAUSES OVERSTRIKING AND NOT ERASING IN UNIX AND LINUX IS A CONSEQUENCE OF ONE PERSON INSISTING THAT HIS NAME BE SPELLED CORRECTLY IN AN INTERNATIONALIZED CONTEXT IN 1964. THESE THINGS HAVE EFFECTS ALL OVER. THEY LAST A LONG TIME. INTERNATIONALIZATION IS NOT A NEW PROBLEM.

THE STRICT DEFINITION OF A URL OR A URI DOES NOT PERMIT ANY NON-ASCII CHARACTERS ANYWHERE IN THAT STRING. FIXING THE SPELLING OF THE DOMAIN NAME SO THEY CAN BE WRITTEN IN NON-ASCII CHARACTERS DOESN'T HELP. WE'RE WORKING ON THE PROBLEM, THE EXPERTS IN THE FRONT ROW.

BUT EVEN THERE, THE NAMES OF THE PROTOCOLS, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, DON'T GO AWAY. WE DON'T FIX HTTP, COLON, SLASH, SLASH, AND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO WRITE ANYTHING IN ASCII CHARACTERS, WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM. THOSE PROBLEMS CAN BE SOLVED AS A USER INTERFACE ISSUE.

BUT THE MORE WE VIEW THEM AS A USER INTERFACE ISSUE, THE LESS WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT STANDARDIZATION. BUT THE LESS WE STANDARDIZE THEM, BECAUSE WE'RE DEALING WITH THEM AS A USER INTERFACE ISSUE AND IN LOCAL CHARACTERS, THE MORE WE RUN INTO A PROBLEM IN THE WAY IN WHICH I TYPE IT, A REFERENCE, IN MY ENVIRONMENT USING MY USER AGENTS, THE LESS LIKELY IT WILL BE THAT IF I WRITE THAT REFERENCE DOWN AND SEND IT TO YOU, THE SAME ONE WILL WORK IN YOUR ENVIRONMENT AND YOUR USER ENVIRONMENT.

THAT'S PRECISELY THIS TRADEOFF BETWEEN LOCALIZATION AND CONVENIENCE FOR THE USER ON THE ONE HAND AND A GLOBALLY, EASILY INTEROPERABLE SYSTEM. WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO BOTH WELL PERFECTLY AT THE SAME TIME. IT'S A PROPERTY OF THE TRADITIONAL DNS THAT WHAT GOES IN, COMES OUT. THAT MAY SEEM OBVIOUS.

BUT WE TAKE ADVANTAGE IN SOME APPLICATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTS OF THE FACT THAT IN THE ASCII ENVIRONMENT, IF I REGISTER A NAME WITH AN UPPER CASE A IN IT AND I ASK FOR THAT NAME IN A QUERY USING A LOWER-CASE A, THE NAME AS REGISTERED COMES BACK.

WITH IDNA, BECAUSE OF ALL OF THESE MAPPING RULES WHICH OCCUR IN THE APPLICATION, IF I REGISTER AN UPPER-CASE U AT THE REGISTRAR INTERFACE LEVEL, WHAT'S GOING IN THE DNS IS A LOWER-CASE U, REGARDLESS, WITH OR WITHOUT UMLAUTS -- IT'S GOING IN AS U UMLAUT LOWER CASE, BECAUSE THE OHM THING IDNA PERMITS TO BE REGISTERED IS LOWER-CASE CHARACTERS FOR THINGS THAT HAVE BOTH CASES.

AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE MAPPINGS PERFORMED IN IDNA, IF I THEN COME IN AND ASK FOR UPPER-CASE U, EVERYTHING WORKS FINE, EXPECT UPPER-CASE U UMLAUT. BUT THE LOWER CASE U COMES BACK. IT DEPENDS ON THE APPLICATION WHETHER THE USER IS SENSITIVE TO IT WHETHER IT'S A PROBLEM. BUT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THESE ISSUES AND BE PREPARED TO DEAL WITH THEM.

IS THIS A BIG DEAL WITH UPPER AND LOWER CASE U UMLAUT? NO. BUT IT MAY BE A BIG DEAL WITH SOME OTHER SCRIPTS AND OTHER CHARACTERS WHERE THE THINGS WHICH ARE BEING MAPPED TOGETHER REALLY ARE DIFFERENT.

I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THE UNICODE FOLKS DID WAS TO PULL THE CHINESE-BASED CHARACTERS TOGETHER INTO ONE SET OF CODES, TAKE THE EUROPEAN CHARACTERS, WHICH HAD EXISTING STANDARDS WHICH WERE FAIRLY COMPACT, AND KEEP THE STANDARDS TOGETHER, WHICH RESULTED IN THE EUROPEAN CHARACTERS BEING IN SEPARATE CODE SETS AND THE CHINESE CHARACTERS INCOME THE SAME ONES.

IT MEANS WHEN YOU'RE DESIGNING A STANDARD TO WORK FOR UNICODE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE DIFFERENT RULES IN DIFFERENT PLACES. IT'S NOT AN IDEAL SITUATION.

CAN WE WORK AROUND IT? YES.

HAVE WE WORKED AROUND IT? YES.

DOES IDNA WORK AROUND IT REASONABLY WELL? YES.

WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH PROBLEMS WHICH PREVENT US FROM MOVING FORWARD; WE'RE DEALING WITH PROBLEMS THAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND IN ORDER TO DESIGN APPLICATIONS, TALK TO YOUR USERS, DESIGN REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR SYSTEMS AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION SYSTEMS THAT WILL WORK.

IN THEIR INTRODUCTION DEFINITION OF THE STANDARD, THE UNICODE FOLKS SAID THAT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD THEY MAKE ANY DISTINCTION ON THE BASIS OF THE FONTS IN WHICH CHARACTERS WERE WRITTEN. THEN THEY DID IT.

WE HAVE A LARGE COLLECTION OF THINGS LABELED MATHEMATICAL VARIANTS, WHICH ARE THE BOLD AND ITALIC AND SCRIPT, AND BOLD ITALIC SCRIPT, AND BOLD ITALIC SCRIPT SHADOWED AND OTHER VARIATIONS OF THAT FORM OF THE ORDINARY UPPER AND LOWER CASE LATIN, ROMAN-BASED LETTERS.

NAMEPREP MAPS THEM ALL OUT.

THERE'S AN IMPORTANT QUESTION, IF YOU'RE A REGISTRY AS TO WHETHER YOU WANT TO LET NAMEPREP MAP THEM ALL OUT OR TO SAY TO A USER, YOU DON'T GET TO REGISTER THOSE THINGS, ALL YOU ARE GOING TO DO IS MAKE CONFUSION.

COME IN WITH THE REAL CHARACTER.

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE KINDS OF POLICY DECISIONS, AND ONE OF MANY, THAT IN SOME CASES, BUT VERY FEW, WE'LL NEED TO TRY TO MAKE GLOBALLY AND ACROSS ICANN, BUT EACH INDIVIDUAL REGISTRY, AND IN SOME CASES INDIVIDUAL REGISTRARS, ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WHETHER THEY WILL ACCEPT, IN ORDER TO KEEP THEIR USERS OUT OF TROUBLE AND THEMSELVES OUT OF TROUBLE AND IN ORDER TO PREVENT CONFUSION.

UNIFORM POLICIES WOULD BE A GOOD THING, BUT THEY'RE NOT NECESSARY. THE BIG ADVANTAGE OF UNIFORM POLICIES IS IF WE HAVE DIFFERENT POLICIES FOR DIFFERENT REGISTRIES AND DIFFERENT POLICIES FOR DIFFERENT SITUATIONS, USERS AND REGISTRANTS AND MAYBE REGISTRARS GO CRAZY. BUT AS A MATTER OF TECHNICAL NECESSITY, WE DON'T NEED IT.

WE HAD A LONG BOUT WITH THE CHINESE PROBLEM. JAMES TALKED ABOUT SOME OF IT. PART OF THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT ALPHABETIC CHARACTERS, WE LOOK AT THEM IN TERMS OF THEIR SHAPES OR SOUNDS BUT NOT THEIR MEANING. AND SIMPLIFICATION AND SOME OTHER ISSUES WITH CHINESE CHARACTERS, THERE ARE EXPERTS ON THIS IN THE ROOM AND I AM PROBABLY GOING TO START EMBARRASSING MYSELF IN A FEW MINUTES, BECAUSE I AM NOT AN EXPERT. BUT THERE ARE MEANINGS AND SEMANTICS ASSOCIATED WITH THESE CHARACTERS. THE MAPPINGS ARE NOT PERFECTLY ONE TO ONE IN ALL CASES. AND BECAUSE THE CHARACTERS ARE USED DIFFERENTLY IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, IF WE HAD A SIMPLIFIED, TRADITIONAL CHINESE MAPPING RULE AND IT SIMPLIFIED JAPANESE KANJI INTO SIMPLIFIED CHINESE, EVERYONE WOULD BE VERY UNHAPPY.

SO IT SUDDENLY BECOMES NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT LANGUAGE IS IN USE IN THE CHARACTERS IN ORDER TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH THEM IN TERMS OF MAPPING. AND, AGAIN, THIS MEANS THAT IT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO ON A PER-REGISTRY BASIS OR ON A PER-LANGUAGE BASIS SOMEHOW RATHER THAN SOMETHING WE CAN DO GLOBALLY SIMPLY BY LOOKING AT THE CHARACTERS THEMSELVES. AND THAT PRESENTS A PROBLEM WHICH HAS COUNTERED EVERYTHING WE HAVE DONE WITH THE DNS, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER IDNA.

FORTUNATELY, AFTER SOME WORK, A BRILLIANT SOLUTION WAS ARRIVED AT. AND THAT BRILLIANT SOLUTION IS A WONDERFUL EXAMPLE OF WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER. IF, INSTEAD OF SAYING, "THIS IS MY LANGUAGE AND IT WORKS FOR MY LANGUAGE AND I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANY OF THE REST OF YOU," WHICH CAUSES ALL KINDS OF PROBLEMS, WE CAN FIGURE OUT WAYS TO WORK TOGETHER TO RESOLVE ISSUES WITH LANGUAGES OR SCRIPTS WHICH OVERLAP, IT'S ACTUALLY POSSIBLE TO MAKE PROGRESS.

THE JOINT ENGINEERING TEAM, WHICH WAS REFERRED TO IN THE EARLIER TWO TALKS, CAME TOGETHER TO LOOK AT THE ISSUES CAUSED BY THE LANGUAGE -- CAUSED IN AND BETWEEN THE LANGUAGES WHICH USE CHARACTERS BASED ON CHINESE ONES, CHINESE, JAPANESE, AND KOREAN, PRIMARILY. AND THEY INVENTED A NEW IDEA.

THE NEW IDEA, AT A VERY FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL, IS THAT WE'VE GOT TWO ISSUES IN ALL OF THIS STUFF WITH THE DNS. ONE OF THE ISSUES IS THAT AS THE NUMBER OF VARIATIONS ON A NAME, THINGS THAT LOOK ALIKE AND HAVE SIMILAR INTERPRETATIONS BUT MAY NOT BE QUITE THE SAME, STARTS BECOMING VERY LARGE, THAT BEING IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE TO LET EACH OF THE VARIATIONS BE REGISTERED AND THEN TELL PEOPLE TO GO FIGHT IT OUT AS TO WHO HAS RIGHTS TO IT IS PROBABLY THE WRONG ANSWER. PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN REMEDIES. ESPECIALLY REMEDIES WHICH REQUIRE VERY COMPLICATED RULES.

THE OTHER IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE IS THAT THESE VARIATIONS ACTUALLY EXIST AND YOU CAN SAY SENSIBLE THINGS ABOUT THEM. AND AS A CONSEQUENCE THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE TO TALK ABOUT A PACKAGE OF NAMES.

THE NAME THE USER REGISTERED AND ALL OF THE NAMES WHICH ARE ENOUGH SIMILAR TO IT THAT YOU SHOULD MAKE THE RULE THAT EITHER THEY DON'T GET REGISTERED AT ALL OR THAT ONLY THE INITIAL REGISTRANT CAN REGISTER THEM. IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL DETAILS OF THAT WORK, WHAT I JUST SAID IS WAY UP HERE. AND THE DETAILS ARE DOWN HERE AND VERY IMPORTANT.

BUT FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE WORRIED ABOUT CJK, THE WORK IS DONE. AND, IN MY OPINION AS AN INCOMPETENT OUTSIDER, IT LOOKS VERY GOOD.

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WORRY ABOUT OTHER KINDS OF SCRIPTS AND LANGUAGES, THOSE HIGH-LEVEL PRINCIPLES ARE THE ONES THAT ARE PROBABLY USEFUL TO UNDERSTAND.

BUT THOSE ARE RULES DESIGNED FOR A NON-ALPHABETIC LANGUAGES WITH A VERY, VERY LARGE NUMBER OF CHARACTERS IN IT. AND THEY MAY NOT BE EXACTLY THE SAME RULES OR THE RIGHT SET OF RULES FOR ALPHABETIC LANGUAGES WITH A TINY NUMBER OF CHARACTERS IN THEM BY COMPARISON.

FOR THOSE OF WHO YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED YET, THERE ARE ALSO SOME ICANN GUIDELINES IN THIS AREA.

THANKS TO TINA AND A GREAT DEAL OF WORK.

THE ICANN GUIDELINES SAY YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY WHAT LANGUAGE YOU'RE USING WHEN YOU REGISTRY A LABEL. THIS IS A DEVIATION FROM WHAT WE MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT WE SHOULD DO AT THE DNS, GIVEN PREVIOUS PRECEDENCE. BECAUSE IF WE BELIEVE DNS CONSISTS OF AN ARBITRARY STRING OF CHARACTERS OUT OF WHATEVER LIST OF CHARACTERS ARE PERMITTED, THEN YOU DON'T NEED A LANGUAGE RULE AND IT'S PERFECTLY SENSIBLE TO INTERMIX GREEK AND ARABIC. BUT YOU HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE, YOU CAN MAKE A CHOICE BY SAYING ONE LABEL, ONE LANGUAGE, ONE SCRIPT WHICH IS THE WAY THE CURRENT ICANN RULES WORK, OR YOU CAN SAY REGISTER ANYTHING; WE'LL SORT IT OUT LATER. IT'S AGAIN, THIS TRADEOFF BETWEEN PREVENTION OF PROBLEMS AND TRYING TO STRAIGHTEN THEM OUT LATER.

AS YOU GATHER FROM THE COMMENT I MADE EARLIER, I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF SYMPATHY FOR SYSTEMS AND ENVIRONMENTS WHOSE MAIN PURPOSE IT IS TO MAKE LIFE EASY FOR CYBERSQUATTERS.

THE SECOND THING THE ICANN BASE DOES IS TO SAY, OKAY, IF YOU ARE A REGISTRY AND YOU HAVE DONE THE WORK FOR CREATING A TABLE OF CHARACTERS WHICH ARE GOING TO BE USED FOR A PARTICULAR LANGUAGE IN YOUR CONTEXT, AS PROFESSOR TAN SAID, IT'S MY LANGUAGE, IT'S MY CONTEXT, IT'S MY ENVIRONMENT, IT'S MY COUNTRY, AND THIS IS WHAT I'M GOING TO USE. MAYBE WE NEED TO INVENT A NEW WORD THERE SO WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS THAT, WE DON'T USE THE WORD "LANGUAGE" TO DESCRIBE IT. BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO UPSET OTHER PEOPLE WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS, WELL, THIS ONE IS MY LANGUAGE AND EVEN THOUGH YOU CALL YOUR LANGUAGE BY THE SAME NAME, THEY'RE DIFFERENT.

BUT THE RULE IS THAT A REGISTRY CAN SAY WE'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK TO CREATE THIS TABLE, WE ARE USING THIS TABLE IN OUR ENVIRONMENT, WE WANT TO REGISTER IT SO IF IT TURNS OUT TO BE USEFUL TO ANYBODY ELSE OR WE WANT AN ARCHIVAL RECORD OF WHAT TABLE WE WERE USING AT WHAT TIME, WE CAN HAVE IT. THERE'S NO COMPULSION ON ANYONE TO ACCEPT ANYONE ELSE'S TABLES.

SO THERE'S A REGISTRATION MODEL, AND THE REGISTRATION MODEL IS A REGISTRY CAN COME IN AND SAY I THINK IT'S THIS LANGUAGE, IT'S MY REGISTRY AND IT'S THIS DATE. NO AUDITING BY ICANN AND NO DETERMINATION THAT THAT TABLE IS CORRECT OR INCORRECT BECAUSE ULTIMATELY IT ISN'T CORRECT OR INCORRECT; IT IS WHAT THAT PARTICULAR REGISTRY IS CHOOSING ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY TO DEFINE AS A SET OF CHARACTERS WHICH THEY WILL PERMIT, AND IF THEY'RE USING A JET LIKE SYSTEM, THE SET OF VARIATIONS THEY WILL PERMIT OR USE FOR THAT PARTICULAR THING THAT THEY'RE CALLING THAT LANGUAGE.

AS I SUGGESTED AT THE BASE, ONE OF THE KEY ISSUES HERE IS WHETHER THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS TO DO DISPUTE RESOLUTION OR TO DO CONFLICT PREVENTION. THAT'S A POLICY TRADEOFF. DON'T ANYBODY -- DON'T LET ANYONE, ESPECIALLY ME, TELL YOU IT'S A TECHNICAL ISSUE.

DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. FULL EMPLOYMENT ACTS FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION MAY SPEAK TO POLICY BUT I DON'T THINK VERY MUCH OF THEM. WHAT SOME IN THE JET ENVIRONMENT DISCOVERED IS IF YOU HAVE A SMALL AMOUNT OF VARIATIONS FOR ALMOST EVERY CHARACTER IN A NAME, MULTIPLICATION CAN RAPIDLY GET YOU INTO A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE HUNDREDS OF VARIANTS FOR THE SAME NAME. AND IF YOU CONSIDER A SITUATION IN WHICH, WITH NO MALICE AT ALL, YOU CAN END UP WITH HUNDREDS OF CONFLICTS FOR A NAME, MAYBE YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT BY DISPUTE RESOLUTION. BUT MAYBE YOU DO.

REGISTRIES AND TO SOME EXTENT POSSIBLY ICANN POLICY DEVELOPMENT MAY HAVE TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS OR GIVE SOME GUIDANCE IN THIS AREA.

THE CHARACTER VARIANT THEORIES AND OTHER SYSTEMS WHICH ARE EVOLVING AND UNDER DISCUSSION ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY AROUND THE NOTION OF PREVENTING REGISTRATIONS WHICH WOULD CAUSE CONFLICTS OR CAUSE CONFUSION OR ENABLE FRAUD.

THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS SAY, WELL, LET'S WAIT AND SEE IF ANYBODY REGISTERS AND THEN WE'LL WAIT AND SEE IF ANYBODY THINKS IT'S A PROBLEM AND THEN WE'LL STRAIGHTEN IT OUT.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONFUSION ON THE ALPHABETIC SIDE ABOUT WHAT THIS VARIANT SITUATION WOULD MEAN, SO I'M GOING TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT NO ONE HAS CHOSEN TO USE THIS EXAMPLE OR TO DO THINGS THIS WAY.

I MENTIONED EARLIER, AND AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, THERE'S A TYPING CONVENTION FOR GERMAN WHICH IS ONLY A FEW CENTURIES OLD THAT SAYS IF YOU'VE GOT A NAME WITH AN UMLAUT IN IT THERE'S A STANDARD CONVENTION FOR REPRESENTING THAT VOWEL IN TWO LETTERS IF YOU CAN'T TYPE THE UMLAUTS, AND IT WASN'T INVENTED BY THE INTERNET. IT WAS INVENTED BY PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T WANT MORE CRAZE IN THEIR TYPE-INS.

SO SUPPOSE WE HAVE THESE TWO NAMES, ONE OF WHICH HAS AN UMLAUT, THE OTHER WHICH IS A SPANISH NAME WITH A TILDE OVER THE N. AND THESE TWO PEOPLE HAVE REGISTERED THE HISTORICAL NAMES, WHICH IN THE GERMAN CASE USES UE TO SUBSTITUTE FOR UMLAUT AND IN THE SPANISH CASE DROPPED THE TILDE AND DIDN'T COMPLAIN ABOUT IT BECAUSE THERE'S NOT MUCH YOU CAN DO.

THESE NAMES HAVE BEEN REGISTERED FOR A LONG TIME AND THEY'RE IN USE AND WE'RE SUDDENLY PERMITTING IDN REGISTRATIONS SO NOW IT'S POSSIBLE TO REGISTER THE U UMLAUT AND N TILDE AND THE QUESTION IS IF YOU'RE THE REGISTRY, WHAT DO YOU DO? AND NUMBER ONE, YOU SAY THESE TWO THINGS ARE DIFFERENT, AND PERMIT BOTH REGISTRATIONS AND IF THAT'S A PROBLEM LET THEM SETTLE IT OUT BY DISPUTE RESOLUTION. THAT'S BEEN DONE.

POSSIBILITY NUMBER TWO IS YOU CREATE A SUNRISE PERIOD. YOU SAY THERE'S ALL THESE NAMES IN THERE AND IF YOU HAVE ONE OF THESE NAMES WITH THE ALTERNATE SPELLING YOU GET A SUNRISE PERIOD OPPORTUNITY TO REGISTER THE NAME WITH THE IDN SPELLING, AND THAT'S BEEN DONE. THERE'S REAL EXPERIENCE OF REAL DOMAINS DOING THIS. THE THING WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IS DEAL WITH THIS ON A VARIANT BASIS AND SEA NOW AND FOREVER IF M-U-E-L-L-E-R IS IN THERE, THE ONLY PERSON WHO WILL REGISTER M U UMLAUT L-L-E-R WILL BE THAT PERSON. AND HASN'T BEEN DONE YET BUT THAT'S THE VARIANT MODEL. WHICH SHOULD YOU DO IF YOU'RE A REGISTRY? WHICH SHOULD YOU CONVINCE YOUR REGISTRY TO DO IF YOU'RE REGISTRAR OR A REGISTRANT? I DON'T KNOW. BUT IT'S A POLICY QUESTION, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE THREE OPTIONS HERE AND SORT THEM OUT.

AS I SAID EARLIER, LET ME SAY IT AGAIN BECAUSE IT'S CAUSED A GREAT DEAL OF CONFUSION, WE'VE GOT A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS WHICH USE AN ENGLISH WORD WHICH IS SPELLED JUST LIKE THE NORMAL WORD "LANGUAGE." IT LOOKS LIKE IT ON PAPER. WE EVEN PRONOUNCE IT THE SAME WAY. IT'S A DIFFERENT WORD.

WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS CONTEXT IS A PARTICULAR COLLECTION OF CHARACTERS AND HOW THEY ARE USED TO REPRESENT THAT THING, AND THAT THING HAS A LOT OF ASSOCIATION WITH HOW A LANGUAGE OF PROBABLY THE SAME NAME IS USED IN THAT COUNTRY AND THAT AREA BY CONVENTION.

REMEMBER THAT IF I'VE GOT A REAL LANGUAGE WHICH CAN BE WRITTEN IN TWO OR THREE CHARACTER SETS THAT I CAN MAKE DECISIONS AS A REGISTRY AS TO WHICH OF THOSE CHARACTER SETS I'M GOING TO PERMIT, AND THEY MAY NOT BE THE SAME DECISIONS THAT ANY TEN-YEAR-OLD SCHOOL CHILD WOULD KNOW WHEN THEY'RE WRITING THE LANGUAGE.

THESE ARE POLICY DECISIONS. THIS IS TERMINOLOGY ASSOCIATED WITH THE POLICY DECISIONS AND WITH WHAT'S GOING INTO THOSE TABLES.

IF WE GET EXCITED ABOUT WHAT WORDS ARE USED WE GET INTO ARGUMENTS WHICH DON'T HELP US MOVE FORWARD, DON'T HELP US INTEROPERATE AND WORK. SO IT'S USED FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A ZONE, A LANGUAGE AND A SCRIPT. THIS SET OF CHARACTERS FOR THAT PARTICULAR LANGUAGE TYPE THING IN THIS PARTICULAR DOMAIN.

ONE OF THE INTERESTING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A CCTLD AND A GTLD IS ONE OF THE NICE THINGS THAT GOVERNMENTS GET TO DO IS MAKE DECISIONS. GOVERNMENTS ARE REALLY GOOD AT MAKING DECISIONS. SOMETIMES RIGHT, SOMETIMES WRONG, BUT DECISIONS.

FOR A GOVERNMENT TO SAY, WITHIN MY TERRITORY THIS LANGUAGE OR THIS SCRIPT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT LANGUAGE OR THAT SCRIPT, IS A PERFECTLY REASONABLE THING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO, OR IT MAY BE PERFECTLY UNREASONABLE BUT IT'S A DECISION FOR A GOVERNMENT TO MAKE. WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO MAKE THAT DECISION FOR A GTLD. PROBABLY, ALTHOUGH THERE HAS BEEN NO POLICY SET AND NO POLICY DEVELOPMENT, IF A GTLD COMES ALONG AND SAYS, THAT LANGUAGE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THIS OTHER LANGUAGE, WE WOULDN'T LIKE IT VERY MUCH, AND THAT'S THE REASON THOSE TWO SLIDES WERE UP THERE AT THE VERY BEGINNING.

BUT IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THESE THINGS WE CALL SCRIPTS OVERLAP IN VERY ODD WAYS.

I SAID TO TWO PEOPLE THIS WEEK BY COINCIDENCE, "YOU ARE VERY LUCKY IN THIS INTERNATIONALIZATION PROBLEM, AND YOU ARE VERY LUCKY BECAUSE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ONE OF THE LANGUAGES AND THERE ARE ONLY A SMALL NUMBER THAT HAVE THE PROPERTY THAT THAT LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN IN ONLY ONE SCRIPT, AND THAT SCRIPT IS USED TO WRITE ONLY THAT LANGUAGE. ONE LANGUAGE, ONE SCRIPT, NO CONFUSION.

THOSE OF US WHO ARE STUCK WITH LATIN-BASED LANGUAGES HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY, MANY LANGUAGES WHICH USE THESE LATIN-BASED SCRIPTS, AND MOST OF THEM USE THE LATIN-BASED SCRIPTS OR THE PARTICULAR CHARACTERS THEY'RE USING A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY FROM MOST OF THE OTHERS. WE CAN'T LOOK AT A THING ON A PAGE AND SAY AHA, THAT IS ENGLISH, OR GERMAN OR ANY OF A NUMBER OF THINGS, LARGE NUMBER.

THE ARABIC SCRIPT PROBLEM IS ALMOST AS BAD. MANY LANGUAGES, ONE SCRIPT. THE CYRILLIC SCRIPT PROBLEM IS ALMOST AS BAD. MANY LANGUAGES, ONE SCRIPT. SOME CHARACTERS USED IN SOME OF THOSE LANGUAGES WHICH ARE NOT USED IN OTHERS.

NEITHER THE UNICODE CONSORTIUM OR ISO HAS BEEN ABLE TO DEFINE WHAT IS IN A SCRIPT OR WHAT SCRIPTS EXIST OR WHAT THE NAMES OF THE SCRIPTS SHOULD BE. WHY? BECAUSE THESE THINGS EVOLVE.

WHAT IS THE SCRIPT FOR WRITING RUSSIA? ANSWER: IS IT BEFORE OR AFTER 1917?

AND THIS PROBLEM AGAIN GOES ON AND ON AND ON. AS LANGUAGES HAVE EVOLVED, WRITING SYSTEMS HAVE EVOLVED THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN FORMS, ALWAYS BEEN CHANGE, ALWAYS BEEN DIVERGENCE.

ESPECIALLY OF THE GTLD SITUATION, AND BECAUSE ANY CCTLD IN ITS RIGHT MIND WOULD PREFER TO APPEAL TO AUTHORITY AND DO SOMETHING RIGHT THAN MAKE ARBITRARY DECISIONS, IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT GOING FORWARD THAT WE TRY TO GET CONSENSUS ABOUT LANGUAGES AND THE RIGHT CHARACTERS TO USE WITH THEM. AND BETTER DEFINITIONS OF WHAT WE MEAN IN THIS CONTEXT ABOUT THIS TERM, QUOTE, "LANGUAGE," UNQUOTE.

TO BEGIN TO DEVELOP AUTHORITATIVE TABLES FOR CERTAIN LANGUAGES. BUT IT INTRODUCES ANOTHER ONE OF THESE TRADEOFFS. EVEN IF THOSE TABLES EXIST AND COME OUT OF RECOGNIZED BY EVERYONE RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL BODIES, THE FIRST PROBLEM IS THE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY ISSUE.

EVEN IF ONE IS A COUNTRY BUT ESPECIALLY IF ONE IS A PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANIZATION LIKE ICANN, COMING UP TO A COUNTRY AND SAYING, " I FORBID YOU TO DO SO-AND-SO" IS NOT USUALLY A VERY USEFUL ACTIVITY. COUNTRIES HAVE A TENDENCY TO BE SENSITIVE ABOUT THINGS LIKE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

THERE'S A CERTAIN HISTORY OF COUNTRIES RESPONDING IN ONE FAMOUS QUOTE, WHEN SOMEBODY CAME TO A COUNTRY AND SAID, YOU SHOULD DO SO-AND-SO, "HOW MANY ARMIES DOES HE HAVE? HOW MANY DIVISIONS?" I DON'T WANT TO SEE US GETTING INTO A SITUATION WHERE ICANN EITHER WANTS OR NEEDS TO HAVE AN ARMY.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>JOHN KLENSIN: WE HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS.

IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT YOU CAN'T INTRUDE ON NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY VERY MUCH, MAKING A LOT OF THESE RULES ON THE THEORY THEY OUGHT TO APPLY TO THE ENTIRE DNS DOESN'T WORK.

WE HAVE NEVER, MUCH AS WE HAVE WANTED TO -- AND AGAIN, THIS GOES BACK TO LONG BEFORE ICANN HAD BEEN ABLE TO ENFORCE RULES ON REGISTRATIONS AND REGISTRIES THAT GO BELOW THE SECOND LEVEL OF A NAME. THE GOOD THING ABOUT THE DNS IS THAT IT'S A DISTRIBUTED ADMINISTRATIVE HIERARCHY. IF YOU GET BELOW TWO OR THREE LEVELS, EVERYBODY IS MANAGING THEIR OWN SUBDOMAINS. BAD NEWS IS YOU GET BELOW TWO OR THREE LEVELS, EVERYBODY IS MANAGING THEIR OWN SUBDOMAINS. IT MAKES IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO SAY EVERYBODY HAS GOT TO BEHAVE THE SAME WAY OR WE'RE GOING TO ENFORCE THIS. COUNTRIES DON'T LIKE IT, INDUSTRIES DON'T LIKE IT, LOCAL DNS MANAGERS DON'T LIKE IT, AND YOU CAN'T FIND THEM.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, FOR THE GTLDS, WE'VE GOT AN INTERNATIONAL ISSUE AND WE BETTER FIGURE OUT HOW TO WORK THE INTERNATIONAL ISSUE, AND IT BETTER BE INTERNATIONAL BODIES AS DISTINCT FROM SOMEBODY STANDING UP AND SAYING, "I AM THE LARGEST PRESENCE IN THE COUNTRY OF LOWER SLOBOVIA, I AM THEREFORE THE CHIEF SLOB AND I GET TO INVENT THE LANGUAGE." THIS IS NOT A COMMENT ABOUT ANYBODY IN PARTICULAR. LOWER SLOBOVIA IS AN OLD COMIC BOOK EXAMPLE IN THE U.S. AND I HAVE BEEN USING THAT FOR YEAR ON THE CONCEPT THAT NOBODY CAN BE OFFENDED IF I STAND UP AND SAY I AM THE CHIEF SLOB.

AND IF A SCRIPT IS USED BY SEVERAL LANGUAGES, A LANGUAGE AUTHORITY ISN'T SUFFICIENT. BECAUSE YOU GET INVOLVED WITH ISSUES ABOUT THE SCRIPT, AND IF THE LANGUAGE AUTHORITY SAYS WELL THIS SCRIPT IS USED BY MY LANGUAGE AND THEREFORE I CONTROL THE USE OF THE SCRIPT, YOU'RE HAVING A PROBLEM WITH EVERY OTHER LANGUAGE THAT CHOOSES THAT SCRIPT.

AGAIN, TO REPEAT PREFER TAN'S COMMENT, WHAT WE HAVE TO HAVE IS SOMEBODY HAS GOT TO BE ABLE TO SAY I NEED TO USE MY LANGUAGE IN THE CORRECT WAY AND CORRECT IS SOMETHING THAT I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DEFINE.

THAT POSES A HARD PROBLEM. WE'LL GET SOLUTIONS TO IT WHICH WORK, AS DISTINCT FROM SOLUTIONS TO THE 100 PERCENT LEVEL BUT SOLUTIONS WHICH WORK BY WORKING TOGETHER COOPERATIVELY.

BUT GIVEN THE SOVEREIGNTY ISSUE, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IS THAT IF WE HAVE GOOD QUALITY RECOMMENDATIONS AVAILABLE, WILL THE REGISTRIES USE IT? WELL, I THINK THAT MOST REGISTRIES ARE SANE. AND IF GOOD QUALITY TABLES EXIST I EXPECT THAT THE REGISTRIES WILL USE IT BECAUSE IT'S SILLY NOT TO. THESE TABLES ARE HARD. THEY TAKE A LOT OF WORK TO CREATE. CAN I DO ONE FOR GERMAN IN A HURRY? YES, IF I IGNORE THE S SET. IF I DON'T IGNORE THE S SET, I MAY HAVE TO ARGUE FOR A FEW MONTHS DEPENDING ON WHO ELSE IS ARGUING.

BUT I CAN SAVE A LOT OF TIME AND TROUBLE, AND IT CAN SAVE DEFINING CHARACTERS THAT WERE NEVER USED IN THAT LANGUAGE BUT YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT EXPERTISE. BUT COMPELLING SOMEBODY TO DO SOMETHING THAT SOME OTHER BODY DECIDES THEY SHOULD, VERY HARD PROBLEM.

CAN I, CAN I NOT DO IT? THE GTLDS, I DON'T KNOW. SHOULD THEY DO IT? I DON'T KNOW, THAT'S. CAN ICANN DO IT TO THE CCTLDS? SHORT ANSWER, PROBABLY NOT. SHOULD THEY TRY? ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT IN MY PERSONAL OPINION.

I SHOULD MENTION IN SUMMATION THAT WE HAVE A COUPLE OF INTERESTING LANGUAGES THAT CAN BE WRITTEN IN MORE THAN ONE SCRIPT. EITHER HISTORICALLY, BUT THE OLD ONE IS STILL PRESENT, OR CONTEMPORANEOUSLY. YOU'RE IN A COUNTRY FOR WHICH THAT'S TRUE OF THE MAJOR LANGUAGE. IF YOU START WRITING RULES ABOUT THAT LANGUAGE, YOU HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO PERMIT BOTH SCRIPTS IN ONE LABEL OR BOTH OF THEM, OR ONLY PERMIT ONE SCRIPT AND NOT THE OTHER ONE AT ALL. IS THERE A RIGHT ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION? ONLY BY COUNTRY IS THERE A RIGHT ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. A UNIVERSAL RIGHT ANSWER WOULD MAKE -- A UNIVERSAL ANSWER DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE MUCH LESS BEING EITHER RIGHT OR WRONG.

SHOULD ICANN GET INTO THAT BUSINESS? NOT UNLESS ICANN IS CRAZY, IN MY PERSONAL OPINION. VERY HARD PROBLEM. HAS TO BE WORKED OUT ON A COUNTRY BY COUNTRY BASIS TO THE POINT THAT IT MAKES SENSE.

I'VE TALKED FAVORABLY ABOUT THE VARIANT MODELS. BUT THERE ARE SOME ISSUES. AND IN THINKING ABOUT THEM, IT'S IMPORTANT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ISSUES ARE. I DON'T HAVE SOLUTIONS. AND I'M VERY ATTRACTED TO THE VARIANT MODELS AS THE BEST THING WE HAVE, AND THE BEST TOOL WE HAVE FOR SOLVING MANY OF THESE PROBLEMS.

THEY DON'T DO WELL WITH MULTILINGUAL STRINGS. THIS TERM "MULTILINGUAL" IN THE CONTEXT OF DNS BOTHERS ME BECAUSE WE VERY RARELY WANT A LABEL WHICH CONTAINS MORE THAN ONE LANGUAGE OR MORE THAN ONE SCRIPT.

BUT IF AS A REGISTRY YOU PERMIT REGISTERING LABELS WHICH REPRESENT MORE THAN ONE LANGUAGE OR MORE THAN ONE SCRIPT, VARIANT SYSTEMS PROBABLY ARE NOT GOING TO WORK. ONE OR THE OTHER. YOU GET THE VARIANT SYSTEM OR YOU GET THE MULTISCRIPT LABELS.

THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION BETWEEN WHAT GOES INTO DNS AND A NAME. WE TALK ABOUT DNS LABELS AND DNS NAMES INTERCHANGEABLY, BUT IN MANY CONTEXTS, WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT NAMES, WE TALK ABOUT THE THINGS YOU CAN LOOK UP IN DICTIONARIES.

AND SO FAR, WE HAVEN'T HAD A REGISTRY WHICH HAS SET UP A RULE WHICH SAYS, OKAY, THE ONLY THING WHICH YOU COULD PUT IN THIS REGISTRY ARE NAMES THAT GET LOOKED UP OR THAT YOU CAN LOOK UP AND FIND IN THE AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY FOR THIS LANGUAGE.

WOULD THAT BE A GOOD IDEA? IT'S WORTH LOOKING AT IN SOME SITUATIONS. BUT THE IMPORTANT THING IS THE MORE RULES YOU START ADOPTING TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT A LABEL IS LEGAL OR VALID IN THE PARTICULAR LANGUAGE YOU'RE LOOKING AT, THE CLOSER YOU ARE TO MOVING TO THAT DICTIONARY LOOKUP DEFINITION.

AND COMING BACK TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH THIS DNS WAS INVENTED, A LABEL LIKE HOST 3A, OR XYZ72, MAYBE A PERFECTLY GOOD LABEL, ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S ALSO A HOST 3B AND A HOST 4A OR AN XYZ73, BUT THEY'RE LOUSY NAMES.

SO IF YOU START ADOPTING RULES WHICH SAY WE'RE ONLY GOING TO PERMIT THINGS IN THIS DNS, IN THIS REGISTRY, WHICH ARE VALID NAMES IN LANGUAGE OR WHICH ARE CONSTRUCTED AS VALID NAMES IN LANGUAGE MIGHT BE CONSTRUCTED, THEN THERE ARE SOME THINGS WHICH WE HAVE TRADITIONALLY HAD AND USE WHICH YOU EXCLUDE. IS THAT A GOOD THING OR A BAD THING? IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO OPTIMIZE SHOULD BE A MATTER OF LOCAL POLICY, IT SHOULD BE THOUGHT ABOUT AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BEFORE RULES ARE EITHER ADOPTED OR NOT ADOPTED.

WE'RE CREATING WITH IDNS A GREAT MANY MORE OPPORTUNITIES, AND THAT'S A GREAT MANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR DOING GOOD THINGS MAKING THE INTERNET ACCESSIBLE AND WE'RE ALSO CREATING A GREAT MANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR MAKING OURSELVES CRAZY AND CREATING CONFLICTS.

THERE'S A BUSINESS MODEL QUESTION WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT VARIANT MODELS. SUDDENLY, WHEN I COME IN AND REGISTER A NAME, I MAY END UP WITH CONTROL OVER THAT NAME OR OVER THAT NAME AND SEVERAL OTHER NAMES. AND HOW MANY MORE NAMES I GET IS NOT UNDER MY CONTROL WHEN I REGISTERED THE INITIAL NAMES. IT'S A CONSEQUENCE OF THE VARIANT TABLES.

IF I'M DESIGNING RULES FOR RUNNING A REGISTRY OR FOR CHARGING THE NUMBER OF NAMES REGISTERED THAT RAISES A POLICY QUESTION AS TO WHAT I SHOULD BE CHARGED FOR TAKING NAMES OUT OF CIRCULATION. BECAUSE BY VIRTUE OF THAT REGISTRATION PROCESS AND THE RESERVATION PROCESS, NAMES THAT I AM NOT USING BUT NOBODY ELSE CAN REGISTER, PRESUMABLY GO DOWN IN VALUE AND THEY'RE NO LONGER IN CIRCULATION. SHOULD I CHARGE FOR THOSE NAMES? WELL, THERE'S A CASE TO BE MADE IT'S COMPLETELY INEQUITABLE TO CHARGE FOR THOSE NAMES. SOME PEOPLE GET CHARGED FOR ONE, AND SOME PEOPLE GET CHARGED FOR A BUNCH OF THEM. ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY'RE BEING TAKEN OUT OF CIRCULATION. NOW THE NEXT QUESTION IS IF ONE OF THOSE NAMES IS RESERVED, SO HAVING REGISTERED SOMETHING ELSE I'M THE ONLY PERSON WHO CAN REGISTER IT, SHOULD THAT BE CHARGED FOR IN THE SAME WAY AS REGISTERING A NAME WHICH SOMEBODY ELSE COULD REGISTER ON A COMPETITIVE BASIS?

DO I HAVE THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION? NO.

BUT TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH A REGISTRY IS THINKING ABOUT VARIANT MODELS, YOU HAVE TO SOMEHOW SORT OUT THOSE POLICIES.

AND IF ICANN EVER GETS ITSELF INTO A SITUATION OF LOOKING AT TLDS IN WHICH VARIANT MODELS APPLY, ONE IS GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK VERY CAREFULLY AT A SET OF QUESTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH WHETHER CREATING A TLD GETS YOU FOUR OR FIVE NAMES OR ONE AND WHETHER YOU CAN USE THE OTHERS.

AGAIN, NO SIMPLE ANSWERS.

VERY IMPORTANT TO WORK OUT POLICY ISSUES, POLICIES MAY NOT BE -- MAY SAFELY NOT BE THE SAME IN DIFFERENT REGISTRIES.

DO WE NEED A GLOBAL POLICY? I DON'T KNOW. BUT THAT MAY BE A DEVELOPMENT ISSUE.

AS JAMES POINTED OUT, IDNA IS ENTIRELY CLIENT ALGORITHM, CLIENT PROCEDURE. IT DEPENDS ON CORRECT CLIENT IMPLEMENTATIONS. OUR EXPERIENCE SO FAR IS CORRECT CLIENT IMPLEMENTATIONS AREN'T VERY HARD. WE HAVEN'T DISCOVERED ANY SERIOUS INTEROPERABILITY PROBLEMS.

BUT IT'S VERY HARD TO VERIFY ANY CLIENT-BASED IMPLEMENTATION WHETHER SOMEBODY ELSE'S CLIENT IS WORKING CORRECTLY. THERE ARE PROBABLY SOME POTENTIAL SECURITY ISSUES THERE. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THEM.

BY CONTRAST, ARRANGEMENTS LIKE THE JET GUIDELINES AND SIMILAR VARIANT APPROACHES ARE COMPLETELY REGISTRY-DEPENDENT. THEY GET IMPLEMENTED ON THE REGISTRY SIDE, NOT THE CLIENT SIDE. THEY HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT CAN AND CAN'T BE REGISTERED RATHER THAN WHAT HAPPENS AT RESOLUTION TIME. AS A CONSEQUENCE, THEY DON'T RAISE INTEROPERABILITY ISSUES.

BUT THEY MAY RAISE ISSUES WITH USER EXPERIENCE, BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE GET INTO THE VERY ODD SITUATION IN WHICH SOMEBODY ASKS FOR ONE NAME AND GET SOMETHING WHICH LOOKS TO THEM TO BE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. IS THAT GOOD OR BAD? YES. IT IS EITHER GOOD OR BAD.

THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM AS SOME OF YOU HAVE NOTICED, I HOPE MANY OF YOU, IS WHAT WE CALL AN ADMINISTRATIVE HIERARCHY. THAT ADMINISTRATIVE HIERARCHY IS BASED ON A LOT OF POLICY AND TRUST RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN A DOMAIN, WITHIN A ZONE, WITHIN A REGISTRY.

THE DNS DOESN'T HAVE ANY TECHNICAL MECHANISM FOR GOOD CROSS-TREE REFERENCES. IN A TRADITIONAL LIBRARY SYSTEM, WHICH IS ARGUABLY SOME KIND OF SAME HIERARCHY, WE CAN SAY "SEE ALSO THAT THING OVER THERE." "SEE INSTEAD THIS THING OVER HERE." DNS DOES NOT DO THAT WELL.

IT'S GOT TWO TOOLS FOR DOING IT, ONE OF WHICH IS VERY RESTRICTIVE AND THE OTHER OF WHICH DOESN'T WORK THE WAY -- EVERYBODY WHO SEEMS TO WANT TO USE IT THINKS IT DOES. AND THERE ARE TECHNICAL REASONS FOR THAT.

THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS WITH IDNS ABOUT SAYING, OKAY, WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS REGISTER IN ONE PIECE OF THE DNS TREE MY NAME IN ROMAN CHARACTERS AND ANOTHER PLACE IN THE TREE MY NAME IN MY LOCAL CHARACTERS AND THEN I'M GOING TO HAVE IT REFER TO THE SAME STUFF.

IT'S A WONDERFUL IDEA. IT HAS OCCURRED TO MANY PEOPLE IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS. AND ITS ONLY PROBLEM IS IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO ADMINISTER.

IT'S IMPORTANT AS YOU DESIGN SYSTEMS AND HAVE PEOPLE COMING TO YOU WITH BRIGHT IDEAS ABOUT DESIGNING SYSTEMS THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WELL ENOUGH HOW THE DNS'S ALIAS MECHANISMS, THE C NAMES AND THE D NAMES, ACTUALLY WORK OR DON'T WORK.

CAN YOU MAINTAIN ITS TRUE SEPARATE -- TWO SEPARATE TREES WITH DIFFERENT TOPS BY RUNNING THEM OUT OF A SINGLE DATABASE? YES.

CAN YOU KEEP THEM UP AND KEEP PROBLEMS FROM OCCURRING AS DIFFERENT PEOPLE DECIDE TO DO DIFFERENT THINGS FURTHER AND FURTHER DOWN THE TREE? PROBABLY NOT.

OUR EXPERIENCE IN PRACTICE HAS BEEN IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO COORDINATE EVEN WHEN IT'S DEALT WITH IN AN ENTERPRISE WITH SINGLE CONTROL. SO WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND AS WE'RE LOOKING AT IDNS THAT IDNS AND SYNONYMS FOR IDNS AND TRANSLATIONS FOR IDNS IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES ALL WITH NAMES IN DNS ARE PROBABLY VERY DIFFICULT TO MAKE WORK CONSISTENTLY.

THAT'S ONE OF THOSE PHYSICS ISSUES.

AND WE KEEP RUNNING INTO A DESIGN ISSUE WITH THE DNS AND THE PRACTICE IN THE FIELD IS SHIFTING.

BUT CONSIDERING THAT ANY OF THESE LABELS CAN BE IN ANY LANGUAGE NOW, THE HISTORICAL DIFFERENCE USING THE WEB AS AN EXAMPLE BETWEEN HTTP, WWW.PRODUCT ID IN A IT'LL AND HTTP.WWW.ORGANIZATION.TLD AND THE PRODUCT, THIS DISTINCTION IS GETTING MORE AND MORE SUBTLE.

WE ARE SEEING SHIFTS IN THE ASCII-BASED ENVIRONMENT AS TO HOW THIS IS USED AND HOW PEOPLE USE IT, BUT AS THESE THINGS CAN TURN OUT TO BE IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES IN DIFFERENT STRINGS, IT BECOMES EVEN MORE COMPLICATED.

AT LEAST AS MANY OF US HAVE READ THAT THERE ARE ASSUMPTIONS BUILT INTO THE UDRP, WHICH MORE OR LESS ASSUMES THAT HOMOGENEOUS SCRIPTS -- MORE OR LESS ASSUMES THAT THE LABELS INVOLVE SINGLE LANGUAGE/SINGLE SCRIPT, IT'S COMPLETELY HOMOGENEOUS.

THERE ARE CONFLICTS TO THE RIGHTS OF IDENTICAL NAMES.

THEY'RE NOT ABOUT THINGS IN WHICH WE GET INTO SUBTLE PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHEN THINGS ARE TOO SIMILAR WITHOUT INVOLVING ANY OF THE PRECEDENTS OR RULES OF THE TRADEMARK RULES.

WE DON'T HAVE POLICIES WHICH GIVE ANY GUIDANCE AT ALL TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION ABOUT LABELS COMPOSED OF LINE AND BOX DRAWING CHARACTERS RATHER THAN LABELS WHICH COME OUT OF ALPHABETS OR CHARACTER SETS AS USED BY LANGUAGES.

WE HAVE NO RULES ABOUT THINGS THAT LOOK ALIKE CHARACTERS AND STRINGS WITH COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SCRIPTS UNLESS THEY MEET THAT TRADEMARK CRITERIA OF CONFUSING SIMILARITY. AND THERE ISN'T MUCH GUIDANCE.

IS THE TRANSLATION OF A NAME INTO ANOTHER LANGUAGE CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR WITH THE UNTRANSLATED FORM OF THE NAME? I DON'T KNOW.

IS THE TRANSCRIPTION OF A NAME INTO ANOTHER SCRIPT OR PHONETIC ENVIRONMENT CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR? I DON'T KNOW. IT DEPENDS ON WHETHER YOU ARE READING THEM OUT LOUD OR LOOKING AT THEM ON PAPER.

ARE TRANSCODINGS, ONE CODING SYSTEM INTO ANOTHER CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR? I DON'T KNOW.

ARE THESE ISSUES IMPORTANT? WELL, MY HOPE IS THAT ICANN WILL START ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS BEFORE WE NEED THE ANSWERS.

IN SETTING UP A REGISTRATION BASE, THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THE PUNYCODE ENCODING WHICH IS GOING INTO THE DNS OR THE NAME WHICH THE USER THOUGHT THEY WERE REGISTERING?

IS THIS QUESTION IMPORTANT? WELL, IT AFFECTS WHAT GOES INTO WHOIS TABLES IF YOU HAVE THOSE. IT AFFECTS WHAT YOU CAN LOOK UP IF ARE YOU LOOKING THINGS UP. IT AFFECTS WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE ERROR CONDITIONS, WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN DETECT THEM IN THE ENCODING PROCESS. SO MAYBE IT'S IMPORTANT.

ONCE AGAIN, FROM MY STANDPOINT, THE IMPORTANT THING IS NOT WHAT THE ANSWERS SHOULD BE; THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT ICANN START ASKING THESE QUESTIONS IN A SERIOUS WAY, DETERMINING WHETHER POLICIES ARE NECESSARY, AND BEGIN TO MOVE FORWARD TO MAKING THOSE POLICIES LONG BEFORE WE NEED THE ANSWERS. AND AT THIS POINT, IDNS ARE DEVELOPING AND SPREADING AT A SUFFICIENTLY HIGH RATE THAT LONG BEFORE WE NEED THE ANSWERS MAY BE THIS CALENDAR YEAR.

WE'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS, BUT THE PROBLEMS THAT IDNS THEMSELVES WHETHER -- IS ANY OF THESE REGISTRATION POLICY ISSUES. THEY ARE REAL ISSUES, THEY NEED TO BE SOLVED.

THE STANDARD WHICH, BASICALLY, AFFECTS HOW NAMES ARE CODED DOESN'T HELP. IT DOESN'T HELP WITH APPLICATIONS AND LOCAL CHARACTER SETS.

IF I HAVE AN APPLICATION WHICH ONLY UNDERSTANDS ASCII, NO AMOUNT OF INTERNATIONALIZATION AT LOWER LEVELS, INCLUDING IDNS, IN THE WORLD IS GOING TO FIX THAT PROBLEM.

SOMEBODY'S GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK AND FIX THE APPLICATION SO ITS HUMAN INTERFACE IS CORRECT FOR THE RELEVANT LANGUAGE AND CULTURE.

EVEN ARRANGEMENTS LIKE THE JET GUIDELINES DON'T ELIMINATE CONFUSION. THEY TAKE A PRETTY GOOD HUNK OUT OF IT.

AND THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM ITSELF -- AND I HOPE YOU HAVE ALL HEARD THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES IN A NUMBER OF CONTEXTS -- IS AN ABSOLUTELY MISERABLE SEARCH MECHANISM. IF I KNOW THE NAME AND I AM LOOKING THAT NAME UP SO THAT THE IMPORTANT ANSWER IS EITHER THIS IS THE ANSWER OR NO, THAT THE DNS IS IDEALLY DESIGNED FOR THAT. IF I KNOW THAT I AM LOOKING FOR A NAME WHICH IS SOMEWHAT LIKE THIS, BUT I'M NOT QUITE CERTAIN HOW IT'S SPELLED OR IN WHAT LANGUAGE IT IS OR HOW IT'S WRITTEN, THE DNS IS TERRIBLE. AND THE MORE WE INTERNATIONALIZE, THE MORE TERRIBLE IT'S GOING TO GET.

WE HAVE SEEN AN INDUSTRY TREND OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS WHICH SEEMS TO BE ONGOING THAT FEWER AND FEWER PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO FIND THINGS ON THE INTERNET BY GUESSING DNS NAMES. IDNS MAY ACCELERATE THAT TREND.

PEOPLE ARE FINDING THINGS BY OTHER KINDS OF REFERENCES, BY PORTALS, BY PAGES, BY SEARCH ENGINES, BY A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS WHICH I HOPE WILL COME. BUT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT EXPECTING THE DNS TO DO THAT JOB OF HELPING SOMEBODY FIND SOMETHING WHOSE NAME THEY DON'T KNOW HAS JUST GOTTEN WORSE, BECAUSE NOW IT'S NOT MERELY WHOSE NAME THEY DON'T KNOW; IT'S WHICH SCRIPT THE NAME IS IN, WHICH LANGUAGE THE NAME IS IN, HOW IT'S SPELLED.

I KEEP SAYING THIS, AND NOBODY LISTENS TO ME, SO I SAY IT AGAIN. IDNS RAISE VERY SERIOUS ISSUES WHEN YOU START WORRYING ABOUT WHOIS POLICY.

IF A REGISTRATION IS IN A NON-ASCII SCRIPT, A NON-ROMAN- BASED LANGUAGE, NON-WESTERN LANGUAGE, THE REGISTRANT WILL CERTAINLY EXPECT THE OTHER DATA TO BE IN THAT LANGUAGE AS WELL.

DO YOU PERMIT THAT OR NOT PERMIT THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT POLICY QUESTION, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING IN A WHOIS OR WHOIS-LIKE DATABASE AND YOU CAN'T FIND IT BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE SEARCH TOOLS FOR THAT SCRIPT, YOU MAY NOT BE VERY HAPPY. AND IF YOU CAN FIND IT AND CAN'T READ IT, BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT SCRIPT IT'S IN AND YOU HAVE NO TRANSLATION MECHANISM FOR THAT SCRIPT EVEN IF YOU DO KNOW WHAT LANGUAGE AND SCRIPT IT'S IN, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO BE VERY UNHAPPY.

IS THAT UNHAPPINESS A BAD THING? WELL, THAT'S A POLICY QUESTION. BUT I HOPE PEOPLE WILL START GETTING TO WORK ON THE ANSWERS.

IF I'VE CREATED AN IDN PACKAGE, ONE OF THESE CLUSTERS OF NAMES WITH RESERVED NAMES IN IT, AND SOMEBODY IS LOOKING UP THE PRIMARY NAME ENTITLED TO KNOW THE PACKAGE EXISTS AND WHAT THE OTHER NAMES ARE THAT ARE BOUND TO THAT USER? I DON'T KNOW.

BUT BEFORE SOMEBODY DISCOVERS IF THAT'S IMPORTANT, WE SHOULD PROBABLY BE WORKING ON POLICY.

I MENTIONED THIS BEFORE, BUT LET ME MENTION IT AGAIN.

WITH ALL OF THESE ISSUES, WE HAVE A SERIOUS POLICY TRADEOFF BETWEEN MORE FLEXIBILITY OF WHAT CAN BE REGISTERED OR BETWEEN REDUCING THAT FLEXIBILITY IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE RISK OF CONFLICTS OR DECEPTION OR FRAUD. THERE IS NO RIGHT POINT OR RIGHT ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. IT'S A TRADEOFF.

BUT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING EITHER GLOBALLY OR ON A PER-REGISTRY BASIS. SO FAR, ALL OF THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE IS THAT EVERY DOMAIN OR ZONE IS GOING TO NEED TO DEVELOP ITS OWN POLICY. AND THERE WILL PROBABLY BE WIDE VARIATIONS ABOUT THIS.

BUT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THOSE POLICIES IN A WAY IN WHICH THEY DON'T AFFECT GLOBAL INTEROPERABILITY OF THE INTERNET OR WE'RE GOING TO LOSE SOMETHING IMPORTANT.

BUT THERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY -- AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DO ABOUT IT OR HOW SERIOUSLY WE TAKE IT, IT'S ANOTHER POLICY QUESTION -- OF A COUNTRY SAYING, YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T CARE.

I CAN DESIGN SOMETHING WHICH WILL WORK VERY WELL FOR ME IN MY LANGUAGES. AND IF NOBODY ELSE CAN COMMUNICATE WITH US AND MY POPULATION CAN'T COMMUNICATE WITH US AND WE CAN'T COMMUNICATE WITH THEM, I DON'T CARE.

IS THAT A SERIOUS PROBLEM? WE SHOULD TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT. I WOULD HOPE NO ONE WOULD DO THAT.

AND WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND, LIKE IT OR NOT, THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET VERY USED TO LOOKING AT PUNYCODE IF THEY ARE GOING TO WANT TO LOOK AT IDNS, PROBABLY FOR A LONG TIME.

BUT THIS BRINGS US BACK TO ONE OF THE POINTS AT WHICH WE STARTED, WHICH IS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT PROBLEM WE ARE TRYING TO SOLVE.

DOMAIN NAME GUESSING IS BECOMING A LOT LESS USEFUL THAN WE THOUGHT IT WAS A FEW YEARS AGO. THE MORE NAMES WE HAVE IN THE DNS, THE LESS EFFECTIVE GUESSING BECOMES. THE MORE TLDS WE HAVE THAT MIGHT CONCEIVABLY BE GIVEN A NAME, THE LESS APPROPRIATE AND LESS EFFECTIVE GUESSING BECOMES.

ASK AND AS WE MOVE TO A MULTIPLE SCRIPT AND MULTIPLE LANGUAGE ENVIRONMENT, GUESSING BECOMES MUCH HARDER BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE DIMENSIONS IN WHICH TO GUESS.

IT'S BEEN POINTED OUT THAT HAVING STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE STANDARDS AT THE IDN LEVEL DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

A I WILL REPEAT SLIGHTLY WHAT JAMES SAID. WINDOWS AND INTERNET EXPLORER AND OUTLOOK RIGHT NOW IN THE VERSIONS DEPLOYED IN USERS' HANDS IN MOST OF THE WORLD ARE A DISASTER. THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH WINSOCK AND ITS UTF-8 CONVERSION, SOMETIMES WITH UTF-8. TAKE A STRING WHICH IS IN UTF-8 AND YOU CONVERT IT INTO UTF-8 AND YOU GET WHAT IS TECHNICALLY KNOWN AS GARBAGE. AND WORSE YET, THESE THINGS WORK BETTER IN SOME ENVIRONMENTS THAN THEY DO IN OTHERS, BECAUSE THOSE BODIES OF CODE ARE LOCALIZED VERSIONS IN DIFFERENT PLACES RATHER THAN THE COMMON CODE BASE AND SOME OF THE LOCALIZED VERSIONS BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY.

WE HAVE SEEN SOME THINGS WHICH WORK PERFECTLY WELL IN THE TRADITIONAL CHINESE VERSION OF INTERNET EXPLORER WHICH DO NOT WORK AT ALL IN AN ENGLISH-BASED VERSION OF INTERNET EXPLORER. AND THE PROBLEM IS IN CHINESE VERSUS ENGLISH, IT'S DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES GOING ON WITHIN THE CODE. THE SITUATION IS MUCH BETTER IF YOU HAVE A MAC. IT MAY BE BETTER IF YOU HAVE A UNIX OR LINUX SYSTEM. WINDOWS MAY GET FIXED. THE ONLY PROMISE I CAN GET OUT OF MICROSOFT IS IT WON'T GET FIXED THIS YEAR. BUT THAT TAKES US BACK TO THE GLOBAL INTEROPERABILITY PROBLEM.

IF IN ORDER TO GET INTERNATIONALIZATION AND GOOD LOCALIZATION, WE HAVE TO GIVE UP THE IDEA OF ANY TWO INTERNET USERS BEING ABLE TO COMMUNICATE REGARDLESS OF LANGUAGE THEY ARE USING, EVEN IF PAINFULLY, AND IF ANY INTERNET USER BEING ABLE TO ACCESS ANY INTERNET HOST USING A GLOBALLY AVAILABLE NAME, WHAT WOULD MAKE MANY OF THESE PROBLEMS MUCH EASIER, IT'S A VERY HIGH PRICE TO PAY.

A LOT OF WHAT HAS MADE THIS NETWORK AN ADVANTAGE AND PERMITTED IT TO GROW AND PERMITTED US TO BE HERE TALKING ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS IS THE INTERNET IS GLOBALLY INTEROPERABLE.

WE MUST GET LOCALIZATION.
WE MUST GET INTERNATIONALIZATION.
WE MUST GET SUPPORT FOR LOCAL CHARACTERS AND ENVIRONMENTS.

BUT IF WE MANAGE TO THROW AWAY THE GLOBAL NATURE OF THE INTERNET IN THE PROCESS, WE WILL NOT HAVE DONE OURSELVES A SERVICE. AND THIS IS WHERE BEING FRIGHTENED GIVES WAY TO BEING DEPRESSED. BECAUSE IT WOULD BE REALLY EASY TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS IN A WAY WHICH REDUCES GLOBAL INTEROPERABILITY.

THE CURE FOR THAT DEPRESSION?

WE NEED TO WORK COOPERATIVELY, WE NEED TO WORK WITH EACH OTHER TO TRY TO FIND WAYS TO BOTH INTERNATIONALIZE AND PRESERVE THE GLOBAL INTEROPERABILITY. AND MAYBE WHEN WE GET THROUGH DOING THAT, IF WE'RE LOOKING ONLY AT IDNS, WE STILL HAVEN'T SOLVED THE PROBLEM.

IF IDNS ARE THIS HARD AND RAISE THIS MANY ISSUES AND DON'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM AND SLOGANS ABOUT INTERNATIONALIZATION BY THEMSELVES DON'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM EITHER, MAYBE IT'S TIME WE GO BACK TO THE PROBLEM AND THINK ABOUT SOME SERIOUS WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT THE MODELS AND APPROACHES AND WHAT PROBLEMS WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE.

CONTENT IS IMPORTANT, NAVIGATION IS IMPORTANT, IDNS ARE IMPORTANT IF THEY HELP WITH CONTENT AND NAVIGATION. SO I'VE GOT THREE SLIDES OF QUESTIONS FOR THOUGHT, MORE THINGS FOR TO YOU WORRY ABOUT AND THINK ABOUT WHETHER YOU NEED POLICIES ABOUT IN THE COMING MONTHS OR YEARS.

A NUMBER OF STUDIES HAVE INDICATED THAT THE USE OF SEARCH ENGINES AND OTHER MECHANISMS TO REPLACE GUESSING AT NAMES IN DNS IS RISING VERY RAPIDLY. AND THE DNS NAME GUESSING IS FALLING AS AN INTERNET NAVIGATION TECHNIQUE.

DOES THAT SUGGEST SOME OPPORTUNITIES TO SOMEONE? CAN WE GET PAST THE MARKETING HYPE AND THE SCALING PROBLEMS AND OTHER ISSUES, INCLUDING THE NEED FOR NAME RESOLUTION AND CONFLICT JUDGES THERE AND TAKE ANOTHER SERIOUS LOOK AT ALTERNATE NAMING SYSTEMS, SYSTEMS WITH FEWER CONSTRAINTS ABOUT CHARACTERS AND CROSS REFERENCES AND MATCHING THAN THE DNS HAS?

YES, I AM TALKING ABOUT THINGS WHICH SOME PEOPLE CALL KEY WORDS AND OTHER PEOPLE CALL KEY WORDS AND MEAN SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

YES, I AM TALKING ABOUT DIRECTORIES AND ABOUT SEARCH ENGINES AND ABOUT ALL KINDS OF OTHER MECHANISMS.

AND MAYBE FOR SOME PURPOSES, THAT'S THE LEVEL AT WHICH WE OUGHT TO BE FOCUSING MOST OF OUR INTERNATIONALIZATION EFFORTS RATHER THAN ON DOMAIN NAMES. IT'S NOT TO SAY DON'T DO DOMAIN NAMES. IT'S TO SAY LOOK AT THE PROBLEM, LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE, FIGURE OUT WHERE TO DEAL WITH IT.

DO WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AGAIN AT YELLOW PAGES SYSTEMS? SYSTEMS IN WHICH WE HAVE DIRECTORIES THAT ARE POPULATED BY PEOPLE AND ENTITIES AND ORGANIZATIONS WHICH WANT TO BE IN THEM USING LABELS AND CATEGORIES WHICH THEY WANT TO USE? CAN WE USE BETTER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS IN THOSE ENVIRONMENTS? AND DOES THIS MAKE SENSE FOR SOME SEARCH AND NAVIGATION PURPOSES, CERTAINLY NOT ALL, AS AN ALTERNATIVE DNS AND AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO SEARCH ENGINES?

DO WE REALLY NEED IDNS AND SCRIPTS TO WORK WELL INTERNATIONALLY?

IF WE CAN SAY WRITING IN ARABIC IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR ARABIC SPEAKERS COMMUNICATING WITH ARABIC SPEAKERS AND WRITING IN RUSSIAN IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR RUSSIAN SPEAKERS WRITING AND COMMUNICATING WITH RUSSIAN SPEAKERS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO PUT A LOT OF ENERGY INTO MAKING CERTAIN THAT THE RUSSIAN SPEAKERS CAN READ THE ARABIC SCRIPT BECAUSE THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO READ THE LANGUAGE, WE CAN MAKE THIS PROBLEM MUCH SIMPLER.

IF WE REALLY HAVE A SITUATION IN WHICH SOMEBODY WHO IS WRITING IN ARABIC, COMMUNICATING WITH SOMEBODY WHO IS WRITING IN CHINESE, IS GOING TO BE USING AN INTERMEDIATE LANGUAGE RATHER THAN EITHER ARABIC OR CHINESE, IT MAKES MANY OF THESE PROBLEMS MUCH EASIER.

WE NEED TO START ASKING OURSELVES WHAT OUR TARGETS ARE THERE, WHAT OUR PROBLEMS ARE, WHAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO US.

DO WE NEED TO START THINKING ABOUT TRANSLATION? REAL TRANSLATION. NOT FOOLING AROUND WITH CHARACTER SETS, BUT TRANSLATING WORDS AND PHRASES.

DOES IT HELP WITH SOME OF THE IDN ISSUES AND SOME OF THE DNS ISSUES? THERE'S BEEN SOME WORK DONE IN THE AREA AND SOME THINKING. WE HAVEN'T MADE ANY REAL PROGRESS.

AND THERE'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION WHICH BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTIES OF REPLACING ANYTHING WHICH IS DEPLOYED MAYBE MERELY AN INTELLECTUAL QUESTION RATHER THAN IMPORTANT, BUT IF WE WERE DESIGNING IDNA TODAY AND ITS MAPPING LOGIC WITH KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WE DISCOVERED LATER ABOUT THE USE OF VARIANT SYSTEMS AND RESERVATIONS, WOULD WE DO IT THE SAME WAY?

AND IF THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS NO, ARE WE -- SHOULD WE BE THINKING ABOUT GOING OFF AND CHANGING IT NOW BEFORE WE GET MORE EMBEDDED AND MORE DEPLOYED? IT'S PROBABLY TOO LATE.

BUT THE QUESTION IS INTERESTING IN TERMS OF HOW ONE DESIGNS VARIANT SYSTEMS AND WHERE ONE APPLIES THE RULES. AND HAVING TAKEN UP FOUR HOURS OF YOUR TIME, I WILL IDENTIFY A NUMBER OF THINGS WE HAVEN'T EVEN BEGUN TALKING ABOUT. WE HAVEN'T TALKED VERY MUCH ABOUT E-MAIL ADDRESSES, ALTHOUGH I POINTED OUT IT'S A PROBLEM.

WE'RE MOVING INTO A WORLD IN WHICH WE'RE WORRIED MORE ABOUT SECURITY, BUT IDNS ARE A CHALLENGE FOR DIGITAL CERTIFICATES AND THE NAMES WHICH GO IN THEM.

MARTIN IS WORKING ON A PARTIALLY INTERNATIONALIZED ALTERNATIVE TO URLS AND URIS, DO WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT AN ALTERNATE TO THOSE IN WHICH I DON'T HAVE TO TYPE HTTP AND COLONS AND SLASHES AND ROMAN CHARACTERS?

WHAT REALLY ARE THE SPECIAL PROBLEMS, MULTILINGUAL, TO NAMES IN TLDS? AND IS THAT THE RIGHT SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM WHICH WE CAN IDENTIFY?

JAMES HINTED THERE ARE SOME OTHER WAYS OF DOING IT. I'VE BEEN SPENDING SOME TIME WORRYING ABOUT OTHER WAYS OF DOING IT. WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND BETTER WHAT THE PROBLEM IS IN ORDER TO GET THE RIGHT SOLUTION.

TODAY'S DISCUSSION AND MOST OF OUR EXAMPLES HAVE FOCUSED ON THE WEB AND ON E-MAIL BECAUSE THEY'RE VERY HANDY EXAMPLES. MOSTLY BECAUSE EVERYBODY USES THEM. BUT WE HAVE HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF OTHER PROTOCOLS OUT THERE AND WE HAVE APPLICATIONS CODE FOR THEM AND SOMEBODY IS USING THEM.

AND WE HAVE INTERNATIONALIZATION ISSUES WITH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM AND THOSE ISSUES ARE DIFFERENT FROM PROTOCOL TO PROTOCOL. WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT THAT? HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD?

AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT DNS NAMES AND INTERNATIONALIZE THEM AND WE HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT NAVIGATING ON THE INTERNET WITH NON-ASCII STRINGS IN A NON-ASCII ENVIRONMENT. EITHER A NONFAMILIAR ASCII ENVIRONMENT, MY LANGUAGE, OR A FAMILIAR NONASCII ENVIRONMENT, HIS LANGUAGE, THAT SCRIPT, THAT LANGUAGE. AND IT COMES DOWN TO A PROBLEM THAT CANNOT BE FURTHER FROM ANYTHING ICANN GETS TO WORRY ABOUT, BUT IF WHATEVER WE'RE DOING WITH THESE INTERNATIONALIZATION ISSUES DOESN'T FEEL CONFIDENT, RIGHT TO THE USERS IN THEIR OWN SCRIPTS AND ENVIRONMENTS AND CULTURE, IT ISN'T RIGHT, AND IT DOESN'T WORK AND IT WON'T GET US ANYWHERE.

SO FROM A TECHNICAL AND PROTOCOL STANDPOINT, TODAY'S GOOD NEWS IS IDNA IS NOT ONLY READY TO BE DEPLOYED TODAY, IT IS BEING DEPLOYED. ANYBODY WHO STANDS UP AND SAYS IDNA IS NOT READY YET HASN'T BEEN WATCHING.

IDNA IS ULTIMATELY ROOTED IN UNICODE, AND UNICODE CAN REPRESENT TODAY, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, EVERY PLAUSIBLE CHARACTER IN CONTEMPORARY USE IN EVERY LANGUAGE IN THE WORLD.

FOR SOMEONE TO STAND UP AND SAY, "I CAN'T USE MY LANGUAGE BECAUSE UNICODE DOESN'T SUPPORT IT," MIGHT HAVE BEEN TRUE FIVE YEARS AGO. IT IS NOT TRUE TODAY. NOW, FOR SOMEBODY TO STAND UP AND SAY I CAN'T USE MY LANGUAGE BECAUSE UNICODE DOESN'T SUPPORT IT THE WAY I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT SUPPORTED, THAT'S A DIFFERENT COMMENT. AND THERE WILL ALWAYS BE THAT EXCUSE FROM SOMEBODY FOR SOME PURPOSE. BUT THERE'S NO REASON, BECAUSE OF UNICODE DID NOT MOVE FORWARD, UNLESS YOU SPEAK KLINGON.

BUT IDNA IS A CODING STANDARD, NOT A SOLUTION TO LOCALIZATION PROBLEMS ITSELF. AT BEST, IT'S AN ELEMENT OF THOSE SOLUTIONS.

THE POLICY SIDE OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THERE ARE INTERESTING ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES, BUT MOST OF THEM ARE BEST FOUND BY EXAMINING THE USER EXPERIENCE AND THE USER INTERFACES. AT THE APPLICATIONS INTERFACE, AND THEN WORKING BACKWARDS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE NEED IN THE DNS AND NEED IN OTHER PLACES.

AS I SAID EARLIER, IF THE USER INTERFACE AND THE USER ENVIRONMENT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO THE PERSON SITTING IN FRONT OF THE SCREEN IN THAT LANGUAGE AND THAT CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT, THAN ANYTHING ELSE WE'RE DOING IS A WASTE OF TIME.

THE SIMPLE ACT OF GETTING A CLAIM AND PUTTING IT IN DNS AND THEN ASKING ABOUT THAT NAME AND GETTING IT OUT AGAIN IS REALLY EASY. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN EASY. FOR SOMEBODY TO SAY SAY I'VE TESTED IT, I'VE PUT THE INTERNATIONAL NAME IN DNS AND GOT IT BACK OUT IN DNS, GEE. IT'S THE USER BEING ABLE TO TYPE THAT NAME AND HAVING SOMETHING INTELLIGENT HAPPEN THAT'S IMPORTANT.

FIGURING OUT WHAT TO DO ABOUT NAME CONFLICTS AND CONFUSION, EVEN WITHOUT THE POTENTIAL OF FRAUD, IS GOING TO BE A HARD QUESTION. IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE A LOT OF THOUGHT. SOME OF THE ANSWERS ARE GOING TO DIFFER BY REGISTRY AND BY LANGUAGE.

WHATEVER IT IS WE DO HAS TO BE DONE WITH CONSIDERABLE SENSITIVITY TO CULTURE AND LANGUAGES. ONE OF THE THINGS I SAID WHEN I TALKED ABOUT THIS QUESTION IN MELBOURNE WAS THAT AS SOON AS WE START TALKING ABOUT INTERNATIONALIZATION AND LANGUAGES, WE ARE STARTING TO TOUCH NAMES AND CULTURES AND LANGUAGES AND ISSUES ABOUT WHICH PEOPLE ARE AS SENSITIVE AS THEY GET ABOUT ANYTHING.

AND IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT PEOPLE WANT THIS TO BE EXACTLY RIGHT. IT WILL BE SURPRISING IF IT WERE OTHERWISE. AND BECAUSE THIS TENDS TO BE ENGINEERING PROBLEMS, 90% RIGHT IS A LOT EASIER THAN EXACTLY. AND AS PROFESSOR TAN POINTED OUT, IF WE SIT AROUND WAITING FOR EXACTLY, NOTHING WILL EVER HAPPEN, AND THAT'S THE WORST POSSIBLE ANSWER.

AND FOR SOME OF THESE THINGS, PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THE INFLEXIBILITIES OF THE DNS, IT MAY BE TIME TO START THINKING VERY SERIOUSLY ABOUT NOT IN THE DNS OR ABOVE THE DNS OR SUPPLEMENTAL TO DNS SOLUTIONS RATHER THAN EXPECTING THE DNS TO DO ALL OF THIS FOR US.

SO IN SUMMARY, THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE INTERNET CREATES A GREAT OPPORTUNITY. CREATES A GREAT RISK OF FRAGMENTING THE NETWORK SO WE CAN'T TALK TO EACH OTHER ANYMORE. AND A GREAT CHALLENGE FOR ALL OF US.

AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>JOHN KLENSIN: FOR THOSE OF HOW HAVE ASKED, THESE SLIDES ARE AVAILABLE THERE NOW, PDF VERSION SUPPLEMENT THE POWERPOINT VERSION WILL BE IN THERE AS SOON AS I CAN STRAIGHTEN SOME SCRIPT PROBLEMS OUT. AND THE SLIDE COPY HAS A BUNCH OF REFERENCES ATTACHED TO IT IF YOU WANT TO READ MORE THINGS, AND YOU AREN'T EXPECTED TO READ THIS NOW.

AGAIN, THANK YOU.

SHOULD WE DECIDE WE'RE THROUGH? OR SHOULD WE TAKE FIVE MINUTES?

>>VINT CERF: LET'S SEE. FIRST OF ALL, JOHN, I WANT TO EXPRESS MY PERSONAL ADMIRATION FOR ANYONE WHO CAN PRESENT THAT MUCH MATERIAL IN THAT AMOUNT OF TIME AND HAVE IT COME OUT NOT ONLY THOUGHT PROVOKING BUT ALSO VALUABLE AND INTERESTING. SO THANK YOU AGAIN.

I THINK WE WERE PLANNING TO BREAK AT 12:35. WE HAVE A FEW MINUTES BEFORE THAT. WE HAVE THE CHOICE OF DOING SOME Q & A NOW, IF ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE. OR WE CAN SIMPLY BREAK FOR LUNCH.

LET ME JUST TAKE A STRAW POLL AND FIND OUT, ARE THERE PEOPLE WITH QUESTIONS FOR JOHN THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO RAISE NOW WHILE IT'S STILL FRESH IN YOUR MIND OR DO YOU WANT TO JUST GET OUT OF THIS ROOM FOR A WHILE?

I THINK EVERYONE WANTS TO DISAPPEAR, JOHN. THAT'S MY IMPRESSION.

>>JOHN KLENSIN: I WOULD CERTAINLY VOTE FOR THAT.

>>VINT CERF: ALL RIGHT. IN THAT CASE, LET ME THANK YOU AGAIN AND ADVISE EVERYONE TO RETURN HERE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS AFTERNOON'S PROGRAM AT 1:30.

SEE YOU THEN.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE WITH THIS AFTERNOON'S PORTION OF THE IDN WORKSHOP.

AND I ASSUME THAT PEOPLE WILL TRICKLE IN AS THEY HAVE FINISHED THEIR LUNCH.

THE FIRST SPEAKER THIS AFTERNOON IS ZUO FENG, WHO IS WITH AT LARGE CHINA, AND I SUSPECT WILL BE GIVING US A SENSE FOR IDNS IN THE CHINESE DOMAIN SPACE, SO TO SPEAK.

SO LET ME TURN THIS OVER TO YOU.

WE'RE EAGER TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.

>>ZUO FENG: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AND THANK YOU TO THE COMMITTEE FOR GIVING ME A CHANCE THIS AFTERNOON TO HAVE AN INTRODUCTION, BRIEFLY AN INTRODUCTION ABOUT AT LARGE CHINA.

I THINK THAT MAYBE THE ROOM IS TOO BIG FOR ME.

I HOPE THAT MY SPEECH CAN BE SOMETHING LIKE A WARMUP SPEECH, CAN MAKE MORE PEOPLE COME IN LATER ON.

>>VINT CERF: IF I COULD INTERRUPT FOR ONE SECOND, IT DOESN'T LOOK AS IF WE HAVE YOUR SLIDES UP ON THE DISPLAY YET.

SO LET'S -- THERE WE ARE. OKAY.

NOW YOU ARE VISIBLE.

>>ZUO FENG: TODAY I AM GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME TO HAVE AN INTRODUCTION ABOUT AT LARGE CHINA.

THE CONTENT WILL BE COMPOSED OF FIVE PARTS. ONE IS THE MISSION OF AT LARGE CHINA AND THE CHINESE CUSTOMERS' NEEDS AND WANTS FOR IDN, AND THE FACILITIES OF IDN CHINA AND THE POPULAR OFFERING FOR THE CNNIC IDN SERVICE. AND THE LAST PART WILL BE THE CHINESE MARKET.

THE MISSION OF AT LARGE CHINA, WHAT IS AT LARGE CHINA? THE AT LARGE CHINA, I THINK, IS A PART OF THE ALAC OF ICANN, WHICH CAME OUT ABOUT A YEAR AGO BUT WE JUST SENT IT -- CERTIFIED RECENTLY IN THE -- MAYBE TWO MONTHS.

>> TWO MONTHS AGO.

>>ZUO FENG: TWO MONTHS AGO.
I WAS ELECTED TO BE THE CHAIRMAN OF AT LARGE CHINA. WE HAVE NINE BOARD MEMBERS. AND THE LADY SITTING BESIDE ME IS ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, MS. XUE HONG.

AT LARGE CHINA IS A NONPROFIT CIVILIAN ORGANIZATION MADE UP OF THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM CHINESE INDIVIDUAL INTERNET SERVICES. UP TO NOW, IF YOU CHECK OUR WEB SITE, YOU WILL FIND THAT WE HAVE ALREADY THE MEMBERS UP TO 1,800. BUT AS I HAVE TOLD YESTERDAY, THE AT-LARGE, IT IS A NONPROFIT. SO IT'S NOT VERY EASY FOR US TO GET MEMBERS. SO WE HAVE TO WORK VERY HARD.

THIS -- AS I SAID, WE ESTABLISHED IN 2003, JUNE, AND IN BEIJING BY THE JOINT EFFORTS OF THE INTERNET SOCIETY OF CHINA AND THE WELL-KNOWN PROFESSIONALS IN CHINA INTERNET INDUSTRY. SO WE HAVE NINE BOARD MEMBERS. ONLY ME, MYSELF, FROM CHINA NET COM, WHO IS TELECOM INDUSTRY. BUT ANOTHER -- OTHER OF THEM ARE REALLY COMING FROM THOSE UNIVERSITIES AND INSTITUTES.

AND OUR MISSION. OUR MISSION IS TO TAKE PART IN THE AFFAIRS OF THE INTERNATIONAL INTERNET ON BEHALF OF CHINESE INDIVIDUAL USERS. SO FAR WE HAVE AT THE END OF -- AS OF THE END OF 2003 IN CHINA, WE HAVE GOT 18 MILLION INTERNET USERS, WHICH IS A VERY HUGE GROUP OF INTERNET USERS. SO IT'S VERY HARD TASK FOR US TO TELL THIS -- OUR MISSION OF AT LARGE CHINA TO THE INTERNET USERS AND TO FIND THEM A WAY TO HAVE ANY CONNECTIONS TO ICANN THEMSELVES.

AND THE SECOND MISSION IS TO SUPPORT AND TO PROMOTE THE PARTICIPATION OF THE CHINESE INTERNET USERS IN THE RELEVANT ACTIVITIES, BECAUSE IN CHINA, THE INTERNET FIELD IS VERY ACTIVE. IT'S VERY ACTIVE. CHINA'S INTERNET USERS THINK THEY ARE NORMALLY WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENTS AND THEY ALWAYS KEEP TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO HAVE THEIR INDIVIDUAL COMMUNICATIONS AND CONNECTIONS TO EACH OTHER. SO I THINK THAT AT LARGE CHINA WILL PROVIDE THEM A VERY GOOD WAY.

ANOTHER MISSION IS TO BUILD UP THE COMMUNICATION LINKAGE AMONG CHINESE INDIVIDUAL USERS FROM THE OTHER COUNTRIES AND THE REGIONS, AS WE HAVE TALKED TO OTHER AT-LARGE REGION ORGANIZATIONS YESTERDAY, WE WILL BUILD UP THE LINKAGE TO THEM TO MAKE THEM EASIER TO TALK TO EACH OTHER.

WHAT ARE CHINESE CUSTOMERS' NEEDS AND WANTS FOR THE IDN? CHINESE CUSTOMERS' NEEDS, THE IDN OFFERING TO ADOPT THE CHINESE CHARACTERS AND DIVERSITY. BECAUSE NOT VERY MANY CHINESE INTERNET USERS UNDERSTAND VERY MUCH ENGLISH, SO THEY FIND THAT IF THEY CAN USE THE CHINESE CHARACTERS, IT WILL MAKE THEM EASIER TO USE THE INTERNET, EVEN FOR SEARCHING THE CONTENTS. AND THE CHINESE PEOPLE, THE LANGUAGE USAGE HABITS IS REALLY COMFORTABLE TO THE CHINESE. THE LOCAL POLICIES AND THE ECONOMY, LEGAL SYSTEM, AND THE CULTURE, SEEMS THE IDN WILL REALLY FIT THOSE NEEDS.

CHINESE CUSTOMERS' WANTS. SWIFT RESOLUTION OF DNS, AND A REASONABLE PRICE POLICY, BECAUSE NOT VERY MANY OF THEM ARE RICH. SO I THINK THAT A REASONABLE PRICE POLICY WILL ALSO BE IMPORTANT. AND CONSISTENT AND RELIABLE SERVICES. THAT REALLY SHOULD.

AND FACILITATE IDN USAGE IN CHINA, THE MARKET PROFILE, WE HAVE, LET ME SAY UNTIL NOW WE HAVE 90 MILLION INTERNET USERS. BY JULY 2004. SO WE HAVE A VERY HIGH GROWTH RATE. WE SAY THAT 34.5 GROWTH RATE IN 2003. SO WE HAVE -- BUT WE HAVE VERY MANY NONENGLISH-SPEAKING MAJORITIES. SO WE NEED A VERY STRONG DEMAND OF IDNS.

AT LARGE CHINA, WE HOPE THAT WE CAN TAKE VERY GOOD -- IMPORTANT ROLE IN FACILITATING THE IDN USAGE IN CHINA. WE HOPE THAT WE HAVE NONGOVERNMENTAL ASSOCIATION SUPPORT AND FACILITATE IDN USAGE IN CHINA.

ALSO WE HAVE SOME OTHER FACILITIES IN THE CHINA.

WE HAVE AT-LARGE EFFORTS IN FACILITATING THE AT-LARGE USAGE IN CHINA. THAT INCLUDE TO BUILDING UP A BRIDGE OF IDN SERVICE PROVIDERS AND USERS. AND TO ADVICE IN THE GOVERNMENT POLICY-MAKING, AND TO EDUCATE THE MARKETING. THIS WE HAVE DONE A LOT. AND TO REPRESENT CUSTOMERS' VOICE. OF COURSE, WE HAVE (INAUDIBLE) PEOPLE. BUT WE WILL GIVE THEM THE CHANCE THROUGH THE WEB SITES AND WE WILL DIRECTLY COME TO ICANN'S MEETINGS TO TALK WITH -- TO TELL THE CHINESE CUSTOMERS' WANTS. AND TO IMPROVE IDN SERVICE IN CHINESE MARKET. ALSO, WE HOPE THAT WE CAN DO SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, WE CAN TELL SOMETHING ABOUT CNNIC'S IDN SERVICE.

I THINK THAT CNNIC'S IDN SERVICE IN CHINA IS REALLY AUTHORIZED AND RECOGNIZED BY THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT, WHICH CAN MAKE SERVICE RELIABLE. AND ALSO COMPATIBLE WITH THE CHINESE USAGE HABITS. AND THIS REASONABLE PRICING, AND ALSO HAVE RELIABLE SERVICE. WE HOPE THAT ITS CREDIBLE AND EFFICIENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY MECHANISM. THIS HAS BEEN BUILT UP IN CHINA. BUT I THINK MAYBE CNNIC PEOPLE CAN TELL MORE ABOUT THAT, AND DISTINCTIVE AND USEFUL APPLICATIONS.

AS WE HAVE -- CHINESE CULTURE IS A VERY COMPLICATED CULTURE. SO MAYBE THEY CAN APPLY MORE APPLICATIONS, I HOPE.

AND ALSO, THE CUSTOMERS' USAGE EXPERIENCE SURVIVES.

NOW, I HAVE AN EXAMPLE TO SHOW HOW THE IDN -- I MEAN, THE INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAME USED IN CHINESE WEB SITES. YOU SEE, THERE'S -- UNDER THE PICTURES, WE HAVE WW, AND TWO CHINESE CHARACTERS, THAT SHOWS BROADCAST. BUT HERE IN CHINESE. AND THEN WE PUT DOT CN. THAT'S EASIER FOR THE CHINESE PEOPLE TO GET A WEB SITE, TO FIND THIS WEB SITE. IT ALSO SHOWS THE USAGE OF THE IDN IN CHINA.

I THINK THE HIGH MARKET AWARENESS AND RECOGNITION, THIS EXAMPLE MAYBE WILL GIVE YOU INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

THE VOICE FROM CHINESE MARKET.

RECOGNIZE THE KEY ROLE FROM CCTLD REGISTRIES -- CCTLD REGISTRIES IN OPERATING IDN.IDN CCTLDS.

THE OTHER IS REGIONALIZE THE IDN.IDN GTLDS.

I THINK THAT'S THE MOST PART OF MY SPEECH FOR THE AT LARGE CHINA.

AND THANK YOU TO THE CHAIRMAN AGAIN.

>>VINT CERF: WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I HAVE A QUESTION, IF I COULD ASK, ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, THE ONE JUST WHERE YOU SHOWED THE WEATHER PICTURE, OKAY. AND THEN THE NEXT ONE AFTER THAT, YOU MENTIONED THIS TERM "IDN.IDNCCTLDS. DO YOU MEAN BY THIS THAT THE CCTLD NAME WOULD BE IN A NON-ASCII CHARACTER SET?

>>XUE HONG: (NOD OF THE HEAD.)

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.

I HOPE EVERYONE WAS LISTENING WHEN JOHN KLENSIN DESCRIBED SOME OF THE POTENTIAL DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH INTRODUCING SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE LATIN CHARACTERS FOR THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES.

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM THAT I CAN SUGGEST TO YOU IS THAT WE HAVE A VERY WELL-DEFINED TABLE OF IDENTIFIERS FOR COUNTRY CODES RIGHT NOW IN THE FORM OF THE ISO 3166-1 TABLE. THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT TABLE IS THAT IT IS NOT SOMETHING INVENTED BY ICANN. IT IS SOMETHING THAT'S PREPARED ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED NATIONS STATISTICS OFFICE AND MAINTAINED BY THE -- ONE OF THE ISO MAINTENANCE AGENCIES.

IF WE BEGIN TO TRY TO PUT IN NEW KINDS OF SCRIPTS FOR THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, WE WON'T HAVE ANY REFERENCE TABLE FOR THOSE TERMS. AND UNTIL WE GET THOSE, WE ARE ON LESS STABLE GROUND THAN WE ARE TODAY WITH THE 3166-1 TABLE. SO I THINK BEFORE WE WOULD END UP DOING THIS PARTICULAR FORMAT, WE WOULD NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET A WELL-DEFINED AND STABLE REFERENCE TABLE FOR THE APPROPRIATE NON-LATIN CHARACTERS.

SO THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS UP, THOUGH. IT GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE THAT AS AN IMPORTANT PROBLEM AREA.

ARE THERE ANY -- ARE THERE QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR? IF NOT, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE NEXT SPEAKER YOU'VE HEARD FROM EARLIER TODAY, I BELIEVE. AND HIS NAME IS JAMES SENG. AND HE HAS INTRODUCED HIMSELF BEFORE, FROM IDA SINGAPORE. SO, JAMES, I'LL TURN THIS OVER TO YOU.

OH, YOU'RE GOING TO GET CONNECTED NOW TO THE -- SOMEDAY, WE WILL MAKE THIS WORK WITH 802.11, AND WE WON'T NEED THE CABLE.

>>JAMES SENG: ULTRA-WIDEBAND.

YEAH, I WAS JUST TRYING OUT THE CHINESE DOMAIN NAME, AT-LARGE PEOPLE WAS TESTING. UNFORTUNATELY, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WORKING.

OKAY.

THIS PART OF MY TALK, I AM GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE JET GUIDELINES, THE JOINT ENGINEERING TEAM GUIDELINE, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS RFC 3743.

LET ME CLARIFY MY HAT AGAIN. I AM ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF IDA SINGAPORE, BUT HERE I AM ON BEHALF OF AS A MEMBER OF JET. SO SAME THING, ANY OPINION EXPRESSED HERE IS ON MY OWN. I AM NOT REALLY REPRESENTING IDA.

I WILL GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ABOUT WHAT THIS JOINT ENGINEERING TEAM IS.

I THINK THE EARLIER TRANSCRIPTS SAY THAT I AM NOT A MEMBER OF JET. NO, ACTUALLY, I AM A MEMBER OF JET.

IT'S ACTUALLY FORMED BY ENGINEERING GROUPS FROM CNNIC, JPNIC AND KRNIC WORKING TOGETHER WITH SOME INVITED EXPERTS. AND ONE OF THE INVITED EXPERTS TO THE JET, WE STARTED IN 2000, AND WE ROUGHLY ENDED OUR ACTIVITIES SOMETIME LIKE -- SOMETIME EARLY THIS YEAR. IT'S AN INFORMAL GROUP. WE MIGHT QUITE REGALLY. SOMETIMES OFTEN ON MONDAY, BETWEEN SEVERAL MONTHS, WE MEET FACE TO FACE IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF ASIA-PACIFIC. THE MAIN DRIVER BEHIND THE JET IS DR. KONISHI FROM JPNIC. WITHOUT HIM, WE WOULD NOT HAVE JET, PERIOD. HE IS THE MAIN DRIVER DRIVING US FORWARD AND GETTING THE PEOPLE TO MEET ON A REGULAR BASIS. BUT, OF COURSE, THE JET HAS LOTS OF SUPPORT FROM THE NICS MENTIONED HERE.

I KNOW EARLIER DR. TAN MENTIONED ABOUT MINC ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN INFORMATION IN JET. I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT. AND I DO NOT THINK -- I DO NOT REMEMBER MINC BEING INVOLVED IN THE FORMATION OF JET. SO JET IS REALLY AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY OUTSIDE MINC.

OKAY. A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND WHY WE HAVE -- WE STARTED THE JET GUIDELINE.

SOMEWHERE AROUND 2001 -- I MEAN, THE NICS WAS VERY ACTIVE IN THE IETF WORKING GROUP. BUT SOMEWHERE AROUND 2001, WE REALIZED THAT THE IETF WORKING GROUP IS GOING TO DO INTERNATIONALIZATION WITHOUT HANDLING THE LOCALIZATION ISSUES LIKE THE TRADITIONAL AND SIMPLIFIED CHINESE ISSUE. FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF ANGER AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. BUT WE REALIZED THAT THE BEST WAY TO MOVE FORWARD IS ACTUALLY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND JUST -- THAN JUST MAKING NOISE. SO WE SET ABOUT THIS BACK IN 2001 AT APRICOT BANGKOK, AND TO ENTER THESE LOCALIZATION ISSUES IN REGISTRATION POLICIES. THE RESULT OF THIS WORK IS THE JET GUIDELINE WHICH IS NOW PUBLISHED AS RFC 4733 IN APRIL OF 2004.

THE JET GUIDELINES, SOME VERY HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW OF WHAT IT DOES. WE DEAL WITH CHINESE, JAPANESE, AND KOREAN IN THE SENSE OF LANGUAGE, NOT SCRIPTS. CHINESE, JAPANESE, KOREAN SHARE THE SAME SCRIPT, MAINLY THE HAN IDEOGRAPH OR WHAT WE CALL THE CHINESE SCRIPTS. BUT EACH LANGUAGE USES THE SCRIPT IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT MANNER. LIKE THE CHINESE IN CHINA PROBABLY, ON AVERAGE, USE ABOUT 4- TO 5,000. JAPANESE USE ANYTHING BETWEEN 2- TO 5,000. AND KOREAN USE ABOUT 2,000, TOO. AND WE HAVE MANY OVERLAPPING, BUT ALSO CHARACTERS THAT ARE UNIQUE WITHIN EACH LANGUAGE. SO WE DECIDED TO DEAL WITH LANGUAGE, NOT SCRIPT. IT'S A LANGUAGE-BASED, WHICH IS VERY LOCALIZED.

SECOND THING THAT WE DO IS THAT WE DEAL WITH CJK, WE TALK ABOUT LANGUAGE AGAIN, ON A PER-REGISTRY FOR EACH LANGUAGE. IT'S DONE PER-REGISTRY. THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT. BECAUSE WE -- I WILL HAVE SOME SLIDES THAT WILL EXPLAIN WHY.

BUT, FUNDAMENTALLY, WE REALIZED THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS -- THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS ONE TABLE FOR ONE SINGLE LANGUAGE.

CHINESE USE IN CHINA IS DIFFERENT FROM CHINESE USE IN TAIWAN WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM CHINESE USE IN SINGAPORE AND MALAYSIA. I MEAN, IT SOUNDS WEIRD. EVEN PEOPLE IN SINGAPORE DO NOT REALIZE THAT OUR CHINESE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE CHINESE IN CHINA IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WAY. CASE IN POINT, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD BE THE CHINESE CHARACTER FOR (INAUDIBLE). DURAN IS A FRUIT THAT IS ONLY GROWN IN THIS PART OF THE WORLD, CHINA, SINGAPORE, AND MALAYSIA. AND IN THE CHARACTERS, THE SECOND CHARACTERS IN DURAN IS NOT KNOWN IN CHINA OR TAIWAN AT ALL. SO THERE ARE THESE LOCALIZATION ISSUES THAT IS UNIQUE TO EACH COUNTRY, NOT JUST WITHIN -- EVEN THOUGH WE SHARE THE SAME LANGUAGE.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDELINE THAT WE CREATED IS ACTUALLY TO REDUCE CONFUSION, BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY VARIANTS OF CHINESE THAT LOOK SIMILAR. AND, OF COURSE, PEOPLE GET WORRIED ABOUT POTENTIAL DISPUTE ARISING FROM THESE VARIANTS. WE TRIED TO REDUCE -- MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL IN THE FUTURE.

WE INTRODUCED FOUR MAIN CONCEPTS, SORRY, THREE MAIN CONCEPTS WITH ONE ASSUMPTION.

THE BASIC ASSUMPTION IS THAT WE HAVE -- WE FOLLOWED IETF STANDARDS. THE JET IS VERY CLEAR. WE DO NOT TRY TO CREATE OUR STANDARDS TO IETF. WE ARE HERE TO COMPLEMENT IETF STANDARDS. PRIMARILY ON THE REGISTRATION AND LOCALIZATION.

WE MADE THE ASSUMPTION WE WILL BE FOLLOWING THE IETF. AND HOW DO WE WORK WITHIN THAT FRAMEWORK.

ONE, WE RESTRICT THE REGISTRATION TO A SUBSET OF POINTS. IF YOU REMEMBER FROM THE MORNING DISCUSSION, I TALKED ABOUT INTERNATIONALIZATION, AND WE USED UNICODE AS A BASIS. WHAT THIS MEANS IS UNICODE -- AND JOHN TALKED ABOUT UNICODE HAVING ALL DIFFERENT SCRIPTS FROM ALL DIFFERENT LANGUAGES.

THERE ARE CLOSE TO A MILLION CODE POINTS IN UNICODE TODAY. MANY LANGUAGES, SCRIPTS, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. BUT, ACTUALLY, FOR EACH CCTLD, FOR EXAMPLE, IN SGNIC, WE PRIMARILY ONLY DO CHINESE AND TAMIL. WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET RUSSIAN DOMAIN NAMES AND DON'T EXPECT TO HAVE HEAVY DEMAND ON THAT INITIALLY. IT MAKES SENSE TO RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF CODE POINTS TO A SUBSET. THIS HELPS TO MINIMIZE A PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. WE DO NOT DEAL WITH LANGUAGE THAT WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND IN THAT COUNTRY.

SECOND, THE CONCEPT IS, ACTUALLY, FOR EACH DOMAIN NAMES, WE TAG A LANGUAGE, TAG TO IT. A DOMAIN NAME BY ITSELF IS AN IDENTIFIER. AN IDENTIFIER IS JUST ARBITRARY SCRIPTS. THERE'S NO CONCEPT OF LANGUAGE OR SCRIPTS IN THE IDENTIFIER. SO BY TAGGING THE LANGUAGE TAG TO THESE DOMAIN NAMES, THIS IDENTIFIER, WE ARE ABLE TO ACTUALLY GIVE A LOCALIZATION OR LOCALE CONTEXT TO THIS IDENTIFIER. AND THAT HELPS WITH WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO ON A PER-TLD, PER-LANGUAGE ISSUE.

AND WE -- WITH RFC 1766, 3066, 3066, ACTUALLY, 1766. RFC 3066 SPECIFY A MECHANISM THAT YOU CAN SPECIFY A LANGUAGE TAG, WHICH IS LANGUAGE FOLLOWED BY AN OPTIONAL COUNTRY, WHICH MEANS YOU CAN HAVE THINGS LIKE DASH CN, WHICH REPRESENT CHINESE IN CHINA, VERSUS DASH TW, WHICH IS CHINESE IN TAIWAN, OR DASH HK, WHICH IS CHINESE USED IN HONG KONG, AND SO ON, SO FORTH.

THE CONCEPT THAT WAS INTRODUCED IS WE ACTUALLY RESERVE ALL THE SIMILAR IDNS INTO A SINGLE PACKAGE AND WE MANAGE THEM AS A PACKAGE. THIS IS A NEW CONCEPT, VERY INTERESTING, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK HISTORICALLY, DOMAIN NAMES ARE REGISTERED ON PER-DOMAIN BASIS, PER (INAUDIBLE) BASIS.

YOU REGISTER AOL.COM, YOU GET AOL.COM. YOU DELETE THAT, YOU GET DELETE ONE. HERE WE INTRODUCED THAT IF YOU REGISTER AOL.COM, YOU GET FIVE OF THESE ADDITIONAL DOMAIN NAMES THAT MIGHT BE SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU HAVE. AND WE KEPT THEM AS A SINGLE PACKAGE. SO WHEN YOU DO TRANSFER, YOU DO DELETE, THEY'RE HANDLED IN A SINGLE PACKAGE.

SAME THING, I LIKE TO EMPHASIZE, THIS IS DONE ON A PER REGISTRY BASIS. THE REASON IS BECAUSE WE HAVE KRNIC, TWNIC, AND JPNIC, WORKING TOGETHER, EACH RUNNING OUR OWN REGISTRY WHICH MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT TABLES FOR DIFFERENT REASONS BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT IMAGES. EVEN THOUGH WE SHARE THE SAME SCRIPT.

IN SOME WAYS, I THINK SOME OF THIS PROBLEM WILL BE MIRRORED IN ARABIC, THOUGH I'M NOT EXPERT TO TALK ABOUT. I HOPE THE EXPERTS LATER WILL SOMEHOW COME TO THIS PART.

SO LET ME JUMP A BIT INTO THE CJK AND WHAT ARE THE LANGUAGE ISSUES THAT WE ARE -- WE GRAPPLE WITH WITHIN THE CJK.

AS I MENTION, WE SHARE THE SAME HAN IDEOGRAPH SCRIPTS, AND IT ACTUALLY EVOLVED FROM PICTOGRAPHS, FROM PICTURES. AND I'M NOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE LINGUISTS BUT THE IMPORTANT THING IS IT'S CONSTANTLY EVOLVING. EVEN TODAY, NEW CHINESE CHARACTERS ARE BEING CREATED EVERY DAY. I WAS JUST SHOWING 20 DIFFERENT CHINESE CHARACTER THAT IS ONLY USED BETWEEN SINGAPORE AND MALAYSIA TO A FRIEND OF MINE AND THEY WERE SHOCKED. THEY HAD NEVER SEEN THE CHARACTER BUT IT HAS BEEN USED ONLY IN THIS PART OF THE WORLD; NOT ANYWHERE ELSE.

THE INTERESTING PART IS BECAUSE SINCE IT'S USED ACROSS MORE DIFFERENT REGIONS IN ASIA-PACIFIC, ROOTS THAT YOU DEFINE FOR ONE LANGUAGE WILL INEVITABLY AFFECT ANOTHER FOR GOOD OR FOR BAD.

SO SUPPOSE WE SAY, OH, NO, WE SHOULD MAKE THESE TWO CHARACTER EQUIVALENT IN CHINESE, AND LET'S TRY TO DO THAT ACROSS THE WHOLE CHINESE CHARACTERS. THEN THAT MAY OR MAY NOT MAKE SENSE IN JAPANESE OR IN KOREAN, OR EVEN IN VIETNAMESE.

WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT DEFINING SCRIPT-BASED RULES OR EVEN LANGUAGE-BASED RULE. IN THE SENSE THAT CERTAIN CHARACTERS ARE CONSIDERED EQUIVALENT IN CHINA, MAY OR MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED EQUIVALENT IN SINGAPORE, ALTHOUGH WE BOTH USED SIMPLIFIED SCRIPTS.

THERE ARE MORE ISSUES. LIKE I SAY, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE IN THE EARLIER, UNICODE, SIMILAR CHINESE CHARACTERS MULTIPLE TIMES IN UNICODE. THERE ARE A LOT MORE OUT THERE. AND SIMILAR IS ALSO PRETTY SUBJECTIVE, DEPENDING ON WHICH LANGUAGE YOU ARE DEALING WITH. FOR EXAMPLE, THE EXAMPLE I SHOWED HERE, THE TWO, THE FIRST TRADITIONAL CHARACTER SHOWN ON THE SCREEN, IS (INAUDIBLE), WHICH IS TWO, IS EQUIVALENT TO THE SECOND ONE, IF YOU ARE JAPANESE, AND THE TOP ONE IF YOU ARE A CHINESE LIVING IN CHINA OR SINGAPORE. IT'S REALLY SUBJECTIVE. THEY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT ALL THE TIME. SO THIS IS THE THIRD TIME BUT LET ME EMPHASIZE AGAIN. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO RESPECT DIFFERENT USE OF THE SAME LANGUAGE IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES/REGION. THERE WOULDN'T BE ONE STANDARD FOR THE SAME LANGUAGE, WHICH IS WHY WE USE RFC 3066.

SO WE HAVE CHINESE IN TAIWAN, WHICH MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM CHINESE FROM CN.

IT'S ALSO REASON WHY WE RECOMMEND INR REGISTRY TO REGISTER LANGUAGE TABLES BASED ON PER LANGUAGE PER TLDS, BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE WON'T BE A SINGLE LANGUAGE TABLE ACROSS ALL THE WORLD. THE LANGUAGES ARE USED VERY MUCH IN THE OWN LOCALE.

WHICH GETS TO MY LANGUAGE TABLES. THIS IS ANOTHER CONCEPT THAT WAS INTRODUCED BY THE JET GUIDELINE. IT'S A PER LANGUAGE, PER REGISTRY TABLES, WHICH YOU CAN REGISTER WITH IANA, THE ADDRESS SHOWN BELOW. THE GUIDELINES ACTUALLY INTRODUCED A TABLE FORMAT WHICH IS COMPOSED OF THREE DIFFERENT COLUMN. THE FIRST COLUMN LISTS ALL THE ALLOWED CODE POINTS. SO YOU LOOK AT UNICODE, YOU LOOK AT THE CHARACTERS THAT MAKE SENSE IN YOUR LANGUAGE AND YOU PUT THEM IN THE FIRST COLUMN.

THEN YOU PUT THE EQUIVALENT OF THE PREFERRED VARIANTS OF THAT CHARACTERS ON THE SECOND COLUMN. AND THE REST OF THE VARIANTS ON THE THIRD COLUMN. THIS ACTUALLY ALLOWS AN ALGORITHM FOR PREFERRED VARIANTS AND RESERVED VARIANTS FROM THE DOMAIN NAME THAT HAS BEEN REGISTERED. SO THE JET GUIDELINE CAN IMPLEMENT. IT'S NOT COMPLICATED BECAUSE WE DON'T TRY TO BE INTELLIGENT, BUT WE TRY TO REDUCE CONFUSION. SO THE ALGORITHM IS, IF I DON'T REMEMBER, LESS THAN 20 LINES OF CODES THAT YOU CAN IMPLEMENT TO GENERATE ALL THESE PREFERRED VARIANTS AND POSSIBLE VARIANTS.

THE PART THAT IS OUTSIDE THIS JET GUIDELINE IS THE TABLES ITSELF. THE JET GUIDELINE DEFINES THE FORMAT, DEFINES THE WAY THAT YOU REGISTER THE TABLES, AND HOW YOU STRUCTURE AND THE ALGORITHM THAT GENERATES, BUT IT DOES NOT DEFINE THE TABLES. WE RECOMMEND EVERY TLD OPERATOR REGISTER THEIR OWN TABLES WITH IANA.

OF COURSE, WE ACTUALLY PUT THEM INTO A PACKAGE. THE IDN PACKAGE, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, IS REGISTERED TO ONE REGISTRANT. SO YOU DON'T GET ONE NAME FOR ONE REGISTRANT BUT INSTEAD YOU GET A PACKAGE REGISTERED TO ONE REGISTRANT. AND IT'S AUTOMATIC, WHICH MEANS IF YOU DO DELETE, NORMAL DNS OPERATIONS, FUNCTIONS, THEY ARE HANDLED AS A SINGLE PACKAGE.

WHAT WE DO IS WE DO PUT ALL THE PREFERRED VARIANTS INTO A ZONE FILE, AND ALL THE REST THAT'S RESERVED OFF OF THAT ZONE FILE. THIS IS FOR MANAGEABILITY. THIS IS SO SOMEONE CAN TYPE SOMETHING IN AND GET A RESULT. BECAUSE YOU HAVE A SET OF DOMAIN NAMES RESERVED FOR THEM SO THE REGISTRANT CAN COME BACK LATER AND ACTIVATE OR DEACTIVATE DOMAIN NAMES RESERVED FOR THEM IF THEY DO FIND THAT'S USEFUL.

WHY? WHY ACTUALLY DO THIS?

WELL, HAN IDEOGRAPH ESPECIALLY IN CHINESE IS COMMON TO HAVE TWO OR MORE VARIANTS BECAUSE OF TRADITIONAL SIMPLIFIED AND BECAUSE OF THAT VARIANTS AND BECAUSE OF THE HAN SCRIPT (INAUDIBLE).

SOMETIMES IT'S POSSIBLE TO GET MORE THAN TEN DIFFERENT VARIANTS FOR A SINGLE CHARACTERS, SINGLE HAN SCRIPTS. AND IMAGINE IF YOU HAVE A DOMAIN NAME WITH TEN CHARACTERS, AND THAT'S VERY COMMON, BECAUSE NAMES IN CHINESE ARE PRETTY LONG. YOU LOOK AT CNNIC, AND I KNOW CNNIC PEOPLE ARE HERE, BUT ASK CNNIC TO GIVE YOU THE CNNIC IN CHINESE AND YOU CAN COUNT THE NUMBER OF CHARACTERS. IT'S PRETTY LONG.

SO TEN HAN SCRIPT, THE LONGEST, I BELIEVE, DURING ONE OF THE CDNC MEETING THEY WERE DISCUSSING, THERE'S ONE STRING IDN THAT GENERATED MORE THAN 10,000 VARIANTS. SO IMAGINE WITHOUT THIS GUIDELINE YOU HAVE A REGISTRANT THAT COMES ALONG AND REGISTER A CHINESE DOMAIN NAME AND SAYS ACTUALLY YOU NEED TO REGISTER 10,000 TIMES. AS A REGISTRAR AND REGISTRY, PROBABLY THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. INSTEAD OF COLLECTING $30, I WILL COLLECT $300,000 FOR THAT SINGLE NAME.

BUT THAT DOESN'T REALLY MAKES SENSE FOR A REGISTRANT. AND HERE WE ARE, THE MAIN PURPOSE OF JET IS FIND A WAY TO INSTITUTE CONSUMER PROTECTION.

THIS IS -- I THINK THIS IS MY LAST SLIDE. I JUST WANT TO TOUCH BACK ON LANGUAGE GROUP.

THE JET GUIDELINE PROVIDE A FRAMEWORK, BUT IT'S ONLY A FRAMEWORK. THE TABLES ARE REALLY GENERATED BY THE LANGUAGE GROUP. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE CDNC, THE JDNA WORKING. AND I KNOW (INAUDIBLE) ALSO HAVE A LINGUISTIC GROUP WORKING ON THEIR OWN LANGUAGE.

WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY IS ONLY YOU KNOW YOUR OWN LANGUAGE. I CAN'T DO ARABIC. I CAN'T DO HEBREW, I CAN'T DO FRENCH, GERMAN. I JUST CAN'T. I DON'T KNOW THEM. ONLY YOU KNOW YOUR OWN LANGUAGE. AND YOU HAVE TO START EARLY. REMEMBER, JET STARTED IN 2001. WE PUBLISHED OUR INTERNET DRAFT IN 2004. SO IF YOU START YOUR WORK NOW, YOU'LL BE LUCKY TO HAVE YOUR TABLES FINALIZED IN 2007. IT'S A LONG TIME.

AND AS YOU KNOW, THE USER IS, AS JOHN SAID AND AS OUR COLLEAGUE FROM CHINA AT LARGE SAYS THERE'S A PENT UP DEMAND OF USERS FOR DOMAIN NAMES.

ANOTHER THING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THERE'S NO SINGLE GROUP THAT CAN CLAIM TO KNOW ALL THE LANGUAGES OR REPRESENT THE WHOLE MULTILINGUAL INTERNET. THERE'S NO SUCH THING. THE MULTILINGUAL INTERNET IS A VERY FRAGMENTED GROUP. EACH REGION CAN HANDLE ITS OWN LANGUAGE AND THAT'S ALL.

WE ARE HERE TO HELP BUT WE CANNOT DO THE WORK FOR YOU. THANK YOU.

OH, YEAH, THERE ARE SOME READING.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>PAUL VERHOEF: JAMES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE ROOM FOR HIM?

IF SO, I GUESS THERE IS A MICROPHONE. YES, PLEASE, COME TO THE FRONT. AND IF YOU WOULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF.

>>HORACIO CADIZ: HORACIO CADIZ FROM THE PHILIPPINES. WOULD THAT INCLUDE THE ENGLISH EQUIVALENT? LET'S SAY IT SAYS DOUBLE HAPPINESS IN CHARACTERS. WOULD PART OF THAT SET INCLUDE THE ENGLISH EQUIVALENT?

>>JAMES SENG: THE SIMPLE ANSWER -- OKAY. THE SIMPLE ANSWER THAT I'LL GIVE YOU IS YES. THE MORE CORRECT ANSWER IS THAT IT DEPENDS ON THE REGISTRY'S, BECAUSE REMEMBER THE TABLE IS DEFINED BY REGISTRY, PER LANGUAGE.

>>HORACIO CADIZ: HOW IS IT IMPLEMENTED IN SG?

>>JAMES SENG: IN SG WE HAVE -- MOST OF THE COUNTRIES I KNOW OF HAS LATIN CHARACTERS TOGETHER WITH THEIR OWN LANGUAGE IN THE TABLES. THAT'S WHY THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS YES.

>>HORACIO CADIZ: A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION WOULD BE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE -- WHEN YOU DO THE CHARACTERS, IT SEEMS TO BE SIMILAR TO A SYNONYM IN ENGLISH. IS THAT TRUE OR IS THAT A BAD ANALOGY?

>>JAMES SENG: I HAVE GIVE UP TRYING TO DO ANALOGY BETWEEN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES. FOR SOMETIMES I'M TRYING TO SAY TRADITION AND SIMPLIFIED CHINESE IS LIKE UPPER CASE AND LOWER CASE, AND THAT IS AT BEST A BAD ANALOGY. AND IF YOU SAY SYNONYMS, IT'S ALSO A BAD ANALOGY BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS.

EACH LANGUAGE IS UNIQUE. AND PROBLEMS FACED IN EACH LANGUAGE IS -- CANNOT BE EXPLAINED PROPERLY IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE. ONLY THE INDIVIDUALS CAN -- LANGUAGE CREW WILL BE ABLE TO DEFINE IT PROPERLY.

>>HORACIO CADIZ: THANKS.

>>PAUL VERHOEF: OKAY. ARE THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, THEN WE WILL PROCEED.

I WANT TO THANK JAMES FOR HIS PRESENTATION.

WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT TOPIC, WHICH IS LANGUAGE DEFINITION WITH CHARACTER VARIANTS FROM WALTER WU, WHO IS ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CNNIC.

>>WALTER WU: OKAY, THANK YOU, AND GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. I'M VERY GLAD TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THE EXPERIENCE THAT -- WHAT CNNIC HAS DONE IN THE IDN FIELD.

ACTUALLY, IN MY PRESENTATION, THERE WILL BE FOUR PARTS. THE FIRST PART, I WILL GIVE MILESTONES FOR IDN DEVELOPMENT IN CHINA. AND THEN I WILL INTRODUCE THE (INAUDIBLE) CORPORATION WITH SOME INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN THE IDN FIELD. AND THEN I WILL INTRODUCE LANGUAGE DEFINITION WITH CHARACTER VARIANTS. AND ALSO, ANOTHER PART IS CNNIC'S IDN OFFERING AND SERVICES.

ALSO, IDN BEGAN R & D IN THE YEAR OF 1998. AND AT THE TIME THAT CNNIC BEGINS R & D IN IDN FIELD, ACTUALLY FROM A MEDIA IN CHINA HAS REALIZED AND RECOGNIZED THIS TOPIC. AND I REMEMBER THERE IS ARTICLE THAT INTRODUCE IDN R & D IS "IDN: THE LAST FORTH ON USING INTERNET." AT THAT TIME A LOT OF INTERNET COMMUNITY IN CHINA BEGINS TO RECOGNIZE A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF INTERNET DEVELOPMENT IN CHINA.

AFTER MAYBE TWO YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT FROM JANUARY 18, THE YEAR OF 2000 LAUNCHED REGISTRY AND SYSTEM. AND ON MAY 20 IN THE SAME YEAR, CNNIC COOPERATE WITH (INAUDIBLE) AND MONIC TO FORM A CHINESE DOMAIN NAME CONSORTIUM. AND THAT ORGANIZATION COMES INTO EXISTENCE IN BEIJING. AND IN THE YEAR OF 2000, NOVEMBER 1ST, CNNIC PUBLISHED THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY FOR IDN. AND ALSO UPGRADE THE TEST BED FOR THE FIRST TIME. IN MAY IN YEAR OF 2003 WITH INVOLVEMENT OF JP NIC BEGAN DRAFT RFC 3743 TO IETF. ACTUALLY, AT THAT TIME, THE NAME IS NOT RFC BUT LATER, THAT WAS DEVELOPED TO RFC. AND ON MAY -- IN MAY OF 2003, CNNIC IDN DNS SYSTEM CONFORMS TO IETF IDN STANDARD, AND ALSO AT THE SAME TIME, CNNIC BEGAN TO CHARGE FROM IDN. THAT MEANS ACTUALLY CNNIC OPERATE A FREE TEST BED FROM THE YEAR OF 2002 UNTIL THE YEAR OF 2003. AND IN THIS YEAR, IN APRIL, RFC 3743 GETS APPROVED AND PUBLISHED BY IETF.

OKAY. SO LET'S LOOK AT THE -- LET'S LOOK AT THE INVOLVEMENT IN THE INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN THE IDN FIELD.

CNNIC ACTUALLY HAS VERY GOOD PARTNERSHIP WITH TWNIC, HKNIC, MONIC, JPNIC AND KRNIC. AND THEY GOT INVOLVED IN DISCUSSION AND CONTRIBUTION TO RFC 3490 AND 3491, 3492. AND ALSO WORKING WITH OUR PARTNERS, WE GOT INVOLVED IN THE JOINT R & D IN RFC 3473. AND ALSO, CNNIC PLAY VERY ACTIVE ROLE IN THE PARTICIPATION FOR MULTIPLE INTERNATIONAL IDN DISCUSSIONS.

NOW, LET'S LOOK AT THE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS FOR CHINESE SPEAKING COUNTRIES WHEN THEY INVITE IDN. LANGUAGE DEFINITION WITH CHARACTER VARIANTS. ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, FOR SOME VERY GOOD REASONS, CHINESE CHARACTERS ARE DIVIDED INTO SEVERAL DIFFERENT FORMS. THERE ARE SIMPLIFIED CHINESE CHARACTERS AND TRADITIONAL CHINESE CHARACTERS, AND ACTUALLY, THEY ARE THE DIFFERENT CHARACTER FORMS THAT EXACT SAME MEANING. JUST LIKE IN ENGLISH YOU HAVE LETTERS AND CAPITALIZED LETTERS.

AND AT THE SAME TIME, BESIDES SIMPLIFIED CHINESE CHARACTERS AND TRADITIONAL CHINESE CHARACTERS, THERE ARE STILL SOME OTHER FORMS WITH CHINESE CHARACTERS. FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE A CHINESE DOMAIN NAME. (INAUDIBLE) IS ACTUALLY A DOMAIN NAME MADE OF FOUR CHARACTERS.

OKAY? LET'S CONTINUE TO SEE THIS EXAMPLE.

ACTUALLY, THE DOMAIN NAME FOR (INAUDIBLE) UNIVERSITY'S CHINESE CHARACTER, THERE ARE FOUR CHARACTERS FOR THIS DOMAIN NAME. AND EVERY CHARACTER FROM THE FIRST ONE HAS DIFFERENT FORMS. AND FOR "WA," FOUR DIFFERENT FORMS, AND FOR "SHU," ALSO THREE DIFFERENT FORMS.

ALSO, FOR THE TRADITIONAL CHARACTERS ONLY, THERE'S ONLY ONE FORM, (INAUDIBLE), AND ALSO THE SIMPLIFIED CHARACTERS ONLY, ALSO ANOTHER FORM: (INAUDIBLE). BUT THERE ARE STILL 25 VARIANTS, CHARACTER VARIANTS FOR THIS DOMAIN NAME.

ACTUALLY, JUST NOW JAMES IN HIS PRESENTATION SAID ACTUALLY EVERY ORGANIZATION, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO PROTECT EVERY CHARACTER VARIANT NAME. SO OUR SOLUTION IS ACTUALLY WHEN PEOPLE REGISTER A SIMPLIFIED CHARACTER DOMAIN NAME, HE WILL GET TRADITIONAL CHARACTER DOMAIN NAME AUTOMATICALLY. AND IF THE PEOPLE REGISTER A TRADITIONAL FORM AND HE WILL GET A SIMPLIFIED CHARACTER FORM.

AND SOMETIMES, BECAUSE IN SOME REGIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN HONG KONG AND PEOPLE HAVE A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE HABIT AND SOMETIMES THE YOUTH CULTURE VARIES. SO IF A CUSTOMER IN HONG KONG REGISTER A CHARACTER VARIANT FORM AND AT THE SAME TIME HE WILL GET SIMPLIFIED CHARACTER FORM AND THE TRADITIONAL CHARACTER FORM. THAT MEANS ALL OF THREE DOMAIN NAMES WILL BE PUT IN THE ZONE FILE. BUT IF THE DOMAIN NAMES STILL HAVE SOME MORE CHARACTER VARIANTS AND ALL OF CHARACTER VARIANTS DOMAIN NAMES WILL BE PRESERVED. BUT NOT PUT IN THE ZONE FILE.

AND ACTUALLY, ANOTHER SPECIAL ISSUE IS THE DIVERSITY OF SOME LABEL SEPARATORS, SUCH AS THE FULL STOP, IN ENGLISH VERSION, AND IN THE CHINESE VERSION. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ENGLISH VERSION, THE FULL STOP WILL BE WITH A DOT BUT IN CHINESE VERSION, IT IS A CIRCLE.

AND OF COURSE, THEY SHOULD BE EQUAL IN THE IDN DEPLOYMENT. AND ALSO THE SAME SITUATION FOR SOME FULL WIDTH AND HALF-WIDTH CHARACTERS. AND ALL THE ISSUES NEED TO BE TAKEN IN CAREFULLY, AND ADDRESSED IN THE CHINESE SPOKEN AREA.

AND IN ORDER TO SOLVE TRADITIONAL CHARACTER AND SIMPLIFIED CHARACTER EQUIVALENCE PROBLEMS, OR CURRENT SOLUTION, ACTUALLY, JUST AS I INTRODUCED JUST NOW IS FOR VARIANT PROBLEM IS BASED ON THE RFC 3743. AND CURRENTLY, THE LANGUAGE SET WE DEFINE IS ZH-CN AND ZH-TW. AND USE TWO TABLE. THE LANGUAGE VARIANT TABLE FOR ZH-CN AND LANGUAGE VARIANT TABLE FOR ZH-TW. THE FIRST COLUMN AND THIRD COLUMN ARE THE SAME IN TWO TABLES. THAT MEANS THE SCOPE OF CHINESE CHARACTERS OF ZH-CN AND ZH-TW ARE THE SAME AND THE NUMBER OF VARIANT COMBINATIONS ARE ALSO THE SAME.

AND THE NUMBER OF VALID CHINESE CHARACTERS IS APPROXIMATELY 20,000, AND INCLUDES MOST OF THE FREQUENTLY USED CHINESE CHARACTERS.

WHEN CUSTOMERS REGISTER IDN, HE WILL GET A PACKAGE, THE CURRENT SOLUTION IS FIRST, THE ORIGINAL FORM HE SUBMIT, AND THEN THE TRADITIONAL CHARACTER ONLY FORMAT, AND THE SIMPLIFIED CHARACTER FORMAT. ALL THESE REGISTRY WILL BE ADDED TO (INAUDIBLE) AND (INAUDIBLE) WILL BE BASED ON CHINESE CHARACTER FORMAT TABLE PRESERVED.

AND NOW WE WILL BEGIN TO ANOTHER TOPIC ABOUT THE CNNIC'S IDN OFFERING AND THE SERVICE. AND CURRENTLY, ACTUALLY CNNIC OFFER THE IDN CLIENT BASED ON THE OPERATING SYSTEM WINDOWS 98, WINDOWS 98 OR ABOVE. AND INTERNET EXPLORER AND (INAUDIBLE) CLIENT SIDE BLOCKING SOFTWARE.

AND ALSO, THERE ARE SOME OTHER CHINESE SOFTWARE PACKAGE BEGIN TO SUPPORT IDN. FOR INSTANCE, THE FOXMAIL 5.0 VERSION. FOXMAIL IS E-MAIL SOFTWARE, JUST LIKE THE OUTLOOK EXPRESS AND THERE ARE MANY INTERNET USERS USE FOXMAIL IN MAINLAND CHINA. AND ALSO, CURRENTLY THERE ARE SOME OTHER BROWSERS, SUCH AS MOZILLA, OPERA, FIREBIRD CAN SUPPORT IDN.

AND CURRENTLY IN CHINA INTERNET COMMUNITY, A LOT OF PEOPLE BEGIN TO EXPLORE THE APPLICATION FOR IDN E-MAIL. AND SOME TEST BED FOR IDN E-MAIL HAS BEEN DEVELOPED BY SOME ENTITY IN CHINA. AND CURRENTLY, BECAUSE WE HAVE UPGRADE THE IDN TEST BED INTO A REGISTRY SYSTEM, AND NOW WE OFFER TO REGISTER 24 HOURS AND SEVEN DAY SUPPORT TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS THEY MEET IN THE IDN USAGE.

AND ALSO, FOR THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM, AND CNNIC NOW HAS SET UP A DRP SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZED CIETAC AS BEFORE OPERATION CENTER -- I MEAN AS DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR IDN.

AND VERY BASIC, SOME DETAILS ABOUT THE IDN DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN CHINA. FROM THE YEAR 2001, IN JANUARY, TO 2004, JUNE, CIETAC TOGETHER ACCEPTED 62 DISPUTE CASES, AND 34 ARE DOMESTIC CASES AND 28 OVERSEA CASES.

AND THE DISPUTE -- THE CIETAC MAKE THE JUDGMENT FOR 57 CASES. AND, MAYBE MORE THAN HALF, 39 CASES, THE JUDGMENT IS TRANSFER OF A DOMAIN NAME AND ALSO REJECT FIVE CASES.

AND THE RESULTS FOR THE DRP OF IDN IN CHINA IS VERY GOOD, BECAUSE THERE IS NEARLY NO COMPLIANCE FOR THE JUDGMENT, THAT MEANS THERE'S NO DOMAIN NAME HOLDERS GO TO COURT AFTER A JUDGMENT BY CIETAC.

AND CNNIC ALSO ACTUALLY GAVE OFFERING A LOT OF MARKETING ACTIVITIES FOR THE IDN. BECAUSE WE HOPE TO INCREASE AWARENESS FOR THE INTERNET USERS IN CHINA. CNNIC HOLDS THE ROAD SHOW CAMPAIGNS AND SUPPORT FROM CCTV, ACTUALLY, JUST NOW, IN LAST PRESENTATION MADE BY MR. FENG, AND THERE IS A SLIDE TO SAY IN THE WEATHER FORECASTING PROGRAM, THEY BEGAN TO USE THE WEATHER.CN, THE CHINESE WEATHER.CN, THIS KIND OF DOMAIN NAME. AND ALSO FROM REGISTRAR AND BEGIN TO MAKE SOME ONLINE NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE ADVERTISEMENTS IN CHINA.

AND ALSO CNNIC HAS GOT THE EXPERIENCE TO MAKE CUSTOMER USAGE EXPERIENCE SURVEY. AND ALSO IN CHINA, GOT THE LOCAL INTERNET COMMUNITY SUPPORT.

OKAY. THAT IS MY PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>PAUL VERHOEF: WALTER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS INTERESTING PRESENTATION.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR? YES, PLEASE.

CAN YOU COME UP, GIVE YOUR NAME TO THE SCRIBES, AND THEN MENTION IT AT THE MICROPHONE.

THANK YOU.

>> INDRA K.H: I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW TO CNNIC, ARE YOU OFFERING THE SECOND-LEVEL DOMAIN OR THE THIRD-LEVEL TO THE PUBLIC?

>>WALTER WU: OKAY. CURRENTLY, CNNIC OFFERED THREE KINDS OF CHINESE DOMAIN NAMES.

ONE IS CHINESE.CN. AND ANOTHER IS THE CHINESE.(INAUDIBLE) THAT MEANS MULTILINGUAL COMPANY, DOT CN, AND CHINESE.(SPEAKING CHINESE) THAT MEANS MULTILINGUAL NETWORK DOT CN.

>> INDRA K.H: OKAY. DO YOU HAVE CERTAIN RESERVED NAME?

>>WALTER WU: YES. ACTUALLY, AT THE BEGINNING OF IDN TEST BED, WE HAVE A SUNRISE POLICY.

>> INDRA K.H: I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHETHER, ARE THERE ANY GEOGRAPHICAL RESERVED NAMES FOR THE IDN IN CNNIC IN.

>>WALTER WU: OKAY, OKAY, SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR MEANING.

ACTUALLY, JUST LIKE I MENTIONED IN THE PRESENTATION, CURRENTLY, WE -- OUR REGISTRATION POLICY IS, IF A PERSON REGISTER SIMPLIFIED CHARACTERS, HE WILL GET TWO FORMS: THE SIMPLIFIED CHARACTERS AND THE TRADITIONAL CHARACTERS.

IF THE DOMAIN NAME HE SUBMIT CONTAINS OR INCLUDES SOME FORMS OF CHARACTER VARIANTS, ALL OF THE VARIANTS WILL BE PRESERVED, BUT NOT PUT IN (INAUDIBLE).

>> INDRA K.H: OKAY. MY QUESTION WILL ARISE FROM MORE INTERESTING ONE, BECAUSE PERHAPS WE AS INDONESIAN PEOPLE WILL NOT BE VERY HAPPY IF THERE IS SOMEONE WHO REGISTER (INAUDIBLE), FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S FOR INDONESIAN IN CHINESE, OR INDONESIA, OR MAYBE PEOPLE FROM U.S.A. MAY BE VERY UNHAPPY TO SEE WHETHER THERE IS A (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE) REGISTERED FOR SOMEONE ELSE.

>>WALTER WU: WE HAVE RESERVED THE COUNTRY NAMES AND CITY NAMES.

>> INDRA K.H: OKAY.

>>WALTER WU: FOR SOME IMPORTANT CHARACTERS.

>> INDRA K.H: PERHAPS WE CAN TALK MORE LATER AFTER THIS.

THANK YOU.

>>PAUL VERHOEF: THANK YOU.

I THINK YOU OPENED UP A WHOLE NEW DISCUSSION ON SOMETHING RATHER COMPLEX.

ARE THERE MORE QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER? NO.

OKAY. THEN WE MOVE ON.

WALTER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

HIRO HOTTA-SAN, DIRECTOR FROM JPRS, WITH THE NEXT PRESENTATION.

WE ARE GOING TO PUT THE CABLE ON HIS COMPUTER, AND THEN HE IS READY.

>>HIRO HOTTA: YES, I'VE GOT IT.
OKAY.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS HIRO HOTTA, FROM JPRS, CCTLD REGISTRY.

WE LAUNCHED OUR IDN SERVICE, THE JAPANESE DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION SERVICE THREE AND A HALF YEARS AGO. AND WE HAVE SOME EXPERIENCES ON THE IDNS. SO TODAY, LET ME TALK ABOUT THE IDN-ENABLED APPLICATIONS EXPERIENCE. SO THE TITLE IS THE IMMINENT NEEDS, IDN-ENABLED USER ENVIRONMENTS.

FIRST OF ALL, LET ME TALK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF JP DOMAIN NAMES.

FROM 1989, DOT JP STARTED THE REGISTRATION SERVICE IN THE THIRD-LEVEL DOMAIN NAME SPACE, WHICH CO.JP, NE.JP, AC.JP, AND SOME OTHERS. AND WE HAVE SOME GEOGRAPHIC TYPE DOMAIN NAME, NAMELY TOKYO.JP, OSAKA.JP. AND WE RESTRICT THE REGISTRATION TO ONE DOMAIN NAME PER ORGANIZATION. THAT'S VERY STRICT. AND LOCAL PRESENCE REQUIRED. THIS MEANS THAT THE REGISTRANT HAS TO HAVE JAPANESE POSTAL ADDRESS, SUCH AS COMPANY REGISTRATION IN JAPAN.

AND WE INTRODUCED THE GENERAL-USE JP DOMAIN NAME ON THE LEVEL OF SECOND. THIS IS THE BACKGROUND.

IN LATE 1990S, REGISTRATION OF DOMAIN NAMES WERE DRAMATICALLY CHANGING DEMANDS. MORE THAN ONE DOMAIN NAME PER ORGANIZATION WAS REQUIRED. SIMPLER, LOW-COST REGISTRATION PROCEDURES WERE REQUIRED. AND REGISTRATION OF SHORT-LIVED DOMAIN NAMES, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR EVENTS, T.V. COMMERCIALS AND SOMETHING. AND ALSO, JAPANESE DOMAIN NAMES ARE DEMANDED. AND ANOTHER ASPECT OF DOMAIN NAMES MARKET IS A GROWING COMPETITION WITH OTHER TLDS AND OTHER NAMING SERVICES.

SO THE JP REGISTRY DECIDED TO LAUNCH THE GENERAL-USE JP DOMAIN NAME FROM FEBRUARY 2001. THIS IS SERVICE FOR REGISTRATION AT SECOND LEVEL. ASCII LABEL AND JAPANESE LABEL CAN BE REGISTERED THERE. AND NO RESTRICTION ON THE NUMBER OF DOMAIN NAMES THAT ONE ENTITY MAY REGISTER. BUT LOCAL PRESENCE STILL REQUIRED. AND SUNRISE PERIOD TO AVOID DISPUTES. THIS MEANS PRIORITY REGISTRATION PLUS CONCURRENT REGISTRATION WERE USED.

AND INTRODUCTION OF JAPANESE JP DOMAIN NAME.

IT LOOKS LIKE THIS.

IN JAPANESE JP DOMAIN NAME CONSISTS OF CHINESE CHARACTERS, HIRAGANA AND KATAKANA, THE -- ARE THE CHARACTERS USED ONLY IN JAPAN. AND CHINESE CHARACTERS ARE USED IN CHINA, SOMETIMES IN KOREA. AND AS WELL AS ASCII CHARACTERS. THEY ONLY REGISTERED ON THE SECOND LEVEL. AND ITS LENGTH IS LIMITED TO UP TO 15 CHARACTERS.

AND THIS IS STATISTICS ABOUT THE REGISTRATION AT THE STARTUP PHASE, PRIORITY REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS. THIS MEANS TRADEMARKS, REGISTERED NAMES HAD PRIVILEGED TO REGISTER.

THE SECOND LEVEL WAS OPENED UP AT THE SAME TIME FOR ASCII AND JAPANESE SO WE CAN COMPARE THEM.

THIS IS A TOTAL NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS. FOR ASCII, 8,500, AND FOR JAPANESE, 25,000. IT MEANS ABOUT THREE TIMES MORE JAPANESE DOMAINS WERE APPLIED. SO THIS SHOWS A KIND OF BIG DEMAND FOR JAPANESE DOMAIN NAMES.

AND START-UP PHASE TWO, THE CONCURRENT REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS. AFTER THE PRIORITY REGISTRATION PHASE, WE DID A CONCURRENT REGISTRATION PHASE. THIS MEANS THAT THE -- TWO OR MORE APPLICATIONS CAME IN A PERIOD. IT MEANS IN THREE WEEKS, THEY WERE CONSIDERED TO BE -- TO ARRIVE TO US AT THE SAME TIME, AND WE DID DRAW OUT OR A LOTTERY TO DECIDE THE WINNER, THE REGISTRANT.

SO HERE, THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS IN TOTAL, MORE JAPANESE DOMAIN NAMES WERE APPLIED THAN ASCII ALSO. AND YOU SEE THAT THE -- THIS IS THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS AND THIS IS THE NUMBER OF DOMAIN NAMES REGISTERED. SO IF YOU SEE HERE, 65,000 AND 28,000, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE COMPETITION RATE WAS ABOUT 2.2 OR 2.3. THIS MEANS TWO OR MORE APPLICATIONS CAME TO A SINGLE DOMAIN NAME, IN AVERAGE.

AND WE HAVE NOW ABOUT 550 ASCII DOMAIN NAMES, PLUS 41 JAPANESE DOMAIN NAMES. I THINK THIS IS NOT CORRECT. I'M SORRY. BUT WE HAVE 55,000 -- 550,000 IN TOTAL, AND AMONG THEM, 41,000 IS JAPANESE.

SO 7% ARE JAPANESE DOMAIN NAMES. AND THIS GRAPH SHOW THE GENERAL-USE JAPANESE DOMAIN NAMES, THE TREND IS THE -- AS YOU SEE, THE ASCII DOMAIN NAMES, THE NUMBER IS STILL GROWING, BUT THE JAPANESE DOMAIN NAMES ARE DECREASING A LITTLE BIT.

AND ANOTHER STATISTIC, USAGE STATISTIC IN JAPANESE, FOR IDN, 1,000 TO 5,000 RESOLUTIONS PER DAY. THIS SEEMS NOT TO BE A REAL USAGE. USERS ARE JUST EXPERIENCING HOW IT WORKS. AND GOOGLE, I HEARD THAT OVER 200 MILLION WORLDWIDE QUERIES PER DAY. AND WE CAN GUESS THAT SEVERAL MILLIONS OF JAPANESE STRING QUERIES PER DAY. AND THE PRECISION OF THE GOOGLE SEARCH IS BEING INCREASED, WE STILL HAVE MULTIPLE RESULTS, SEARCH RESULTS.

AND KEY WORDS, IN JAPAN, VERY SMALL NUMBER OF KEY WORDS.

WITH ANOTHER MECHANISM FOR REGISTRATION AND RESOLUTION, PLUG-INS, DNS QUERY TRAPPING, AND SOME MECHANISMS SHOULD RESIDE THERE.

AND FOR KEY WORDS, REGISTRATION ACROSS KEY WORD SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE NEEDED TO GET ONE KEY WORD ALL OVER THE REGION OR ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

WHY THE NUMBER OF IDNS ARE DECREASING? POOR IDN-ENABLED ENVIRONMENT. I THINK THIS IS THE BIGGEST CONCERN.

AND EFFORTS SO FAR. KEY WORD-LIKE NAVIGATION, REALNAMES TECHNOLOGY WAS ENGAGED IN JAPAN.

AND DISTRIBUTION OF IDN-ENABLING PLUG-IN CALLED I-NAV. IT'S A PRODUCT OF VERISIGN.

AND DISTRIBUTION OF IDN-ENABLED APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT KIT, WHICH WAS DEVELOPED BY JPNIC, AND PROVIDING WEB REDIRECT SERVICE FOR REGISTRANTS, WHICH MEANS REDIRECTION FROM IDN URL TO ASCII DOMAIN NAME WEB PAGE.

AND WE DID USER EDUCATION. AND TWO OTHER KINDS OF EFFORTS. I WILL DESCRIBE THEM LATER.

HOWEVER, THE USER DEMANDS HAVE NOT YET BEEN SATISFIED.

OKAY.

EXPERIENCE IN IDN ENVIRONMENT SO FAR.

PLUG-IN DISTRIBUTION.

WE HAVE TRIED THROUGH DOMAIN NAME RESELLERS, REGISTRARS, AND FAMOUS SOFTWARE DOWNLOAD SITES, AND BANNERS ON FAMOUS SEARCH ENGINE SITES. BUT IT HASN'T BEEN SUCCESSFUL. INTERNET USERS, ESPECIALLY CONSUMERS, ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH DOWNLOADING AND INSTALLING THEM. SHOULD BE PREINSTALLED WHEN USERS BUY PCS. SO WE TRIED PREINSTALLATION, TWO PIECES.

WE HAVE TRIED TO PERSUADE PC MANUFACTURERS AND SELLERS, BUT IT HASN'T BEEN SUCCESSFUL ALSO. NO GOOD SOLUTION FOR WHO COVERS THE COST. AUTO UPDATING IS TECHNICALLY NECESSARY, BUT PREINSTALLERS DO NOT LIKE CHANGE OF THE SOFTWARE AFTER PREINSTALLATION. SO WHO HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY? THAT'S THE ISSUE. AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANSWERING USERS' QUESTIONS AND CLAIMS?

STIMULATING ENVIRONMENT.

AT NATIONAL LEVEL, JAPAN HAS JAPANESE DOMAIN NAME ASSOCIATION FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT KIT FOR IDN DISTRIBUTION AND USER EDUCATION/ PROMOTION.

AND INTERNATIONAL LEVEL, SOME ACTIVITIES EXIST.

FOR EXAMPLE, IDN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS CONSORTIUM, WHICH IS TO ENCOURAGE BROWSER AND E-MAIL SOFTWARE VENDORS BY SHOWING MANY TLDS SUPPORT IDN REGISTRATION, AND TO PROPEL ADDITIONAL RELATED STANDARDIZATION SUCH AS URI FORMAT AND E-MAIL ADDRESS FORMAT, INCLUDING NON-ASCII STRING.

AND THE CONSORTIUM MEETING WILL BE HELD ON JULY 31ST, IN SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA.

I HEARD THIS. BUT WE HAVE TO CONFIRM THIS.

AND THE SECOND ONE IS IDNCONNECT.

IT IS A VERY TECHNICAL ONE, AND MULTIPLE IMPLEMENTATIONS WERE TESTED ABOUT THE INTEROPERABILITY. AND SDKS, SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT KITS, FOR IDNS ARE NOW BEING DISTRIBUTED.

AND POTENTIAL DEMANDS ON IDN.

AS YOU SEE -- SAW ON THAT SLIDE, EVIDENCE IN THE PAST SHOWS THAT THE NUMBER OF REGISTRATIONS OF IDN.COM, DOT NET, DOT ORG, SHOW THAT A MILLION REGISTRATIONS WERE EXISTENT, AND NUMBER OF REGISTRATIONS OF IDN.JP AND IDN.KR, IDN.TW, THEY HAVE AROUND 100,000 DOMAIN NAMES, IDNS, EACH.

AND NUMBER OF REGISTRATION OF IDN DOT EUROPEAN CCTLDS.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER DOT DE, THEY OBSERVED, I THINK, IF MY MEMORY IS CORRECT, 220,000 IDN REGISTRATIONS IN 90 DAYS. SO MAYBE A SMALL EXTENSION OF ASCII CHARACTERS, SUCH AS IN EUROPEAN LANGUAGES, MAY SHOW ANOTHER BIG INCREASE OF IDN REGISTRATION. SO EMERGING IN THE FUTURE, TLDS ARE ABOUT TO LAUNCH IDN REGISTRATION SERVICES. AND THE NUMBER WILL BE EXPLODING. SO WE ARE OBSERVING BIG DEMANDS.

NOW, IDN-ENABLED ENVIRONMENT IS DEMANDED TO BE DEPLOYED SWIFTLY.

SO THIS SHOWS THE IMAGE OF THE NUMBER OF REGISTRATIONS OF IDNS.

AND NECESSITY OF THE REAL IDN ENVIRONMENT.

TWO STREAMS REQUIRED, ONE SHORT TERM. IN A FEW MONTHS. NATIVE/PREINSTALLED BROWSERS AND E-MAIL SOFTWARE BECOME IDN-ENABLED. THIS IS SHORT-TERM REQUIREMENT. IT'S THAT BROWSERS AND E-MAIL SOFTWARE ARE THE KEY APPLICATIONS. AND IN MIDTERM, SAY IN A FEW YEARS, WHOLE ENVIRONMENT, ALL APPLICATIONS, BECOMES IDN-ENABLED. AND RICHER ENVIRONMENT -- I'M SORRY, THIS IS TYPO -- RICHER ENVIRONMENT AND MORE IDNS REGISTRATIONS.

CHICKEN AND EGG PROBLEM, PROMOTION BY REGISTRIES, REGISTRARS, APPLICATION VENDORS ARE NEEDED.

AND ALSO URI ELEMENTS OTHER THAN DOMAIN NAME, FOR EXAMPLE, THE LEFT PART OF "AT" MARK IN E-MAIL ADDRESS, SUCH URI -- ALL THE URI ELEMENTS SHOULD BE STANDARDIZED TO BE INTERNATIONALIZED.

RECENT EFFORTS IN IDN ENVIRONMENT DEPLOYMENT IN JAPAN.

SO I CAN GO THROUGH VERY SHORTLY.

MOBILE INTERNET USERS ARE INCREASING. IN JAPAN, WE HAVE 55 MILLION PC USERS, AND WE HAVE 27 MILLION MOBILE INTERNET USERS. WE CANNOT NEGLECT THE MOBILE ENVIRONMENT FOR IDNS. THIS SMALL PICTURE SHOWS THAT. AND FOR PCS, WE LAUNCHED A SERVICE CALLED JAPANESE JP NAVI, WHICH IS LIKE WEB-BASED-NAVIGATION OF VERISIGN. AND FOR MOBILE PHONES, IT IS NOT EASY -- IT IS NOT EASY TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE MOBILE PHONE VENDORS TO HAVE IDN-ENABLED BROWSER CAPABILITY NATIVELY IN THE MOBILE PHONE.

SO, FIRST OF ALL, WE LAUNCHED -- WELL, WE MADE A PAGE, ONE PAGE, THAT RECEIVES A JAPAN DOMAIN NAME AS INPUT AND JUMPS TO THE WEB PAGE WITH THAT JAPANESE DOMAIN NAME. THIS IS A SERVICE CALLED JAJP.JP. AND WE -- JAPAN HAS JAPANESE DOMAIN NAMES ASSOCIATION, WITH THIS URL. AND MEMBERS FROM VARIOUS SECTORS.

SO I THINK THIS IS THE LAST SLIDE.

SYNERGY, IDN ENVIRONMENT.

IDN ENVIRONMENT, INTERNET USERS, AND REGISTRATIONS.

THREE ELEMENTS SHOULD GROW WITH SYNERGY TO ACCEPT THE IDNS. BUT SO FAR, THREE ELEMENTS HAVE NOT GROWN SO FAR. SO BECAUSE OF THE CHICKEN AND EGG PROBLEM.

AND SEEMS TO BE A NEGATIVE FEEDBACK. BECAUSE YOU SAW THAT THE GRAPH OF DOT JP -- IDN.JP IS A LITTLE BIT DECREASING. HOWEVER, REGISTRATIONS, THIS MEANS POTENTIAL DEMANDS, ARE RAPIDLY GROWING. AS YOU SEE, THE REGISTRATION OF IDNS, ESPECIALLY IN EUROPEAN CCTLDS, ARE RAPIDLY GROWING. SO USER ENVIRONMENT IS NOW NEEDED.

THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>PAUL VERHOEF: HIRO HOTTA-SAN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THIS IS VERY INTERESTING. I GUESS IT SHOWS THAT OUTSIDE THE DNS ENVIRONMENT, A LOT NEEDS TO BE DONE AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.

I HOPE WE HAVE A NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE VARIOUS SECTORS AND ORGANIZATIONS HERE WHO LISTEN.

ARE THERE QUESTIONS ON THIS? I DON'T SEE ANY QUESTIONS, I THINK.

NO?

THEN I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU.

>>HIRO HOTTA: THANK YOU.

>>PAUL VERHOEF: AND WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PRESENTATION.

CAN I ASK WHETHER REPRESENTATIVES FROM KRNIC AND -- ARE HERE? THERE'S ONLY ONE OF THEM.

EXPERIENCE ON IDN AND KEY WORDS.

YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

>>KANG AHNGU: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

HELLO, EVERYONE.
I AM VERY HONORED TO HAVE A CHANCE OF GIVING A SPEECH.

LET ME INTRODUCE MYSELF FIRST. MY NAME IS KANG AHNGU, AND I AM INVOLVED IN DOMAIN NAME MANAGEMENT TEAM AT KOREAN NETWORK INFORMATION CENTER.

TODAY, I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF OUR WORK IN THE FIELD OF INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES. I HOPE THIS PRESENTATION WILL HELP YOU BETTER UNDERSTANDING DEPLOYMENT OF HANGEUL.KR.

THIS PRESENTATION WILL TAKE ABOUT 15 MINUTES, AND I WOULD BE GLAD TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.

I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THIS TALK IN THREE PARTS. THE FIRST PART DEALS WITH OVERVIEW OF DOT KR AND RULES ON HANGEUL.KR AND SECOND PART CONCERNS SUNRISE POLICY. RESULT OF SUNRISE POLICY. I WILL SHOW YOU SOME NUMBERS SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND HOW MANY REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS IS RECEIVED AND HOW MANY HANGEUL.KR DOMAIN NAME IS REGISTERED IN THIS PERIOD. AND THE LAST PART RELATES TO SERVICE REQUIREMENT IN KOREA AND CURRENT STATUS OVER HANGEUL.KR.

AFTER MY PRESENTATION, ONE OF THE KOREAN KEY WORD SERVICE PROVIDERS, NETPIA, WILL GIVE A TALK ABOUT KEY WORD SERVICE.

LET ME GIVE YOU A BRIEF INFORMATION ABOUT DOT KR.

DOT KR OPENED IN 1986. REGISTRANTS CAN REGISTER AT THIRD-LEVEL DOMAIN. AND NOW WE HAVE 13 ORGANIZATIONAL SUBDOMAINS LIKE CO.KR, AC.KR FOR ACADEMIC, AND RE.KR FOR SEARCH INSTITUTE. AND WE ALSO HAVE 16 GEOGRAPHICAL SUBDOMAINS, LIKE SEOUL.KR, JEJU.KR, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THE EARLY STAGE OF DOT KR, ONE REGISTRANT HAS ONLY ONE DOMAIN NAME. BUT SINCE JULY 1999, THERE IS NO SUCH RESTRICTIONS AS ONE DOMAIN NAME PER ORGANIZATION. AFTER THEN, THE NUMBER OF KR DOMAIN NAMES INCREASED RAPIDLY. THOSE WHO WANT TO REGISTER DOT KR DOMAIN NAME MUST HAVE A PHYSICAL ADDRESS IN KOREA. IN AUGUST 2003, WE INTRODUCED HANGEUL.KR. IT HAS BEEN A MASSIVE CHANGE IN KR HISTORY, BECAUSE REGISTRANT CAN REGISTER KR DOMAIN AT SECOND LEVEL DIRECTLY. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF KR DOMAIN NAMES IS ABOUT 613,000 AS OF JULY 16TH, 2004.

LET'S FIND MORE ABOUT HANGEUL.KR. THIS SHOWS THAT THE RULES ON HANGEUL.KR.

IN GENERAL, ONLY ALPHANUMERIC CHARACTERS, HYPHEN, AND HANGEUL ARE USED IN DOMAIN NAME. SAME AS ASCII DOMAIN, HANGEUL.KR CANNOT BEGIN OR END WITH A HYPHEN. ALSO, AS YOU KNOW, THE THIRD AND FOURTH CHARACTERS MUST NOT BE HIGH FENCE. HANGEUL.KR MUST CONTAIN -- MUST INCLUDE AT LEAST 100 HANGEUL CHARACTERS. THE NUMBER ALLOWED HANGEUL CHARACTERS ARE 2,350 BASED ON KSX 1001. HANGEUL.KR MUST CONTAIN MORE THAN TWO CHARACTERS AND LESS THAN 17. KRNIC HAS LISTED THE WORDS THAT CANNOT BE REGISTERED AS A DOMAIN NAME. WE HAVE 769 POTENTIAL PUBLIC DOMAIN NAMES, AND ALSO WE HAVE 60 ABUSIVE WORDS.

THE ROLLOUT OF HANGEUL.KR BEGAN WITH A SUNRISE PERIOD. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THIS TIMETABLE.

YOU CAN SEE THREE DIFFERENT STAGE. THE FIRST STAGE IS FOR RESERVED WORDS, TRADEMARKS, AND COMPANY NAMES. RESERVED WORDS IS FOR ETHNIC ORGANIZATIONS, LIKE GOVERNMENT, LAW, EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. AS FOR TRADEMARK AND COMPANY NAMES, KRNIC ENCOURAGED ALL ORGANIZATIONS WISHING TO PROTECT THEIR TRADEMARKS AND COMPANY NAMES. IN HANGEUL.KR TO FILE AN APPLICATION DURING THIS SIX WEEKS.

THE FIRST STAGE WAS FOLLOWED BY A PREPARATION PERIOD, FOR REVIEWING APPLICATIONS AND TAKING OUR LOTTERY. DURING THIS PERIOD, KRNIC DID NOT ACCEPT ANY APPLICATIONS.

THE SECOND STAGE, ONE DOMAIN PER CERTIFICATION. IN THIS STAGE, CITIES IN SOUTH KOREA AND COMPANIES THAT HAS A REGISTRATION NUMBER CAN APPLY ONE DOMAIN NAME. THIS STAGE WAS ALSO FOLLOWED BY PREPARATION PERIOD.

(INAUDIBLE) DOT KR BEGAN NOVEMBER 4TH, 2003. THIS IS SOME BRIEF INFORMATION ABOUT SUNRISE POLICY, AND I WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE, AND I WILL TELL YOU MORE DETAILS ABOUT EACH STAGE.

FIRST STAGE. REGISTRATION PERIOD FOR RESERVED WORDS IS FROM AUGUST 2003 TO AUGUST 2004, FOR ONE YEAR. THIS PERIOD IS FOR ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDED IN A RESERVED WORD LIST. WE HAVE 29,716 RESERVED WORDS FOR THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS: ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AND AGENCIES, LEGISLATIVE AGENCIES, LAW, SUPREME COURT, LOCAL COURT, AND EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS LIKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, MIDDLE SCHOOL, HIGH SCHOOLS, UNIVERSITIES. AND THE NAME OF GOVERNMENTAL PROJECT.

BASED ON OUR ORIGINAL PLAN, THE RESERVED WORD LIST IS FOR ONE YEAR. AFTER ONE YEAR, THIS LIST WILL NOT BE PROTECTED ANYMORE. THAT MEANS, PEOPLE CAN REGISTER THIS RESERVED DOMAIN NAME ON FIRST COME-FIRST SERVED BASIS. BUT CURRENTLY, ONLY 5,000 RESERVED WORDS REGISTERED SO WE ARE CONSIDERING EXTENDING THIS PERIOD.

THE REGISTRATION PERIOD FOR TRADEMARKS AND COMPANY NAMES IS FROM AUGUST 19 TO SEPTEMBER 29, FOR SIX WEEKS. OWNERS OF TRADEMARKS CAN REGISTER A HANGEUL.KR DOMAIN NAME THAT IS IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR TO THE REGISTERED TRADEMARK AND COMPANY NAME. THIS PERIOD OFFERED A VALUABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR TRADEMARK OWNERS TO REFLECT THEIR MARKS ONLINE AND PROTECT THEIR MARKS FROM CYBERSQUATTER. KRNIC ALLOWED ONE NAME FOR ONE TRADEMARK AND TWO DOMAIN NAMES FOR ONE COMPANY NAME.

IN THIS PERIOD, KRNIC CHECKED THE DOMAIN NAMES BY THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE, AND THEY DETERMINED VALIDITY OF TRADEMARKS FOR 100 DOMAIN NAMES. IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE APPLICATION FOR ONE DOMAIN NAME, THE REGISTRANT IS DETERMINED BY DRAW. IN A DRAW SITUATION, A FIRST AND SECOND WINNER WAS LETTED. IF THE FIRST WINNER COMPLETES PAYMENT BEFORE THE DUE DATE, REGISTRATION FIXED. IF THE FIRST WINNER DOES NOT COMPLETE PAYMENT BEFORE DUE DATE, THE RIGHT OF REGISTRATION WILL BE TRANSFERRED THE SECOND WINNER. IF THE SECOND WINNER DOES NOT COMPLETE PAYMENT ALSO THE DOMAIN NAME WILL BE REGISTERED ON A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS. ONE DOMAIN PER CERTIFICATION.

THIS PERIOD WAS FROM OCTOBER 7TH TO OCTOBER 20TH, FOR TWO WEEKS. IN THIS PERIOD, REGISTRANTS CAN REGISTER ANY HANGEUL DOMAIN NAME BY SUBMITTING CERTIFICATION NUMBER, LIKE KOREAN CITIZENSHIP ID NUMBER OR BUSINESS REGISTRATION NUMBER.

IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE VALID APPLICATION FOR ONE DOMAIN NAME, THE REGISTRANT WAS DETERMINED BY DRAW.

AFTER THIS STAGE, HANGEUL DOMAIN NAMES ARE REGISTERED ON A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS WITH NO LIMIT TO THE NUMBER OF REGISTRATION.

THIS TABLE SHOWS THAT THE RESULT OF THE SUNRISE PERIOD. RESERVED WORD LIST CONTAINS ABOUT 30,000 WORDS, AND 4,747 NAMES WERE REGISTERED DURING SUNRISE PERIOD. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, LESS THAN 5,000 RESERVED WORDS ARE REGISTERED UP TO NOW. WE RECEIVED 25,648 APPLICATIONS FOR TRADEMARKS AND COMPANY NAMES. BUT ONLY HALF OF THE APPLICATION WERE VALID. MOST OF THE VALID APPLICATIONS WERE REGISTERED. THAT MEANS, THERE WERE NOT AS MANY MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS FOR ONE DOMAIN NAME AS WE EXPECTED.

THE TOTAL NUMBER OF WINNING DOMAIN NAME WAS 12,342. IN THIS WINNING DOMAIN NAME, 11,654 DOMAIN NAMES COMPLETED PAYMENT AND FINALLY REGISTERED.

IN THE ONE DOMAIN NAME PER CERTIFICATION STAGE, WE GOT ABOUT -- WE GOT ABOUT TWO TIMES MORE APPLICATION THAN FIRST STAGE. MOST OF THE APPLICATION WERE VALID IN THIS PERIOD. MANY APPLICATION APPLIED FOR GOOD NAMES LIKE FLOWER SHOP, BOOK STORE, THE NAME OF A MOVIE STAR AND SO FORTH. THE NUMBER OF HANGEUL DOMAIN NAMES THAT REGISTERED THE FIRST DAY IS ABOUT 17,000. TOTAL NUMBER REGISTERED IN HANGEUL.KR IN THIS PERIOD WAS 52,787.

LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT SERVICE ENVIRONMENT IN KOREA.

HANGEUL.KR SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN PUNYCODE ON USER SIDE APPLICATION BASED ON IETF IDN STANDARDS. BUT HANGEUL.KR, WITH HTTP SLASH SLASH ON THE BROWSER GOES INTO THE MSN AUDIT AUTO SEARCH DOT COM CURRENTLY. IT SHOULD BE TREATED LIKE A DOMAIN. THAT HAS BROUGHT CONFUSION AND COMPLAINTS FROM END USERS AND REGISTRANTS DUE TO LACK OF SUPPORT BY MAJOR APPLICATION VENDOR.

WE DISTRIBUTED PLUG-IN PROGRAM. WE RAN (INAUDIBLE) ALSO IN PUNYCODE TO HELP RESOLUTION OF IDN. BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THAT APPLICATION VENDORS SHOULD FOLLOW THE IDN STANDARDS SO THAT USER CAN USE IDN WITHOUT ANY PLUG-IN.

PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THIS GRAPH NOW. THIS IS A GRAPH WHICH SHOWS THE PROGRESS THAT WE HAVE MADE SO FAR. AS WE CAN SEE, THE NUMBER OF HANGEUL DOMAIN NAME SURGED ON NOVEMBER 2003. AFTER THEN, THERE WAS -- THERE HAS BEEN A SLIGHT INCREASE. TOTAL NUMBER OF REGISTERED HANGEUL.KR IS 79,581 AS OF JULY 1ST, 2004, WHICH IS 13% OF TOTAL DOT KR REGISTRATION. UP TO NOW, WE HAVE OVER 80,000 HANGEUL DOMAIN NAMES. THIS SAYS HOW MANY HANGEUL DOMAIN NAMES ARE IN OPERATION. AS YOU CAN SEE, ONLY 34 PERCENT OF HANGEUL DOMAIN NAMES ARE IN OPERATION. WE HOPE THIS WILL BE BETTER AND BETTER AS WE IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR LISTENING. THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>PAUL VERHOEF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS, IF I MAY.

>>KANG AHNGU:

>>PAUL VERHOEF: HAVE YOU GOT SIMILAR EXPERIENCES WITH YOUR DOMAIN NAME? WOULD YOU EXPECT YOUR GRAPH IN DOMAIN NAMES TO GO DOWN AS WELL LIKE IT WAS SHOWING IN JAPAN OR CAN YOU TELL ME SOMETHING ABOUT THAT?

>>KANG AHNGU: WELL, I'M NOT SURE, BUT I THINK IT'S A STEADY TREND, SO MAYBE WE ARE SHORT OF HISTORY OF HANGEUL.KR, SO I CAN'T SAY EXACTLY AT THIS TIME. BUT I THINK THERE IS A SLIGHTLY DECREASE, WE EXPECT, BECAUSE HANGEUL.KR RENEWED ON AUGUST 2, 2004, SO WE ARE A LITTLE BIT WORRIED ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE NOT MANY HANGEUL.KR DOMAIN NAME MAYBE -- THEY DON'T GO TO HANGEUL.KR FOR LACK OF SUPPORT.

>>PAUL VERHOEF: DO I HEAR FROM YOUR LAST WORDS THAT IDN SUPPORT ENVIRONMENT IS, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, ALSO A POTENTIAL PROBLEM?

>>KANG AHNGU: YES.

>>PAUL VERHOEF: ARE THERE QUESTIONS FROM THE ROOM.

YES.

>>MARTIN DÜRST: HELLO. MY NAME IS MARTIN DÜRST. I HAVE A QUESTION BOTH TO HIRO HOTTA AND TO (INAUDIBLE). FOR JAPAN, A LIMIT OF 15 CHARACTERS WAS MENTIONED; FOR KOREA, LIMIT OF 17 CHARACTERS. HOW AND WHY DID YOU USE THESE LIMITS?

>>KANG AHNGU: ACTUALLY, THAT WAS NOT MY AREA, SO I'M NOT A TECHNICIAN, SO IT IS VERY HARD TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. BUT I THINK 17 KOREAN CHARACTER, IF WE CONVERT 17 KOREAN CHARACTER TO PUNYCODE, THEN MAYBE SOME KOREAN CHARACTER EXCEED 63 CHARACTERS IN PUNYCODE. SO THAT'S WHY.

>>HIRO HOTTA: YES, THAT'S CORRECT FOR JAPANESE, ALSO.

>>PAUL VERHOEF: OKAY. THANK YOU. THE NEXT ONE.

>>ZAKI: HI, I'M ZAKI FROM MALAYSIA. I HEAR FROM YOUR PRESENTATION THAT YOU ALLOW ONLY ONE YEAR FOR THAT PRESERVED NAME AND SO ON. AND I KNOW YOU HAVE VERY ESTABLISHED UNIVERSITIES AND MANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES YOU HAVE DISCUSSED, YEAH?

SO WHEN IT'S OPEN AND PEOPLE CAN TAKE THEIR NAMES AND SO ON, ARE YOU NOT OPEN FOR LEGAL CASES AND SO ON?

>>KANG AHNGU: AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE EXPIRATION DATE OF RESERVED WORD IS AUGUST 18TH, 2004, THE NEXT MONTH. BUT WE ARE THINKING OF EXTENDING THIS PERIOD BECAUSE LESS THAN 5,000 RESERVED WORDS REGISTERED UP TO NOW. SO WE DON'T WANT TO -- ANY THIRD PARTY THAT REGISTER THIS KIND OF DOMAIN BECAUSE THAT MAKES PEOPLE CONFUSED. SO WE ARE THINKING OF EXTENDING THIS PERIOD.

>>ZAKI: JUST AN ADDITIONAL ONE BUT, I MEAN, THESE ESTABLISHED INSTITUTIONS AND SO ON HAVE BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME, AND I'M SURE ALTHOUGH THEY MIGHT NOT KNOW THEY HAVE TO (INAUDIBLE). SO THEY WOULD HAVE SOME KIND OF A SAY TO THEIR NAME. SO IT'S MAYBE NOT JUST A MATTER OF TIME. THIS IS JUST SOMETHING THAT I THOUGHT MAYBE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.

>>KANG AHNGU: YES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

>>PAUL VERHOEF: OKAY. I THINK WE HAVE A THIRD QUESTION HERE.

>>KENNY HUANG: KENNY HUANG, CO-CHAIR OF (INAUDIBLE). I SEE THE (INAUDIBLE) GROWS TREMENDOUSLY IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING IN THE MARKETING CAMPAIGN THAT YOU CAN SHARE TO OTHER CCTLD OPERATORS? THANK YOU.

>>KANG AHNGU: YES, THAT'S A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION. IN KRNIC WE PROMOTE A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAY TO -- SAY ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO REGISTER. BECAUSE WE HAVE SEVEN REGISTRARS, SO THEY CAN STRUGGLE TO -- THEY CAN TRY TO PROMOTE THE HANGEUL.KR, LIKE SOME KIND OF EVENT OR, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ONE REGISTRAR HAVE -- RECEIVE AN APPLICATION, LIKE THE NAME OF A MOVIE STAR. SO IN THAT EVENT, SO MANY PEOPLE APPLIED FOR THE DOMAIN NAMES.

DOES THAT ANSWER? YEAH.

>>PAUL VERHOEF: YES, PLEASE. COMING FROM EGYPT, IF I'M CORRECT.

>>AMR HASHEM: GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS AMR HASHEM. THANKS FOR BOTH THE PRESENTATIONS. IT IS ALWAYS INTERESTING TO SEE THINGS IN PRACTICE RATHER THAN TALKING IN THEORY. SO YOU REALLY GIVE US A FEEL OF WHAT IS IDN ABOUT. I LIKE ESPECIALLY THAT PIECE OF STATISTIC THAT YOU HAVE SHOWED IN YOUR PRESENTATION ABOUT KOREA THAT THE NUMBER OF IDN REGISTERED IN LOCAL LANGUAGE IS ONLY ABOUT 13% OF THE TOTAL, OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REGISTRATIONS UNDER THE DOT KR DOMAIN. AND WE SEE THAT THIS IS KIND OF REACHING A LEVEL OF SATURATION.

DO YOU SEE A REASON FOR THAT? DO YOU THINK THAT MAYBE IDN IS, YOU KNOW, IS GIVING MORE IMPORTANCE THAN WE ARE REALLY SEEING THAT IT IS USEFUL FOR THE PEOPLE? MAYBE THE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY GETTING USED TO USE THE NORMAL LATIN CHARACTERS AND IT IS -- IT IS A BIT TOO LATE NOW TO CHANGE THEIR PRACTICE OR WHAT?

AND ANOTHER THING, DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE ANY STATISTIC ABOUT THE NUMBER OF HITS OR HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE USING ACTUALLY THE KOREAN DOMAIN NAMES COMPARED TO THE NUMBER OF USERS THAT ARE TYPING IN THE LATIN DOMAIN NAMES, IF YOU CAN GET THIS KIND OF STATISTICS FROM THE NUMBER OF HITS OR THE NUMBER OF QUERIES THAT YOU RECEIVE ON THE DNS SERVERS FOR BOTH CASES?

THANK YOU.

>>KANG AHNGU: THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION.

THE SECOND QUESTION, YOU ASKED ME THE HITTING RATE OF HANGEUL.KR. ACTUALLY, WE HAVE NO DATA ABOUT THAT. ACTUALLY, WE HAVE THAT DATA, BUT IT IS NOT A SYSTEMIC LOG-IN SO I DIDN'T PREPARE THAT KIND OF DATA HERE. BUT I WOULD SAY THERE IS INCREASING. THERE IS INCREASING NUMBER USING HANGEUL.KR.

AND THE FIRST QUESTION, I THINK IN CASE OF HANGEUL.KR, YES, THERE IS A SATURATION TREND, BUT I THINK THE IDN ENVIRONMENT GET IMPROVED, THEN MORE PEOPLE REGISTER AT HANGEUL.KR.

DOES THAT ANSWER?

>>PAUL VERHOEF: THANK YOU.

>>KANG AHNGU: NOT SUFFICIENT?

>>PAUL VERHOEF: I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT REMARK. I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO AVOID DRAWING ANY CONCLUSIONS AT THE MOMENT, I THINK, FROM THE PERCENTAGE OF LOCAL LANGUAGE REGISTRATIONS. BECAUSE IF A PART OF THE ENVIRONMENT, AS IT IS CALLED, THE BROWSERS AND APPLICATIONS ARE NOT READY FOR IT OR THERE ARE USER PROBLEMS, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS STILL -- THERE ARE STILL PRODUCTS FROM VENDORS TO COME IN WITH THE SOLUTIONS. AND PRESUMABLY THERE IS A BIT OF USER EDUCATION. SO I THINK I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY DRAW A CONCLUSION TOO SOON ON THAT.

ARE THERE MORE QUESTIONS? NO? I THINK THERE IS A SECOND PART TO THE PRESENTATION, DO I UNDERSTAND? YEAH?

>>KANGSIK CHEON: OKAY, THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THIS IS KANGSIK CHEON WHO IS WORKING FOR NETPIA.COM. THAT IS A NATIVE LANGUAGE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER IN KOREA.

TODAY, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU KOREA'S EXPERIENCE ON KEY WORD SERVICE, SO THAT THE TITLE OF MY TALK LOOKS AS YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN.

THIS IS THE TABLE OF CONTENTS. THE FIRST, I'M GOING TO BRIEFLY TOUCH THE CONCEPT OF NLIA. SECONDLY, I WILL GIVE YOU EXPLANATION OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN KOREA PERTAINING TO NATIVE LANGUAGE INTERNET ADDRESS SERVICES. LASTLY, I'M GOING TO MENTION THE IMPACT OF NLIA ON THE SOCIETY.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINT, "ABOUT NETPIA" WILL BE SKIPPED.

FIRSTLY, I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT KEY WORD. DEFINITION ON KEY WORD VARY BETWEEN PEOPLE. SOME PEOPLE SAY KEY WORD IS WORD WHICH IS TYPED INTO SEARCH BAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINDING INFORMATION THROUGH PORTAL SITE. OTHERS SAY, ESPECIALLY MANY HERE IN ICANN MEETING, KEY WORD IS WEB SITE NAME WHICH IS A REAL NAME IN REAL LIFE -- REAL LIFE. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT IT IS TYPED INTO ADDRESS BAR INSTEAD OF SEARCH BAR.

HERE IS MY SIMPLE AND HUMBLE OPINION ON THIS. WHATEVER WORDS TYPED INTO ADDRESS BAR ARE CONSIDERED AS ADDRESS, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS ADDRESS BAR. WHEREAS, THE WORDS TYPED INTO SEARCH BARS ARE KEY WORD. ON TOP OF THAT, ONCE IT IS CONSIDERED AS ADDRESS, WE HAVE TO RESPECT ADDRESS QUERY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE QUERY MUST BE SENT TO DNS SERVER WITHOUT ANY CHANGE OR WITHOUT ANY FORM OF DISTORTION.

IN THIS LINE OF THIS VIEW AND CONSIDERING THE DEGREE OF USER CONVENIENCE, WE SEE THE INTERNET ADDRESS EVOLUTION AS THIS SLIDE.

AT THE FIRST, WE HAD IP ADDRESS, WHICH IS COMPOSED OF NUMBERS ONLY, SO THAT VERY HARD TO REMEMBER. IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THIS -- IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THE CONVENIENCE FOR ENGLISH WORD AND NON-ENGLISH WORD, RESPECTIVELY, WE PROCEED TO ENGLISH DOMAIN NAME AND INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME. HOWEVER, THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF CONVENIENCE AND NATURAL LOOK CAN BE PROVIDED BY NATIVE LANGUAGE INTERNET ADDRESS, ESPECIALLY FOR NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING WORD. HERE IS HOW NLIA IS -- NLIA LOOK LIKE.

THIS IS KOREAN AND RUSSIAN AND FRENCH AND JAPAN.

NOW LET'S MOVE ON TO WHAT IS GOING ON ABOUT NLIA IN KOREA.

NLIA IS THE FIRST SERVICE OF ITS KIND IN THE WORLD. IT IS LAUNCHED IN 1999. THE PRICE STRUCTURE IS ABOUT $80 U.S. DOLLAR FOR THE FIRST YEAR, AND THE LATER ON, WE CHARGE 50 U.S. DOLLAR A YEAR. YOU MAY THINK IT'S QUITE EXPENSIVE CONSIDERING THE PRICE OF A DOMAIN NAME IN KOREA; THAT IS USUALLY 15 U.S. DOLLAR PER YEAR.

NEVERTHELESS, NLIA IS VERY POPULAR IN KOREAN MARKET BECAUSE THE SERVICE RESPONDED TO MARKET NEEDS FOR NATIVE LANGUAGE AND CONVENIENCE. IT HAS BEEN SETTLED DOWN AS A COMMON SERVICES ALREADY. THE NUMBER OF DAILY QUERIES IS MORE THAN 20 MILLIONS. HERE WE ARE NEWS ARTICLES. ACTUALLY, KOREAN GOVERNMENT HAS INVESTED A LOT OF MONEY TO BUILD E-GOVERNMENT SERVICE ON THE WEB. BUT THE PROBLEM WAS THAT AS THIS NEWS ARTICLE READS, 70 PERCENT OF THE RESPONDENTS REPLIED THEY ARE NOT AWARE OF THE WEB SITE ADDRESS FOR E-GOVERNMENT SERVICES. IN ADDITION, JUST 13 PERCENT OF THE INTERNET USERS HAVE ACTUALLY ACCESS TO THE E-GOVERNMENT WEB SITE WITHIN THE PAST THREE MONTHS.

IN ORDER TO OVERCOME THIS DIFFICULTY, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT PLACED AN ORDER UPON LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO ADD LIST THEIR REAL LIFE NAME TO OUR SERVICE. HERE IS THE PROMOTION POST MADE BY KOREA CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. .

WE HAVE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF NLIA PRACTICE IN KOREA. A FEW MONTHS AGO, KOREA HAD A NATIONAL ELECTION. THIS NEWS ARTICLE SAYS OVER 90 PERCENT OF CANDIDATES HAVE REGISTERED NLIA FOR THEIR HOME PAGE. IT ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY EXPENSES AND ELECTION-RELATED CORRUPTION. EVEN FOR THE PRESIDENT, AT THE CLOSING OF HIS SPEECH, THE PRESIDENT MOO-HYUN SAYS TYPE MY NAME AT YOUR ADDRESS BAR AND YOU CAN CONNECT DIRECTLY TO MY HOME PAGE.

SO FAR, WE HAVE SEEN THAT THANKS TO GREATER AND EASIER ACCESSIBILITY TO E-GOVERNMENT, EMPOWERMENT AND PARTICIPATION OF PEOPLE WILL BE ACHIEVED EFFECTIVELY.

NOW LET'S MOVE ON TO NLIA FOR COMMERCE. I WILL GO FASTER DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINT.

NEEDLESS TO SAY, ON ONLINE COMMERCIAL SECTOR, SUCH AS SAMSUNG AND LG SHOPPING MALL AND SO ON, WE HAVE EXCELLENT OFFLINE ADVERTISEMENT SHOWING NLIA. IN ADDITION, MANY MEDIA SERVICES UTILIZE NLIA FOR MEDIA ON DEMAND.

AS A FINAL TOPIC, I WANT TO SAY IN SHORT ABOUT NLIA'S IMPACT ON SOCIETY. EASY INTERNET, THE NATURAL NAME WILL ENABLE THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO USE INTERNET EASILY. AS A RESULT, IT FORCED E-COMMERCE, E-GOVERNMENT, AND ALSO HELPS TO REDUCE DIGITAL DIVIDE.

THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>PAUL VERHOEF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

A SUCCESS STORY WITH QUESTIONS IMMEDIATELY.

GOOD.

KEITH.

>> KEITH TEARE: KEITH TEARE, I AM HERE AS A BOARD MEMBER FROM SNAP NAMES, BUT I WAS THE FOUNDER OF A COMPANY CALLED REAL NAMES THAT DID WHAT NETPIA DOES WORLDWIDE. AND JUST LISTENING TO THE TWO PRESENTERS FROM KOREA, BOTH HAVE PLUG-IN TECHNOLOGY WHEREBY THE BROWSER SENDS RESOLUTIONS THROUGH THEIR SYSTEMS.

I'M ASSUMING THAT THEY COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER IN THAT SENSE, BECAUSE A USER CAN ONLY INTRODUCE ONE OR THE OTHER PLUG-IN. SO I WONDER WHETHER ARE YOU IN COMPETITION AND HOW YOU SEE THAT.

AND THEN SECONDLY, GOOGLE LAST WEEK ANNOUNCED THAT THEY ARE INTRODUCING KEY WORDS FROM THE GOOGLE TOOL BAR. THEY WILL TAKE OVER THE ADDRESS BAR OF THE BROWSER TO INTRODUCE GOOGLE KEY WORDS IN THE BROWSER. AND, OF COURSE, MICROSOFT, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PLUG-IN, MICROSOFT ALLOW THE RESOLUTION OF KEY WORDS FROM THE BROWSER THROUGH TO THE MSN SEARCH ENGINE. SO IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE NAMING SPACE AND THE SEARCH SPACE ARE KIND OF COLLIDING. AND I WONDER HOW YOU SEE THE BUSINESS IS GOING TO EVOLVE, GIVEN THAT.

>>KANGSIK CHEON: THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION.

AS YOU MENTIONED, WE ALSO SEE THE COMPETITION IN THIS MARKET, YOU KNOW, BUT WHEN I FOCUS ON THE KOREAN MARKET, YOU KNOW, THE -- IT IS HARD TO SAY WE HAVE COMPETITION IN KOREAN MARKET, BECAUSE WE ARE -- DOMINATE ALMOST, YOU KNOW, REGARDING THE KEY WORD SERVICE.

BUT AS YOU SAY, AS YOU MENTIONED, THE -- IF WE TURN OUR EYE TO THE WORLDWIDE MARKET, MICROSOFT AND GOOGLE AND SOME OTHER COMPANIES ALSO UTILIZE THE ADDRESS BAR FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSE.

BUT AS I TOLD YOU IN MY PRESENTATION, EVERYTHING, EVERY WORD, OR ANY WORD WHICH IS TYPED INTO ADDRESS BAR SHOULD GO TO DNS. AND IT IS HANDLED AS AN ADDRESS, NOT FOR THE KEY WORD. THIS IS OUR INTERPRETATION AND OUR CONCEPT ABOUT THE ADDRESS.

>>PAUL VERHOEF: THANK YOU. KEITH, ARE YOU HAPPY?

GOOD.

ARE THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? NO.

THEN I WOULD LIKE TO THANK OUR TWO PRESENTERS FROM KOREA AND LIKE TO MOVE ON TO TWNIC, WITH THEIR EXPERIENCES ON WHOIS DATABASES.

THANK YOU.

>>NAI-WEN HSU: GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY.

MY NAME IS NAI-WEN HSU, TWNIC. I AM GOING TO SHARE THE EXPERIENCE ON WHOIS DATABASE WITH YOU.

FIRST, I WILL INTRODUCE THE CHINESE LANGUAGE VARIANT TABLE AND THE TWNIC IDN REGISTRATION POLICY AND THE SYSTEM, THE WHOIS DISPLAY AND THE -- SOME WHOIS ISSUES.

WE KNOW THAT IDNA USE A TABLE FOR CHARACTERS WHICH YOU CAN REGISTER AS IDN. BUT UNICODE HAS SOME PROBLEMS. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THESE PAGES, THERE ARE FOUR -- FIVE CHARACTERS HERE. THESE FIVE CHARACTERS ARE SIMILAR TO EACH OTHER. BUT THE CODE POINT IS DIFFERENT IN UNICODE. THESE FIVE CHARACTERS ARE THE SAME MEANING IN TAIWAN. OR I CAN SAY THEY ARE THE SAME CHARACTER, JUST THE SCRIPT IS DIFFERENT. IF YOU USE REGISTER ONE AND ANOTHER USER REGISTER ANOTHER DOMAIN NAME, IT'S -- BECAUSE THESE ARE DIFFERENT ADDRESS. THAT'S WHY WE NEED A VARIANT TABLE.

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF CHINESE VARIANT TABLE. THE LEFT COLUMN IS WALID CODE POINT. ONLY CHARACTER IN THE VALID CODE POINT CAN BE REGISTERED IN THE DOMAIN NAME. AND THE SECOND CHARACTER IS TWPV, PREFERRED VARIANT. AND THE CHARACTER (INAUDIBLE) AND THE THIRD COLUMN IS CHINESE PREFERRED VARIANT. ALL CHARACTERS IN THIS COLUMN IS SIMPLIFIED CHINESE. AND THE CHARACTER VARIANT ON THE LAST COLUMN ARE USED -- ANY ONE OF THE CODE POINT AS A DOMAIN NAME, THEN ALL THE (INAUDIBLE) WILL BE BROKEN. ANYONE CAN REGISTER THE OTHER DOMAIN NAME.

TWNIC IDN REGISTRATION SYSTEM FOLLOW IDN GUIDELINE AND IMPLEMENT THE CHINESE LANGUAGE VARIANT TABLE ON THE SIMPLIFIED SYSTEM. SO IF IT USE A LIST OF DOMAIN NAME, THEN HE CAN GET ANOTHER TRADITIONAL CHINESE DOMAIN NAME AND SIMPLIFIED CHINESE DOMAIN NAME. AND THE SAME USER DOMAIN NAME.

TWNIC IDN FOCUS ON CHINESE DOMAIN NAMES. OUR VARIANT TABLE IS CHINESE LANGUAGE VARIANT TABLE. AND IT IS (INAUDIBLE) TRADITIONAL CHINESE AND SIMPLIFIED CHINESE CHARACTERS. IN UNICODE, TABLE INCLUDE TAIWAN, CHINA, JAPAN, KOREA LOCAL ENCODING CHARACTERS.

IN TAIWAN, LOCAL ENCODING IS NOT TRADITIONAL CHINESE. SO SOME LOCAL ENCODING-BASED APPLICATION, LIKE WINDOWS (INAUDIBLE), THEY CAN ONLY USE TRADITIONAL CHINESE CHARACTERS IN TAIWAN. THIS IS A PROBLEM WHEN (INAUDIBLE) BECAUSE THE IDN MAY BE CONTAIN SIMPLIFIED CHINESE.

THIS TABLE SHOWS THE RELATION BETWEEN UNICODE AND THE LOCAL ENCODING. THE FIRST CHARACTER, THEY ARE IN TAIWAN, CHINA, JAPAN, AND THE KOREA, LOCAL ENCODING. BUT THE CHARACTER JUST ONLY IN CHINA LOCAL ENCODING. SO THIS CHARACTER CANNOT BE SPREAD IN TAIWAN.

THE EPP IS BASED ON (INAUDIBLE) LANGUAGING. IT'S ENCODING UTF-8.

THIS IS -- (INAUDIBLE) INFORMATION FROM A LIST TREE. UTF-8 ENABLES.

WE (INAUDIBLE) USE POSTAL ADDRESS AND THE DOMAIN NAME TO UTF-8 DATABASE. SOME LISTS USE PUNYCODE, DOMAIN NAME STORED IN DATABASE. BUT WE SEE THE PUNYCODE IS NONSENSE TO HUMANS.

SO IT'S HARD TO MAINTAIN THE DATABASE, SO WE PUT THE CHINESE CHARACTER IN THE DATABASE. BUT THERE IS OVERHEAD, BECAUSE WHEN YOU TRANSLATE THE DATABASE TO THE ZONE FILE, YOU MUST TRANSLATE THE -- TRANSFER THE UTF-8 DATA TO PUNYCODE.

THIS TABLE SHOWS TWNIC DATABASE ELEMENTS.

IF A USER -- IF A USER IS A COMPANY, ORGANIZATION, (INAUDIBLE), THEN WE START THE CHARACTER IN THE DATABASE, BUT ONLY SOME ARE CURRENT WITH DISPLAY IN THE (INAUDIBLE).

IF A LIST IS AN INDIVIDUAL USER, WE START THE FIRST COLUMN IN THE DATABASE, AND THE LAST COLUMN IS THE ELEMENT IN THE WHOIS DATABASE.

THIS IS SIMPLE CHINESE VARIANT TABLE. THIS FIRST COLUMN, THIS IS CHARACTER TYPE -- CHARACTER TAG. THE VALID CODE POINT AND THE TW PREFERRED VARIANT AND THE CN PREFERRED VARIANT ARE THE SAME. BUT THE CHARACTER VARIANT, THERE ARE FIVE CHARACTERS. THE SECOND -- NO, THIS CHARACTER, VARIANT CODE POINT, PREFERRED VARIANT ARE DIFFERENT, AND THE CHARACTER VARIANT HAS TWO CHARACTERS. THE THIRD AND THE FOURTH ROW, THE VARIANT CODE POINT, PREFERRED VARIANT, SIMPLE PREFERRED VARIANT, AND CHARACTER VARIANT ARE ALL THE SAME.

IN TWNIC VARIANT TABLE, THE PERCENTAGE OF 1-TO-N MAPPING, 1 VARIANT CODE POINT TO N CHARACTER VARIANT, N FROM 1 TO 8, TABLE LAY OUT ONLY 1 TO 2 CHARACTER VARIANT. THE SYMBOL FOR THE FIRST COLUMN LAY OUT FIVE CHARACTER VARIANT, LAY OUT IN TWNIC VARIANT TABLE, THERE ARE LESS THAN 1%.

THIS IS AN IDN REGISTRATION.

IF A USER LISTS A DOMAIN NAME, ORIGIN FORM IS HERE AND CALLED INTO VARIANT TABLE, IT CAN GET A TRADITIONAL FORM. CALLS UP VARIANT TABLE, TRADITIONAL FORM IS THE SAME AS THE ORIGINAL FORM.

AND ANOTHER SIMPLIFIED FORM.

AND THE OTHER CHARACTER VARIANT, WITH DOMAIN NAME HERE.

THIS IS OUR TWNIC (INAUDIBLE). THE FIRST ROW IS THE ORIGINAL FORM, AND THE SECOND ROW IS THE TRADITIONAL CHINESE DOMAIN NAME. THE THIRD ROW IS SIMPLIFIED CHINESE DOMAIN NAME. AND THE CHARACTER VARIANT RIGHT HERE, WE CANNOT SHOW THE COMBINATION, BECAUSE IN SOME CASES, THE COMBINATION MAY BE VERY LARGE.

SO IF A USER REGISTERS A DOMAIN NAME, THE ORIGINAL FORM, TRADITIONAL CHINESE CHARACTER AND THE SIMPLIFIED CHARACTER, THESE THREE DOMAIN NAMES WERE PUT INTO THE ZONE FILE.

AND THE OTHER CHARACTER VARIANT WAS RESERVED, AND NOT ALLOW ANY OTHER (INAUDIBLE) TO REGISTER A DOMAIN NAME. THE DOMAIN NAMES WERE NOT PUT INTO THE ZONE FILE.

THE WHOIS DISPLAY IN THE (INAUDIBLE) MOST COMMAND LINE WHOIS CLIENTS, IT CAN HANDLE CHINESE CHARACTER.

I MEAN IS TRANSPARENT. SO YOU CAN DISTRIBUTE DATA TO SEVERAL PEOPLE. SO USER CAN READ THE OUTPUT OF WHOIS ON THE TERMINAL SUPPORTING CHINESE CHARACTER. BUT CHINESE CHARACTER CAN ONLY DISPLAY ON TERMINAL SUPPORTING CHINESE CHARACTERS IN TAIWAN. SO IF SIMPLIFIED CHINESE, YOU ARE NOT DISPLAYED ON THE CHINESE TERMINAL.

THE WHOIS IS A NEW (INAUDIBLE) IT'S A MULTILINGUAL AWARE PROTOCOL TO TELL THE USER WHICH LANGUAGE IS PREFERRED. BUT WE HAVE TESTED MOST WITH OUR FIRST CLIENT. THEY ARE NOT IMPLEMENTED THE LANGUAGE FUNCTION.

THE TWNIC WHOIS SERVER CAN -- YOU CAN DO A QUERY A DOMAIN NAME FROM A CLIENT WITHED LOCAL ENCODING OF PUNYCODE. AND THE SERVER CAN TRANSLATE TO ENCODING TO CHINESE AND ENGLISH CHARACTERS. AND THE WHOIS DATA CONTAIN BOTH ENGLISH AND CHINESE CHARACTERS.

THERE ARE SOME ISSUES OF IDN WHOIS. FIRST ONE IS EACH WHOIS QUERY NEEDS TO CHECK THE VARIANT TABLE, BECAUSE -- THE IDN PACKAGE INCLUDE CHARACTER VARIANTS. SO YOU MUST CHECK ON THE VARIANT TABLE TO FIND OUT THE VARIANT TABLE.

THE SECOND IS A PERSON NEEDS TO DISPLAY ALL FORMS, TWPV, CNPV AND THE CHARACTER VARIANT ON THE SCREEN. AND THE LACK OF IDN WHOIS STANDARD.

AND THE LAST IS THE LOCAL ENCODING MUST BE PROVIDED FOR QUERY AND THE DISPLAY. BECAUSE WE FIND THAT IN TWNIC WHOIS SERVER, THE IDN QUERY MUST INCLUDE LOCAL ENCODING.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS?

(APPLAUSE.)

>>PAUL VERHOEF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS IN THE ROOM? NO.

OKAY.

I THINK YOUR EXPLANATION WAS FULLY COMPREHENDED BY EVERYBODY.

CAN WE THEN MOVE TO, I THINK, THE LAST PRESENTATIONS BEFORE WE HAVE A BREAK, FROM SGNIC. THERE ARE TWO PRESENTERS, I THINK, ONE AFTER THE OTHER.

IF WE CAN KEEP THE TOTAL MAYBE TO ABOUT 15 MINUTES OR SO, THEN WE WOULD BE RIGHT ON TIME.

THANK YOU.

>>EDMON CHUNG: THANK YOU, PAUL.
I'LL TRY MY BEST.
LET'S GET THIS THING.... HMMM.
OKAY.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT DISTORTED BECAUSE OF THE SCREEN RESOLUTION. I THINK WE'LL BEAR WITH IT.

GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.

MAYBE I'LL START WITH PROVIDING A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND OF MYSELF AND TAN YEOW HUI OVER THERE FROM SGNIC. BOTH OF US, ACTUALLY, ARE, I WOULD SAY, PIONEERS OF IDN IN AN EARLIER LIFE, MYSELF FROM A COMPANY CALLED NETICA AND TAN YEOW HUI THERE, REALLY, FROM IDNS, AND NOW WEARING DIFFERENT HATS WORKING ON IDN TEST BED IN SGNIC FOR SINGAPORE.

A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT WERE DISCUSSED THIS MORNING, ESPECIALLY PASSIONATELY BY JOHN KLENSIN AND ALSO CLARIFIED A LOT BY JAMES, WERE LOOKING AT DOT SG AND, IN FACT, TRYING TO TACKLE TWO OF THE PERHAPS MORE HARDER PROBLEMS.

ONE IS HANDLING THE VARIANT SITUATION WITH CHINESE DOMAIN NAMES. AND THE OTHER IS HAVING TO WORK ON A LANGUAGE DOESN'T HAVE READILY -- IN FACT, TO CREATE A LANGUAGE TABLE FOR THE TAMIL.

SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY OF WHAT SGNIC WAS LOOKING FOR AT THAT TIME, ACTUALLY, RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE FOUR OFFICIAL LANGUAGES IN SINGAPORE: ENGLISH, MALAY, CHINESE, AND TAMIL. ENGLISH, OBVIOUSLY, IS COVERED BY ASCII CHARACTERS CURRENTLY. AND AFTER SOME DISCUSSION, THE MALAY LANGUAGE ALSO BELIEVED CURRENTLY IN A TEST BED WILL NOT BE TAGGED AS MALAY; IT WILL JUST CONTINUE TO BE REGISTERED AS ASCII CHARACTERS. SO THAT PRETTY MUCH BOILS DOWN TO TWO MAIN LANGUAGES THAT WE WOULD BE FOCUSING ON, THE CHINESE LANGUAGE. AND THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS IS THAT SIMPLIFIED AND TRADITIONAL CHINESE CHARACTERS ARE REQUIRED.

AND WE WOULD LIKE TO LEVERAGE THE CDNC CHINESE DOMAIN NAME CONSORTIUM TABLE, WHICH WAS COVERED A LOT BY HSU NAI-WEN AND WALTER EARLIER.

AND FOR TAMIL, AS I'VE MENTIONED, THERE WAS NO READILY AVAILABLE LANGUAGE TABLE. SO WE NEEDED TO WORK ON CREATING ONE, IF YOU WILL.

THE CONCEPT OF THE SGNIC IDN TEST BED IS THAT IT BASICALLY REQUIRES IT TO BE FULLY STANDARDS COMPLIANT. WE FOLLOW THE IETF RFCS AS WELL AS THE ICANN GUIDELINES. WE WILL BE -- BECAUSE IT'S A -- TRULY A TEST BED, IT WILL BE REGISTERED ON THE THIRD LEVEL UNDER DOT IDN.SG. AND CURRENTLY WE WERE THINKING OF HAVING A ONE-YEAR TEST BED PERIOD.

AND IT'S ALL FREE REGISTRATION THROUGH REGISTRARS.

AND THE TEST BED IDNS WILL BE DELETED, ACTUALLY, UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE TEST BED.

THE BASIC POLICY FOR CHINESE DOMAIN NAMES AS A REQUIREMENT FROM SGNIC IS TO HAVE THE PRIMARY LABEL, IF WILL YOU, THE SUBMITTED DOMAIN, PLUS AN -- AUTOMATICALLY, A PREFERRED SIMPLIFIED CHINESE VERSION AND A PREFERRED TRADITIONAL CHINESE VERSION. ALL OF THEM -- ALL THREE OF THESE ARE AUTOMATICALLY ACTIVATED. AND THE OTHER VARIANTS FROM -- BASED ON THE CDNC TABLE CAN BE ACTIVATED OR DEACTIVATED.

FOR TAMIL, THE CONCEPT IS TO HAVE -- NOT TO REQUIRE VARIANT PREPARATION.

FIRST OF ALL, WE LOOKED AT -- ACTUALLY, ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT THE PRESENTATION IS WE'LL GET INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE TECHNICAL DETAILS OF IT.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS, I HOPE, IS TO -- WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT HOW COMPLEX, HOW DIFFICULT IT IS.

BY HOPEFULLY DISSECTING SOME OF THE CORE ISSUES OR NITTY-GRITTY ISSUES, WE CAN COME TO REALIZE THAT IT IS SOMEWHAT MANAGEABLE AS WELL, LOOKING AT THE IMPLEMENTATION.

BASED ON THE CDNC TABLE, WE'VE -- AS BOTH WALTER AND HSU NAI-WEN HAS SAID, IT'S ABOUT 20,000 CHARACTERS -- CHINESE CHARACTERS ARE LISTED IN THERE, WHICH INCLUDE THE 37 LETTERS, DIGITS, AND HYPHEN CODE POINTS.

IN OUR STUDY, WE REALIZED THAT THERE WERE, IN TOTAL, 15,000 PREFERRED CHINESE -- PREFERRED SIMPLIFIED CHINESE CHARACTERS AND ABOUT 16,000 PREFERRED TRADITIONAL CHINESE CHARACTERS. AND OUT OF THESE, OVER 90% ARE SINGLE-ENTRY VARIANTS. SO -- SINGLE-ENTRY, WHICH MEANS THAT THERE ARE NO VARIANTS -- I MEAN, THEY'RE ONE PARTICULAR VARIANT REQUIRED ONLY.

AND THEN ALSO LOOKING AT SIMPLIFIED CHINESE AND TRADITIONAL CHINESE, FOR THE CODE POINTS THAT HAVE -- THAT WITH THE SIMPLIFIED CHINESE AND TRADITIONAL CHINESE VARIANT IS THE SAME ARE ACTUALLY ABOUT 12,000, WHICH REALLY LEAVES US WITH ABOUT 8,000 ACTUAL CHARACTERS THAT REQUIRES VERY IMPORTANT VARIANT SITUATION AND VARIANT PREPARATION. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT ALLEVIATES ANYTHING. IT'S ONLY -- THE NUMBERS ALLOW US TO GET A BETTER GRASP ON -- OUT OF THE 20,000 CHARACTERS, WHAT WE ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT, WHAT ARE THE VARIANTS ISSUES THAT WE ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT.

SOME SYSTEM CHALLENGES FOR CDN, REALLY DEPLOYING THE IDN SOLUTION. ONE OF THEM IS THAT ONE REGISTRATION LEADS TO MANY DATA ENTRIES. AND THIS IS A -- A HIGHLIGHT OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT BASED ON TWNIC'S PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE, ONE PRIMARY LABEL OR ONE PRIMARY REGISTRATION CAN LEAD TO OVER 10,000 VARIANTS. AND THIS CREATES A BIG PROBLEM FOR DATABASE MANAGEMENT. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU -- FOR EACH REGISTRATION, YOU STORE ALL THE VARIANTS, THAT MAY BE PROBLEMATIC, MAY NOT BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE.

AND IT ACCELERATES THE INCREASED LOOKUP TIME REQUIRED IN THE DATABASE, AND IT'S A -- YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE A HUGE BURDEN ON THE STORAGE REQUIREMENTS.

ALSO, OBVIOUSLY, RELATES TO THE REVENUE-SUPPORTED TRANSACTIONS ISSUES.

YOU CHARGE FOR ONE PARTICULAR DOMAIN, AND YOU END UP HAVING TO MANAGE OVER 10,000 DATA ENTRIES IN THE DATABASE.

SO WE LOOKED AT TWO MAIN APPROACHES OF DEALING WITH THAT. ONE IS TO, AS I SAID, STORE ALL THE VARIANTS INTO THE DATABASE. OR THE OTHER IS TO UTILIZE WHAT IS CALLED -- WHAT WE WILL TERM A VARIANT INDEX.

SO WE WOULD CONSOLIDATE -- NOT CONSOLIDATE -- SOMEWHAT, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, NORMALIZE TO A STORAGE INDEX, SO THAT LOOKUPS CAN BE USED, CAN BE PERFORMED.

ON THE STORE ALL ISSUE, IT'S A FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD IMPLEMENTATION. YOU CAN JUST STORE ALL THE VARIANTS AND LIST THEIR STATUS, WHETHER IT'S ACTIVATED OR WHETHER IT'S NOT, OR RESERVED.

ON A VARIANT INDEX MODEL, AS I SAID, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, NORMALIZE THE CHARACTER STRING INTO INDEX FOR MATCHING ALLOWS THE DATABASE TO ACTUALLY -- IT'S MORE EFFICIENT FOR THE LOOKUP AND MATCHING PROCESS.

HOWEVER, IT DOES INTRODUCE ADDITIONAL OVERHEAD PER TRANSACTION AS YOU NORMALIZE THE STRING. THERE ARE ALSO POLICY FLEXIBILITY INDICATIONS AS WELL.

IF YOU STORE ALL THE VARIANTS IN THE DATABASE, THEN IT COULD HAVE IMPLICATION ON WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH THE POLICY OF WHETHER PARTICULAR VARIANTS MAY BE LATER PROMOTED OR LATER USED BY OTHER PEOPLE.

BASED ON THAT, WE DID SOME FURTHER STUDY ON THE CDNC TABLE, THE OBJECTIVES BEING TAKING A LOOK AT THE FEASIBILITY OF HAVING AN INDEX-BASED APPROACH AND THE CHOICE OF -- IF THERE WILL BE A CHOICE OF THE INDEX, AND THERE IS UNCOVER SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT MAY ARISE WITH THE VARIANT-INDEX APPROACH.

TWO, SORT OF DEFINE AN INDEX. WE USE A VERY SIMPLE WAY. AND WE, OVER THE CDNC TABLE, WE EXHAUSTIVELY GROUPED ALL RELATED CODE POINTS.

I WILL COME BACK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER IN TERMS OF WHAT WE MEAN BY RELATED CODE POINTS, BECAUSE OF THE OVERLAPPING OF VARIANT SETS.

AND ALSO WE JUST SIMPLY CHOSE THE LOWEST CODE POINT AS THE INDEX ONCE WE EXHAUSTIVELY GROUP THESE CODE POINTS.

WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT OUT OF THE ABOUT 20,000 CHARACTERS THAT ARE INCLUDED, THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 15,000 UNIQUE SETS OF VARIANTS. AND YOU CAN -- FOR EXAMPLE, JUST PREVIOUSLY, ABOUT 80,000 OF THE CODE POINTS WERE WITH ACTUAL VARIANTS. AND OUT OF THEM, WE SAW WHAT -- WE SEE A PARTICULAR ISSUE, THAT IN ABOUT 1,000 OF THEM, THERE ARE WHAT IS CALLED HIDDEN VARIANTS.

AND I WILL NOW TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS CONCEPT OF HIDDEN VARIANTS IN THE CDNC TABLE THAT WE'VE COME ACROSS. FOR EXAMPLE, TAKE THE CHARACTER "1" IN CHINESE. WE SEE THAT THERE ARE FOUR RELATED ENTRIES, POSSIBLE RELATED ENTRIES IN THE CDNC TABLE. AND OUT OF THESE FOUR, IF YOU TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE THIRD ONE AND YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE THIRD ONE, THEN YOU CAN SEE THAT ONLY THREE OUT OF THE FOUR REPRESENTATIONS ARE INCLUDED WITH THE PREFERRED VARIANT AS WELL AS OTHER VARIANTS, WHICH MEANS THAT ONE OF THE RELATED CHARACTERS IS ACTUALLY NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PARTICULAR SET BASED ON THE CDNC TABLE. AND THAT OMITTED CHARACTER IS WHAT WE CALL THE HIDDEN VARIANT, WHICH MAY IMPACT OTHER POLICY ISSUES.

AND HOW -- WHETHER DOMAIN NAMES ARE AVAILABLE.

TAKE A LOOK AT THREE PARTICULAR SCENARIOS THAT CAN CREATE OVERLAPS AND HOW WHAT HIDDEN VARIANT MEANS. FOR EXAMPLE, IN SCENARIO ONE IN PARTICULAR A SUBSET OF ANOTHER GROUP, AND THE ONES OUTSIDE OF THE SUBSET WOULD BE A HIDDEN VARIANT FOR THE ONE INSIDE. THERE ARE OVERLAPPING VARIANT SETS, POSSIBLY, SCENARIO TWO. AND THERE'S ALSO A SCENARIO WHERE THERE'S AN OVERLAP CREATED BY A THIRD SET. SO EVEN THOUGH TWO SETS OF VARIANTS DO NOT OVERLAP EACH OTHER, WHEN INCLUDING A THIRD SET, THEY ACTUALLY CREATE A RELATIONSHIP.

SOME OF THE POLICY CHALLENGES FOR DEPLOYING CHINESE DOMAIN NAMES FIRST OF ALL IS WHETHER YOU WOULD -- FOR THE LANGUAGE DECLARATION, DO YOU SPECIFY WHETHER IT'S SIMPLIFIED CHINESE OR WHETHER IT'S TRADITIONAL CHINESE, OR YOU SIMPLY DECLARE IT A CHINESE REGISTRATION.

AND THEN YOU LOOK AT THE AUTO ACTIVATED VARIANTS, WHETHER IT'S -- WHEN THE SITUATION -- BECAUSE SOME OF THE CASES IN THE PREFERRED COLUMN, THERE ARE MULTIPLE CHARACTERS, SO WHAT DO YOU DO? DO YOU CREATE PERMUTATIONS OF ALL OF THEM AND AUTOMATICALLY ACTIVATE ALL OF THEM OR DO YOU ARBITRARILY CREATE A CHOICE?

ALSO, THERE IS THE WHOIS DISPLAY ISSUE, WHICH NAI-WEN HSU JUST VERY THOROUGHLY PRESENTED. AND ALSO THERE IS A PARTICULAR ISSUE ABOUT PROMOTION OF VARIANTS. FOR EXAMPLE, AS A RESULT OF A DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY, THE RIGHTS TO A VARIANT RATHER THAN THE PRIMARY DOMAIN, PRIMARY LABEL, MAY BE A TRADEMARK OWNED BY A DIFFERENT PARTY. AND WHETHER THE SYSTEM ITSELF SHOULD ALLOW OR, YOU KNOW -- WOULD HAVE IMPLICATIONS ON THE POLICY DECISIONS -- I MEAN POLICY FLEXIBILITY.

AGAIN, THERE IS ALSO THE HIDDEN VARIANTS ISSUES, WHETHER HIDDEN VARIANTS SHOULD CONSTITUTE A SITUATION WHERE THE DOMAIN IS SET TO BE RESERVED OR NOT AVAILABLE.

FOR THE SGNIC TEST BED, WHAT WE HAVE DECIDED TO DO, AS IT IS TEST BED, WE FOCUSED ON KEEPING IT SIMPLE FIRST, AND ALSO TO USE WHAT I WOULD CALL CONSERVATIVENESS PRINCIPLE, WHICH IS TO REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF AMBIGUITY OR REDUCE THE POSSIBLE PEOPLE REGISTERING THE NAMES, ACTUALLY.

WE WOULD BE, WHAT I WOULD CALL CONSOLIDATING THE TRADITIONAL CHINESE AND SIMPLIFIED CHINESE TABLE FROM THE CDNC TABLE. IN FACT, YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK, BASICALLY FROM THE THREE COLUMNS EXTENDING TO A FOUR-COLUMN TABLE.

IN TERMS OF IT, THERE ARE MULTIPLE PREFERRED CODE POINTS. THEN THE FIRST CODE POINT IS CHOSEN. THIS IS PURELY AN ARBITRARY APPROACH. THIS IS A TEST BED, AND WE'LL SEE WHETHER IT WORKS WELL.

IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE I MENTIONED THAT, IN FACT, BASED ON A STUDY, ALMOST 95 PERCENT AND OVER WOULD HAVE A SINGLE PREFERRED CHARACTERS ANYMORE.

THE REGISTRANT IS ALLOWED TO ACTIVATE OR DEACTIVATE OTHER VARIANTS. THE VARIANTS ASSUME THE SAME SET OF DELEGATION NAME SERVERS, AND THE EXPIRATION OF THE VARIANTS IS SYNCHRONIZED WITH THE PRIMARY REGISTRATION.

ALL THE REGISTRATION, AS I'VE SAID, IS SET TO ZERO DOLLARS, WHICH IS FREE.

REGISTRATIONS MUST NOT OVERLAP EXISTING IDNS, EXISTING REGISTRATIONS, INCLUDING WHETHER IT'S ACTIVATED OR NOT, THE VARIANT, AND EVEN AS WELL AS HIDDEN VARIANTS, WHICH IS PART OF WHAT WE MEAN BY HAVING A CONSERVATIVE APPROACH.

THERE'S ALSO NOT GOING TO BE -- NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED FOR PROMOTION OF VARIANTS, BECAUSE IT IS A TEST BED. WE WILL NOT -- I DON'T EXPECT THERE WILL BE A DISPUTE RESOLUTION SITUATION. MAYBE YEOW HUI CAN SPEAK MORE TO THAT.

NOW AS TO THE TAMIL SITUATION. TAMIL, AS I SAID, THERE WASN'T A READILY AND PUBLICLY AVAILABLE TAMIL LANGUAGE TABLE, UNLIKE THE CDNC, SO WE WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE DIFFERENT EXPERTS, INCLUDING IN INDIA AND ALSO IN SINGAPORE, INCLUDING INFITT, TISC, MINC, AND THROUGH COORDINATION WITH SGNIC.

WHAT WE DID WAS FOCUS ON THE TAMIL CODE PAGE IN THE UNICODE BETWEEN A RANGE OF CODE POINTS. A FEW ISSUES IMMEDIATELY ARISE, AND WE REALIZE THAT THERE WERE SOME IDENTICAL CODE POINTS WITHIN THE TAMIL CODE PAGE. FOR EXAMPLE, THE TAMIL NUMERAL FOR ONE AND THE TAMIL CHARACTER FOR KA IS, IN FACT, IDENTICAL IN THE LOOK OF IT. IN FACT, IN THE LANGUAGE ITSELF, AS I UNDERSTAND -- ALTHOUGH I DON'T SPEAK ANY TAMIL -- THEY ARE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME. AND THE NUMERAL WAS DERIVED FROM THE TAMIL CHARACTER.

AND THE OTHER ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN A LOOK AT IS THERE IS A SET OF NUMERALS AND ALSO A SET OF CHARACTERS INSIDE THE TAMIL TABLE.

AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE EXPERTS AND ALSO THROUGH SGNIC AND THOSE VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, WE DECIDED THAT THE NUMERALS PART AS WELL AS THE NON- ALPHABETIC SYMBOLS WILL BE DISALLOWED FOR REGISTRATION. THE TAMIL TABLE USED WILL INCLUDE INDEPENDENT VOWELS, CONSONANTS, SOME VOWEL SIGNS AND OTHER LINGUISTIC SIGNS USED IN THE TAMIL LANGUAGE.

ANOTHER ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION WE'RE LOOKING AT IS WHETHER TO ALLOW MIXING THE LETTERS, DIGITS, AND HYPHENS WITH TAMIL CHARACTERS OR WHETHER IT'S ONLY DIGITS AND HYPHENS AND THE TAMIL CHARACTERS. BECAUSE AS WE UNDERSTAND FROM SOME EXPERTS IN THE LANGUAGE, THE MIXTURE OF ASCII CHARACTERS IS ACTUALLY VERY -- IS NOT VERY COMMON IN TAMIL.

AS A SUMMARY, THE SGNIC IDN TEST BED, THE CONCEPT IS TO MAKE IT STANDARDS COMPLIANT. BOTH THE IETF RFCS AS WELL AS THE ICANN GUIDELINES. WE'RE FOCUSING ON CHINESE AND TAMIL IMPLEMENTATION.

THE OTHER TWO LANGUAGE -- OF THE TWO OFFICIAL LANGUAGES, ENGLISH AND MALAY ARE GOING TO STAY AS ASCII REGISTRATIONS. THEY WILL BE FREE AND DELETED AT THE END OF THE TEST BED. SOME OF THE CHINESE TABLES, WE'RE GOING TO USE THE CDNC LANGUAGE TABLES. THE REGISTRATION PACKAGE WILL INCLUDE THE PRIMARY LABEL, ONE PREFERRED SIMPLIFIED CHINESE AND ONE PREFERRED TRADITIONAL CHINESE THAT IS AUTOMATICALLY ACTIVATED.

THE BEHAVIOR AND THE EXPIRATION AND THE DELETION -- I MEAN DELEGATION OF THE NAME SERVERS WILL BE SYNCHRONIZED WITH THE PRIMARY DOMAIN. AND WE LOOKED AT THE FEASIBILITY, WHICH WE BELIEVE IS VERY MUCH FEASIBLE TO USE AN INDEX VARIANT APPROACH, ALTHOUGH WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT HOW TO DEAL WITH THE HIDDEN VARIANTS ISSUE. IN FACT, HAVING THE INDEX APPROACH ALLOWS US TO MORE CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE HIDDEN VARIANTS AND EASIER IDENTIFY THE HIDDEN VARIANTS AND ACTUALLY TACKLE THEM.

AND FOR THE TAMIL DOMAIN NAMES, WE'RE USING THE CODE PAGE WITHOUT THE NUMERALS AND NON-LINGUISTIC SYMBOLS. AND THERE WILL BE NO VARIANTS PREPARATION FOR IT.

THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I MUST SAY THAT -- I'M SORRY I MISSED SOME OF THE PRECEDING MATERIALS, BUT EVERY TIME I WALK IN THE DOOR, I DISCOVER THAT THEOREM NUMBER 207 HAS BEEN PROVED ONCE AGAIN. THAT THEOREM IS THAT EVERYTHING IS MORE COMPLICATED.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT VERY CLEAR EXPLANATION.

WE HAVE A BREAK NOW, AND I'M IMPRESSED THAT THE SPEAKERS KEPT US TO WITHIN A FEW MINUTES OF BREAK TIME. I'D LIKE IT RECONVENE AT 1420. I'M SORRY; 1620. 20 MINUTES PAST THE HOUR.

SO WE WILL RECONVENE AT 4:20.

(RECESS)

>>VINT CERF: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'D LIKE TO RECONVENE THE MEETING NOW. I REALIZE WE TOOK A LITTLE LONGER BREAK THAN PLANNED, BUT I HOPE EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO TAKE SOME REFRESHMENT.

BEFORE WE BEGIN THIS AFTERNOON'S SESSION, I NEED TO ASK WHETHER ANYONE HAS SEEN TAREK SHAWKI FROM UNESCO, WHO IS OUR LAST SPEAKER, BUT WE HAVE NOT FOUND HIM. SO IF ANYONE HAPPENS TO KNOW HIS WHEREABOUTS, PLEASE MAKE THAT KNOWN.

IN THE MEANTIME, CARY KARP IS GOING TO GIVE US SOME SENSE FOR THE IMPACT OF IDN ON MUSEDOMA.
SO CARY, LET ME TURN THE SESSION OVER TO YOU.

>>CARY KARP: THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO MAKE A FEW BRIEF INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. AN EXTENSION OF WHAT WAS SAID PREVIOUSLY ABOUT THE GTLD SITUATION.

IN THE CC REALM, THERE IS OFTEN SOME NOTION OF LANGUAGE RELATE TO GO DOMAIN. IN THE GTLD SITUATION, THERE IS UTTERLY NO SUCH THING. WE ADDRESS GLOBAL COMMUNITIES BY DEFINITION. AND WE HAVE ANOTHER SET OF PROBLEMS THAT MAPS INTO OUR ACTIVITY INSTEAD, PERHAPS, OF DEALING WITH ONE OR A LIMITED NUMBER OF LANGUAGES, AND THAT'S THE NEED OF THE COMMUNITY THAT WE -- THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITIES THAT WE SERVE.

THE GTLDS ARE DIVIDED INTO UNRESTRICTED SUCH AND SPONSORED TLDS, WHICH BY DEFINITION ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF A VERY CLEARLY-BOUNDED COMMUNITY.

AND I'M GOING TO ILLUSTRATE THE STLD CASE WITH AN APPLICATIONS EXAMPLE FROM DOT MUSEUM; HOWEVER, WHAT I'M SHOWING YOU IS -- HAS PARALLELS OR POTENTIAL PARALLELS IN ANY STLD.

I BELIEVE AT THIS POINT THAT DOT MUSEUM IS THE FIRST OF THE STLDS TO BE DEPLOYING IDN, BUT IT'S QUITE OBVIOUSLY NOT GOING TO BE ALONE IN THAT REGARD FOR PARTICULARLY LONG.

NOW, EVERYBODY HAS BEEN SPEAKING ABOUT METHODOLOGICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL PROBLEMS THEY HAVE CONFRONTED SO RATHER THAN DOING THAT AS I INTENDED DURING MY SLOT, WE'LL BE SHOWING YOU A REAL LIVE, CLICKABLE, THROUGH-ABLE EXAMPLE OF IDN IN USE LOOKS LIKE.

THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF MUSEUMS IS AT THE ESSENCE OF THE MAINTENANCE OF DOT MUSEUM POLICY. THE ONLY THING THAT WILL APPEAR IN DOT MUSEUM IS A MEMBER OF THE PROFESSIONAL MUSEUM COMMUNITY AS THAT IS DEFINED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF MUSEUMS, WHICH IS A UNESCO AFFILIATE, NGO OF SOME 50, APPROACHING 60-YEAR STANDING WITH CLEAR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ISSUES UNDER THE UNESCO UMBRELLA THAT RELATE TO MUSEUMS. ICOM HAS 140 NATIONAL MEMBERS OF WHICH SOMETHING CLOSE TO 120 MAINTAIN SOME FORM OF IDENTITY ON THE INTERNET.

AND BECAUSE THE NATIONAL COMMITTEES OF ICOM VERY RARELY OPERATE THEIR OWN TECHNICAL FACILITIES, THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO FIND HOST SPONSORSHIP AS IT MAY BE FOUND; THE RESULT BEING THAT THE WEB ADDRESSES, FOR EXAMPLE, OF ICOM NATIONAL COMMITTEES TEND TO CHANGE AS THE MEMBERS OF A BOARD ON A NATIONAL COMMITTEE MIGHT CHANGE. AND ICOM FROM WAY BACK, BEFORE ANYBODY EVER DREAMT UP DOT MUSEUM OR IDN, HAS PROVIDED A COURTESY SERVICE TO THE NATIONAL COMMITTEES AND A SERVICE OF OBVIOUS BENEFIT TO ITS OWN ORGANIZATION WHEREBY THE FORMULA: COMMITTEE NAME DOT ICOM DOT, AT THAT TIME ORG, NOW COMMITTEE NAME DOT ICOM.MUSEUM, AND THE SITE WILL IDENTIFY AS IT WAS CALLED IN ICOM.MUSEUM OR IN SOME OTHER MANNER.

AND WHAT IDN HAS MADE POSSIBLE IS TO FULFILL A CLEAR NEED WITHIN THAT COMMUNITY FOR THE NATIONAL COMMITTEES THAT DO NOT CONDUCT ANGLOPHONE BUSINESS, DO NOT DERIVE THEMSELVES FROM ANY SCRIPT WITHIN THE LATIN REPERTOIRE WITH A CONVENIENT ALTERNATIVE.

SO WHAT I'M SHOWING YOU RIGHT NOW -- THIS IS ACTUALLY THE FIRST TIME ANYBODY HAS SEEN IT. THIS IS A DEMONSTRATION THAT'S BEING PREPARED FOR ICOM'S NEXT TRIENNIAL CONFERENCE IN SEOUL OF NEXT YEAR AND WE'RE TAKING ALL THE COMMITTEES WHICH HAVE NAMES THAT CAN'T BE REPRESENTED WITH THE LDH REPERTOIRE. YES, LDH REPERTOIRE.

AND WE AT THIS POINT HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH WE MAY HAVE BRUTALIZED THE NAME OF ANY GIVEN COUNTRY HERE, BUT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE NOTED.

ALTHOUGH WE DON'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF NEEDING TO CONSIDER A LANGUAGE OR A SMALL GROUP OF LANGUAGES, AND INDEED NEED TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE ANY LANGUAGE AND ANY SCRIPT AT ANY TIME THAT ANY MEMBER OF OUR COMMUNITY ASKS US PLEASE TO DO, WE DO HAVE AN EXTREMELY FOCUSED VOCABULARY THAT NEEDS TO BE REPRESENTED.

SO A CHARACTER TABLE FOR DOT MUSEUM MIGHT HAVE A DOZEN CHARACTERS FROM DOZENS OF SCRIPTS, BUT WOULD NOT NEED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT APPEAR -- I'M ASSUMING IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DESCRIBE, AT THE PERIPHERY OF THE CORE REPRESENTATION.

I NOTE IN UNICODE THAT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS MAINTAINING SOME LEGACY PATH THROUGH THE ORIGINAL ENCODING SCHEMES. NOT THE ASCIIS BUT THE VARIOUS SOMETHING-OTHER SCIIS THAT WE'VE SEEN.

SO WITH SOME REASONABLE CONFIDENCE THAT MAY BE RASH AND FOOL HARDY, NOT EVERY SCRIPT, NOT EVERY LANGUAGE IS NOTHING BUT FRAUGHT WITH PROBLEMS, BUT THAT THERE ARE EVEN, IN THIS CONTEXT, ARE WHAT I SUPPOSE COULD BE CALLED A STABLE CORE.

WE ARE RUNNING UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT A MUSEUM KNOWS WHAT ITS NAME IS, AND A MUSEUM UNDERSTANDS THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH IT DOES BUSINESS. AND WHEN WE ARE FIRST APPROACHED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF A LANGUAGE COMMUNITY WITH WHICH WE CANNOT DIRECTLY COMMUNICATE, AND A MUSEUM SAYS WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN IDN -- WE WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER OUR NAME IN IDN, WE SAY, SURE, BUT WE BECOME OBLIGATED IN THE DOING TO SUPPORT THAT LANGUAGE. AND IF YOU ARE PREPARED TO CONTRIBUTE VOLUNTARILY YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF LOCAL CIRCUMSTANCE AND LANGUAGE TO OUR COLLECTIVE EFFORT, BY ALL MEANS WE WILL PROCEED.

AND I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS AT ALL THE SCOPE OF THAT DEVELOPMENT ON THE SECOND LEVEL IN DOT MUSEUM, BUT IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE IN OTHER SESSIONS THIS WEEK, WHERE THERE WAS SOME INTEREST IN WHETHER IDN APPEARED TO BE OF INTEREST OTHER THAN IDN.TLD. HERE WE HAVE IT.

THIS IS A QUESTION OF IDN THAT IS NOT MEANINGFUL OTHER THAN ON THE THIRD LEVEL AND BELOW.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT -- LET'S SEE. IF I DO THIS.... THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ALSO HAVE HERE IS A THREE COMMON DEAL. IF I TAKE -- SOME OF THESE ARE MORE IMPRESSIVE THAN OTHERS, IN EFFECT. IF WE TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE JAPANESE NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF ICOM AND CLICK ON WHAT HAS BEEN THEIR DESIGNATION FROM THE BEGINNING, JAPAN.ICOM.MUSEUM, WE GO TO THEIR ENGLISH LANGUAGE MATERIAL. THEY MAINTAIN THIS AND HAVE ALWAYS DONE SO. HOWEVER, THEY ALSO MAINTAIN JAPANESE LANGUAGE MATERIAL WHICH, MORE APPROPRIATELY, WOULD BE LABELED IN JAPANESE THAN IN ENGLISH, AND WE HAVE THIS.

SO ONE OF THE SEMI-ENVISIONED BENEFITS OF THE AVAILABILITY OF IDN IS THAT IT PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY FOR ORGANIZATIONS THAT CONDUCT BUSINESS IN A MULTI-LINGUAL ENVIRONMENT TO LABEL APPROPRIATELY EACH FACET OF THIS RATHER THAN NEED TO JUGGLE AND ENMESH THE TWO THINGS WITH EACH OTHER ON THE ONE LEVEL AND NEED SOMEHOW TO SEGREGATE THEM TO MAINTAIN CLARITY IN THE DOCUMENT HIERARCHIES ON THE OTHER.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE, AND I'M GOING TO NOTE SOMETHING WE NOTED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS. BECAUSE WE CAN MAKE NO ASSUMPTION OF THE CUSTOMER ENVIRONMENT, AND BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUPPORT FOR DOING THE ACTUAL IDN RESOLUTION, AND URLS ON THE DESKTOP, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EXPEDIENTS HERE. SO IF WE LOOK AT THE RUSSIA.ICOM.MUSEUM, BOTH THE DISPLAY PORTION AND ANCHOR PORTION OF THE URL ARE JUST ASCII. AND WE CLICK, AND WE GO TO A ROW SOURCE THAT I CAN ASSURE YOU DOES NOT WISH TO BE LABELED IN ENGLISH. AND THEY MAINTAIN NO ENGLISH LANGUAGE HIERARCHY, AND THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN DOING SO.

THE RUSSIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE IS THE ONLY ONE OF THE NATIONAL COMMITTEES THAT USES ITS OWN -- USES A NONASCII REPRESENTATION OF THE ICOM ACRONYM. SO ICOM IS I-C-O-M EVERYWHERE IN ICOM SPACE WITH TWO EXCEPTION, OF WHICH ONE USES A "K" RATHER THAN A "C" BUT IT'S STILL ASCII REPRESENTATION AND THE OTHER IS RUSSIA, AT LEAST AT THIS POINT, WHICH INDEED HAS ITS CYRILLIC REPRESENTATION.

SO FAR OUT ON THE RIGHT HERE WE HAVE RUSSIA.ICOM.MUSEUM AS CYRILLIFIED AS IT CAN BE, BUT THE MUSEUM STILL NEEDS TO BECOME MUSE. I WON'T GO THERE BUT SOONER OR LATER VOICES ARE GOING TO BE RAISED EVEN IN GTLD LAND ABOUT CONCEIVABLE MOLDS FOR PROGRESSING ON THIS FRONT.

YOU WILL NOTE, IF ITS VISIBLE HERE, THAT WE HAVE THE CYRILLIC MAINTAINED IN THE ADDRESS LINE; THAT THIS SITE WAS CALLED USING CYRILLIC LABELS AND IT RESPONDS USING CYRILLIC LABELS. THIS IS AN IDN-COMPLIANT BROWSER. THE TARGET SITE IS AWARE OF WHAT WE ARE DOING, AND HAS CONFIGURED ITSELF TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT FACILITY.

LACKING ANY SUCH ABILITY, IT'S ALSO ENTIRELY POSSIBLE TO REPRESENT THE DISPLAY PORTION OF A URL USING THE FULL UNICODE LABEL, BUT HAVING THE TARGET EITHER USING AN ASCII FALL-BACK DESIGNATION, WHICH ALMOST EVERY HOLDER OF AN IDN NAME IS GOING TO NEED FOR QUITE SOME TIME TO COME, OR WE COULD EXPOSE THE PUNYCODE AT THIS POINT. AND WE'VE DECIDED THAT CLICKING THROUGH ON PUNYCODE IS UTTERLY STUPID. AND GIVEN THAT THERE IS A RUSSIA.ICOM.MUSEUM ANYWAY, WE ARE HERE LINKING TO RUSSIA.ICOM.MUSEUM, BUT YOU HAVE A THROUGH PATH. YOU CAN LICK THROUGH THE IDN LABEL WITH WHAT WE'RE CALLING EMBEDDED SUPPORT FOR IDN IN LINE IN THE HTML CODE. YOU CAN'T CUT AND PASTE WITHOUT HAVING IDN COMPLIANT SOFTWARE.

SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS REVEALED AS WE'RE GETTING WHERE WE'RE GOING. ONE FINAL ASPECT OF THIS THAT I'LL NAME BEFORE LEAVING THIS IS -- AND GIVEN THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE OF UNESCO, I AM GOING TO BE PRESUMPTUOUS AND NAME UNESCO ONE MORE TIME. AND THAT IS AT A PRESENTATION OF ACTION WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION, DURING THE CONTEXT OF THE ITALIAN PRESIDENCY OF THE EU, LAST OCTOBER I GAVE A PRESENTATION ON ICOM'S BEHALF ABOUT DOT MUSEUM -- ON ITS BEHALF ABOUT ICOM AND THE THINGS IT WAS DOING TO NOTE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL PROPERTY, AND WE NAMED DOT MUSEUM, AND WE NAMED THE EXCITING NEW DEVELOPMENTS WITH IDN. AT THAT POINT, IT WASN'T QUITE THERE YET.

AND ONE OF THE RESPONSES TO THAT WAS -- WHOOPS. I DON'T WANT TO GO THERE, DO I. I WANT TO BACK OUT OF THIS.

A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS WAS THAT TWO WEEKS LATER UNESCO PASSED A RESOLUTION -- PASSED A RECOMMENDATION IN THE CONTEXT OF A WHOLE SUITE OF RESOLUTIONS DURING ITS OWN ANNUAL CONVENTION -- CONFERENCE. RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING THE PROMOTION AND USE OF MULTILINGUALISM AND UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO CYBERSPACE WHERE UNESCO, THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE, SECTION 14 OF THE DOCUMENT, MEMBER STATES INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD PROMOTE APPROPRIATE PARTNERSHIPS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF DOMAIN NAMES, INCLUDING MULTILINGUAL DOMAIN NAMES.

AND AS ICOM IS UNDER UNESCO'S IMMEDIATE PURVIEW, WE ARE OBLIGATED TO HEED GUIDELINES SUCH AS THIS EVERY BIT AS MUCH AS WE ARE OBLIGATED TO HEED GUIDELINES SUCH AS THE ICANN GUIDELINES REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IDN.

SO ALTHOUGH THE LANGUAGE HEADACHES ARE DIFFERENT, THE POLITICAL PRESSURES ARE PERHAPS MORE ACUTE: WE'RE NOT JUST DEALING WITH A GOVERNMENT. WE'RE DEALING WITH A MULTIPLICITY OF GOVERNMENTS AND ALL SORTS OF INTERNATIONAL SENSITIVITIES, AS I'M SURE ARE GOING TO BE ILLUSTRATED IN OTHER CONTEXTS DURING THE COURSE OF THE AFTERNOON.

AND ON THAT CHEERY NOTE I'LL ALLOW THE UTLDS TO EXPLAIN HOW MUCH SIMPLER THEIR EXISTENCE IS. THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS IMMEDIATELY FOR ME, BY THE WAY, BEFORE I CEDE THE FLOOR?

>>VINT CERF: PERHAPS LATER. THANK YOU, CARY.

>>CARY KARP: SURE.

>>VINT CERF: THAT WAS REMARKABLY TIMELY.

I UNDERSTAND MATT LARSON IS GOING TO START OUT WITH THE DISCUSSION ON BEHALF OF AFILIAS, AND THEN HE'LL BE FOLLOWED BY RAM MOHAN.

MATT.

>>MATT LARSON: THAT'S CORRECT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

I'M MATT LARSON FROM VERISIGN. AND RAM MOHAN AND I ARE EACH GOING TO DESCRIBE OUR VARIOUS EXPERIENCES WITH IMPLEMENTING IDNS IN UTLDS.

I AM GOING TO DESCRIBE OUR EXPERIENCES WITH COM/NET STRICTLY, OR I SHOULD SAY SPECIFICALLY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF IMPLEMENTING THE IDNA STANDARDS AND WHAT OUR EXPERIENCES HAVE BEEN.

JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND, THE VERISIGN IDN TEST BED OPENED IN NOVEMBER OF 2000. AND WE TRANSITIONED THAT TO A STRICTLY STANDARDS-BASED, IETF STANDARDS-BASED IMPLEMENTATION STARTING IN AUGUST OF 2003. THE IETF IDNA STANDARDS WERE PUBLISHED IN MARCH OF 2003. SHORTLY AFTER THE STANDARDS WERE PUBLISHED, THEN, IN AUGUST OF 2003, WE FIRST DEPLOYED A STANDARDS VERSION OF THE SOFTWARE, THE REGISTRY SOFTWARE IN OUR OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION ENVIRONMENT. AND THIS ENVIRONMENT ALLOWS REGISTRARS TO TEST THE SOFTWARE, TEST THEIR SOFTWARE AND GET EXPERIENCE WITH THE NEW PROTOCOLS. SO THAT DEPLOYMENT HAPPENED IN AUGUST OF 2003. AND THEN 13 DECEMBER IN 2003 WAS KIND OF A BIG DAY. THAT'S WHEN THIS WAS DEPLOYED INTO ACTUAL PRODUCTION. AND THAT'S WHEN WE OPENED OUR REGISTRAR MIGRATION WINDOW.

SO AT THAT TIME WE CONVERTED ALL REGISTRARS FROM RACE, WHICH HAD BEEN THE ACE ENCODING WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE TEST BED FROM ITS INCEPTION IN NOVEMBER OF 2000 UNTIL THEN, WE MIGRATED FROM RACE TO PUNYCODE. SO DURING THIS MIGRATION PERIOD, THE REGISTRARS WERE PERMITTED TO SEND EITHER PUNYCODE OR RACE, SO THAT GAVE THEM TIME TO UPDATE THEIR SYSTEMS, WHICH WAS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE MIGRATION PERIOD.

WE, IN THE PROCESS OF CONVERTING THESE REGISTRATIONS TO PUNYCODE, DISCOVERED THAT OUT OF APPROXIMATELY HALF A MILLION REGISTERED IDNS, THERE WERE ONLY 500 INVALID REGISTRATIONS THAT WE HAD TO DELETE.

AND THESE WERE THE PRIMARY REASONS, THE IDEOGRAPHIC FULL-STOP CHARACTER WAS NO LONGER PERMITTED, NOR WERE LEADING TRAILING -- EXCUSE ME, LEADING OR TRAILING DASHES, AS WELL AS VARIOUS CHANGES IN BIDIRECTIONAL RULES.

PRIOR TO THIS POINT, PRIOR TO THE MIGRATION, THE TEST BED HAD BEEN BASED ON AN EARLIER VERSION OF THE NAMEPREP STANDARD. SO WHEN WE WENT FROM THIS EARLIER VERSION OF NAMEPREP TO THE STANDARD VERSION OF NAMEPREP, THAT DID INVOLVE INVALIDATING A FEW REGISTRATIONS. BUT, ACTUALLY, A VERY SMALL NUMBER.

THE OTHER BIG THING THAT HAPPENED ON THIS DATE, DECEMBER 13TH, 2003, WAS THAT WE BEGAN PUBLISHING THESE IDNS BASED ON PUNYCODE DIRECTLY INTO THE DOT-COM AND DOT NET ZONES. SO THESE IDNS WERE RESOLVABLE IN DOT-COM AND DOT NET DIRECTLY.

THEN THIS MIGRATION WINDOW CLOSED ON APRIL 24TH, 2004. AND STARTING ON THAT DATE, ALL OF THE REGISTRARS WERE REQUIRED TO, YOU KNOW, COMPLETELY COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS AND THE GUIDELINES OF THE IDN -- THE ICANN IDN GUIDELINES. AND THEY ALSO HAD TO SUBMIT REGISTRATIONS IN PUNYCODE.

AND THEN A MORE RECENT EVENT, JUST A FEW DAYS AGO, ON JULY 2ND, WE FINALLY REMOVED ANY TRACES OF RACE RESOLUTION FROM OUR INAV PLUG-IN. THAT'S A PLUG-IN THAT COMPLEMENTS THE IDNA STANDARD FOR WINDOWS INTERNET EXPLORER, OUTLOOK, OUTLOOK EXPRESS, AND THE WINDOWS ADDRESS BOOK.

I WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ICANN IDN GUIDELINES AND HOW VERISIGN IS IMPLEMENTING THOSE. SO IN BOLD HERE, WE HAVE PARTICULAR GUIDELINES AND THE SUBBULLETS DESCRIBE WHAT VERISIGN IS DOING. SO ONE OF THE GUIDELINES IS STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE IDN STANDARD RFCS, WHICH WE ARE ABSOLUTELY DOING. THE OTHER THING THAT THE GUIDELINES SAY IS THAT ALLOWABLE CHARACTERS IN AN IDN SHOULD BE INCLUSION-BASED. IN OTHER WORDS, IF A CHARACTER IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED, IT SHOULD BE PROHIBITED. AND SO WE ARE DOING THAT FOR SPECIFIC LANGUAGES THAT HAVE IDENTIFIED AN APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE TABLE.

SO IDENTIFIED AN APPROPRIATE WOULD BE FROM A PARTICULAR BODY, YOU KNOW, RECOGNIZED BY THE COMMUNITY AS AUTHORITATIVE FOR THAT PARTICULAR LANGUAGE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR CHINESE, WE ARE FOLLOWING THE CDNC LANGUAGE AND VARIANT TABLES.

THE OTHER THING THE GUIDELINES SAY IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE SUPPORT FOR SPECIFIC RULES AND TAGS FOR LANGUAGES.

AND THE WAY THAT WE'RE IMPLEMENTING THIS IS THAT ALL NEW REGISTRATIONS HAVE TO HAVE A LANGUAGE TAG ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. AND THESE VALID LANGUAGE TAGS COME FROM A SUBSET OF ISO 639-2. WE'VE ACTUALLY PARED DOWN THIS LIST TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR REGISTRAR UIS, SO RATHER THAN HAVING -- SUPPORTING THE ENTIRE LIST OF LANGUAGES, WE ARE SUPPORTING A SUBSET. BUT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE KINDS OF LANGUAGES, THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGES THAT AREN'T SUPPORTED ARE THOSE THAT DON'T HAVE LANGUAGE TABLES RIGHT NOW OR DON'T HAVE -- AREN'T BEING USED, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, THE CHEROKEE LANGUAGE, FOR EXAMPLE, IS ONE OF THE ONES NOT IN THE LIST. BUT CERTAINLY WE WILL ADD ANYTHING TO THIS LIST WHEN A LANGUAGE TABLE IS SUPPORTED.

SO RIGHT NOW, AT THIS MOMENT, THE LANGUAGES THAT WE'RE SUPPORTING LANGUAGE TABLES FOR ARE CHINESE, JAPANESE, KOREAN, POLLISH, GREEK, RUSSIAN, AND THEN OTHER CYRILLIC-BASED LANGUAGES.

AS I MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO, FOR CHINESE, WE'RE USING THE CDNC VARIANT TABLE AND INCLUSION TABLE. FOR CHINESE TRADITIONS THAT MINGLED TRADITIONAL AND SIMPLIFIED, WE ARE NOT USING ANY VARIANT -- AND WE CREATED GREEK AND RUSSIAN LANGUAGE TABLES THAT PROHIBIT THE INCLUSION OF LATIN -- EXCUSE ME, LATIN CHARACTERS. SO AN IDN REGISTRATION IN GREEK OR CYRILLIC CANNOT -- OR, EXCUSE ME, GREEK OR RUSSIAN CANNOT ALSO INCLUDE A LATIN CHARACTER. AND THAT'S TO AVOID TRADEMARK ISSUES WITH PEOPLE TRYING TO REGISTER AN IDN THAT WOULD LOOK SIMILAR TO AN ALL ROMAN-BASED.

WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO GERMAN AND SCANDINAVIAN TABLES BEING EMPLOYED WITH THE NEXT DROP OF OUR CORE SOFTWARE, WHICH WILL BE, WE ESTIMATE, IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2005.

SO CONTINUING WITH THE GUIDELINES FROM THE IDN -- THE ICANN IDN GUIDELINES, THEY ALSO SAY THAT THEY SHOULD SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE-SPECIFIC REGISTRATION POLICIES. AND WE ARE WORKING WITH VARIOUS REGIONAL AUTHORITIES TO DEPLOY APPROPRIATE TABLES AS THEY BECOME AVAILABLE, WE ARE DEPLOYING THEM, WHICH IS THE CASE ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH THE UPCOMING GERMAN AND SCANDINAVIAN TABLES.

ON OTHER -- ANOTHER GUIDELINE IS TO LIMIT (INAUDIBLE) TABLES TO CHARACTERS ASSOCIATED WITH ONE LANGUAGE OR SET OF LANGUAGES. AND RIGHT NOW WE ARE BASING THAT LIMIT ON LANGUAGE TABLES.

JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME IDEA OF WHAT THE SCRIPT MAKEUP IS IN DOT-COM AND DOT NET REGISTRATIONS, 69% OF ALL REGISTERED IDNS ARE FROM A SINGLE LANGUAGE OR A SINGLE SCRIPT. ONLY 31% COMBINE A SINGLE NON-LATIN SCRIPT OR LANGUAGE AND A LATIN CHARACTER. AND THEN ONLY 6 -- AND THAT'S NOT 69%, BUT 69 OUT OF APPROXIMATELY A HALF MILLION, ONLY 69 REGISTRATIONS ACTUALLY COMBINE MULTIPLE NON-LATIN SCRIPTS.

AND THEN YET ANOTHER GUIDELINE IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATIONAL RESOURCES IN THE VARIOUS LANGUAGES THAT ARE SUPPORTED.

AND ONE OF THE WAYS THAT WE'RE DOING THAT IS USING A LANGUAGE SERVICE THAT ALLOWS REGISTRARS TO BE SUPPORTED IN THEIR NATIVE LANGUAGES AS NEEDED. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY CAN CALL OUR CUSTOMER SERVICE AND BE PATCHED THROUGH TO AN INTERPRETER.

I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT, THEN, ABOUT THE ACTUAL MIGRATION PROCESS THAT I REFERRED TO A FEW SLIDES AGO. WE HAD OVER 90 REGISTRARS THAT HAD REGISTERED IDNS. WHEN WE DID THIS MIGRATION, FIVE OF THOSE REGISTRARS CHOSE TO NO LONGER PARTICIPATE AND WE WERE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY TRANSFER 54% OF THOSE DOMAINS TO OTHER REGISTRARS USING AN IDN TRANSFER POLICY. WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT MANY EUROPEAN REGISTRARS BEGAN REGISTERING IDNS ONCE THE STANDARD WAS DEPLOYED. THAT WAS A POSITIVE AND ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT WE WERE PLEASED TO SEE.

WE HAVE BEEN ALSO VERY PLEASED THAT THERE WERE NO MAJOR TECHNICAL CONVERSION ISSUES. MANY REGISTRARS WERE USING AN IDN SDK, SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT KIT THAT WE DEVELOPED. AND WE ALSO PROVIDED THEM, WHEN NECESSARY, WITH DIRECT ACCESS TO OUR ENGINEERING RESOURCES THAT DEVELOPED THAT SDK. AND WE RECEIVED A LOT OF POSITIVE FEEDBACK ABOUT THE SDK AND ALSO THE ABILITY TO GET COMPLETE AND TIMELY SUPPORT FOR IT.

WE ALSO PROVIDED EXERCISES TO REGISTRARS FOR SELF-ASSESSMENT OF THEIR SOFTWARE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, TO TEST NAMEPREP AND TRANSCODING ISSUES. AND WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT ACTIVE REGISTRARS HAVE CONTINUED TO REGISTER IDNS AT CONSISTENT RATES.

THERE ARE SOME REMAINING REGISTRAR ISSUES.

WE'RE AWARE THAT SOME RESELLERS HAVE NOT YET CONVERTED THEIR OWN DATA FROM RACE, WHICH WAS THE BASE ENCODING FOR THE TEST BED, TO PUNYCODE. AND THERE IS ALSO THE CASE THAT SOME DELEGATED NAME SERVERS ARE STILL HOSTING RACE VERSIONS OF ZONES. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY HAVE NOT YET CHANGED THE AUTHORITATIVE NAME SERVERS TO SUPPORT A PUNYCODE VERSION OF A ZONE. HOWEVER, THE REMOVAL OF RACE FROM THE INAV PLUG-IN HAS EXPEDITED THIS.

NOW THAT THE I-NAV PLUG-IN THAT I MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO NO LONGER DOES ANY RACE LOOKUPS WHATSOEVER, THAT HAS INCENTED PEOPLE TO QUICKLY MOVE ANY ZONES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY RACE ONLY TO PUNYCODE.

WE DO FEEL -- AND THIS HAS BEEN CERTAINLY MENTIONED BY SPEAKERS BEFORE ME TODAY -- THAT GETTING CLIENTS ENABLED IS THE FINAL KEY TO ADOPTION.

THERE ARE CERTAINLY APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY ADOPTED IDN AND IT'S REALLY TODAY A QUITE IMPRESSIVE LIST.

YOU CAN SEE HERE THE LIST OF VARIOUS BROWSERS, E-MAIL CLIENTS AND FTP CLIENTS. WE DO HAVE A FULL LIST AT THE URL SPECIFIED. THERE ARE STILL NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS ON THAT LIST, UNFORTUNATELY. AND THIS MEANS THAT IDNA SUPPORT ON THE DESKTOP STILL IS PERHAPS ONLY 2% OF DESKTOPS. IN TERMS OF IDN SDKS AND LANGUAGE SUPPORT, THAT'S CRITICAL FOR BUILDING IDNA APPLICATIONS. YOU CAN SEE THE LIST HERE, WHICH IS GROWING EVERY DAY, GIVING APPLICATION DEVELOPERS TOOLS TO ADD IDNA SUPPORT TO THEIR APPLICATIONS.

AND THEN, FINALLY, I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT AN INITIATIVE THAT VERISIGN IS SPEARHEADING CALL THE IDN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CONSORTIUM OR THE SDC. AND THIS FORUM CONSISTS OF PARTICIPANTS OF APPLICATION DEVELOPERS, REGISTRIES, AND REGISTRARS.

AND THE IDEA IS TO BRING THESE PEOPLE TOGETHER TO GET EVERYONE TALKING ABOUT SUPPORTING IDNA IN APPLICATIONS AND JUST TO GET CRITICAL MASS OF THESE PEOPLE.

THESE ARE SOME OF THE KEY ISSUES FACING THE CONSORTIUM.

CERTAINLY THERE'S SIGNIFICANT DEMANDS FOR IDNS IN ASIA AND EUROPE. SO THERE'S A DESIRE FOR IDNS THAT WORK IN APPLICATIONS.

AND THE IDEA IS TO GIVE A CLEAR BUSINESS DIRECTION TO APPLICATION PROVIDERS AND TO ADDRESS A FEW REMAINING STANDARDS ISSUES.

SO SOME OF THE GOALS OF THE CONSORTIUM ARE TO ENCOURAGE INTERNET USERS TO ADOPT APPLICATIONS THAT ARE IDNA-ENABLED.

WE ALSO WANT TO FOCUS CONSUMER DEMAND FOR APPLICATIONS THAT ARE NOT IDNA. AND THEN WE WANT TO RECRUIT ADDITIONAL MEMBERSHIP TO THE IDN SDC.

SO WHAT THIS REALLY ENDS UP BEING IS A WAY TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL AND BUSINESS -- TO PROVIDE A TECHNICAL AND BUSINESS FORUM FOR SHARING KNOWLEDGE AND ALSO TO ASSIST IN THE CREATION OF BUSINESS STRATEGIES.

THE NEXT MEETING OF THE CONSORTIUM IS IN SAN DIEGO ON JULY 31ST. THAT'S THE SATURDAY BEFORE THE IETF MEETINGS START IN SAN DIEGO. AND WE ARE DEFINITELY ENCOURAGING ANY INTERESTED PARTIES TO PARTICIPATE. AND FOR MORE INFORMATION, YOU CAN CONTACT MY COLLEAGUE, PAT KANE, WHOSE E-MAIL ADDRESS IS ON THE SLIDE.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYBE WE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL THE END OF OUR JOINT PRESENTATION TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO RAM.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MATT.

I AM IMPRESSED WITH THE ALACRITY WITH WHICH YOU WENT THROUGH ALL OF THE SLIDES.

NO SIGNAL.

THAT'S A COMMENTARY ON THE CONTENT OF YOUR PRESENTATION, RAM.

WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE!

>>RAM MOHAN: WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS PROBABLY TOO HIGH A RESOLUTION.

SO GIVE ME A MOMENT.

>>VINT CERF: OH, YES, THERE IS THAT.

IT'S FUNNY, WE WENT THROUGH A PERIOD WHEN YOU COULD NEVER BE QUITE SURE WHETHER THE PROJECTION UNIT WOULD WORK.

AND THEN EVERYTHING LOOKED LIKE IT WAS FAIRLY WELL SYNCHRONIZED AND NOW WE'RE BACK TO, GEE, THE PROJECTION UNIT DOESN'T HAVE THE RESOLUTION THAT THE SCREEN OF THE LAPTOPS HAVE.

>>RAM MOHAN: PERHAPS THAT'S A COMMENTARY ON STANDARDS.

>>VINT CERF: DON'T YOU LOVE THEM?

THERE'S PLENTY OF THEM TO CHOOSE AMONG.

WELL, WHAT DO YOU THINK?

THERE -- IT WENT AWAY.

>>RAM MOHAN: IT SEEMS TO WANT TO COME AND GO.

>>VINT CERF: IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE IT'S A REFRESH RATE PROBLEM. SO IF WE ALL BLINK AT 300 MILLISECONDS PER BLINK, THIS SHOULD ALL LOOK PRETTY REGULAR.

>>MATT LARSON: VINT, SHOULD I OFFER TO TAKE QUESTIONS ON MY PRESENTATION WHILE WE'RE WAITING?

>>VINT CERF: YES. THANK YOU FOR THAT IDEA.

I ACTUALLY HAVE A COUPLE.

YOU MENTIONED -- AS A GTLD REGISTRY, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU WOULD THAT YOU WOULD TURN TO APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE TABLES FOR REFERENCE IN DOING REGISTRATIONS.

AND I WONDERED IF YOU HAD ENCOUNTERED A SITUATION WHERE MORE THAN ONE TABLE EXISTED FOR THE SAME LANGUAGE, PERHAPS BECAUSE DIFFERENT GROUPS IN DIFFERENT LOCALES HADN'T COORDINATED AND/OR HAD GOOD REASON TO END UP WITH MORE THAN ONE CHOICE, DEPENDING ON THE VARIANT OF THE LANGUAGE THAT THEY HAPPEN TO BE WORKING WITH. HAS THAT BEEN A PROBLEM? AND IF IT HAS NOT, THIS IS A GOOD THING. IF IT HAS, HOW DID YOU RESOLVE IT?

>>MATT LARSON: I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT SITUATION ARISING YET.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY. SO YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO DODGE THAT BULLET FOR THE MOMENT.

>>MATT LARSON: I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE, YES.

>>VINT CERF: ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR?

OR, FOR THAT MATTER, FROM THE REST OF THE PANEL? THEN I HAVE ONE MORE.

YOUR STATISTICS, I THOUGHT, WERE QUITE FASCINATING. YOU MENTIONED THAT 69% OF ALL OF THE REGISTRATIONS THAT YOU SAW FOR IDNS REFERENCED A SINGLE LANGUAGE. AND YOU MENTIONED THAT, BASICALLY, THE REST OF THEM WERE A COMBINATION OF A LATIN CHARACTER SET PLUS SOME OTHER NON-LATIN CHARACTER SET.

DOES THAT LEAD TO AMBIGUITIES BECAUSE OF THE SIMILARITY OF THE SAME CHARACTER IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, LIKE THE CYRILLIC "H" AND "N"? A CYRILLIC "N" LOOKS LIKE A LATIN "H." SO IN THOSE CASES WHERE THERE WERE MIXTURES, WERE YOU ABLE TO EXCLUDE -- WELL, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ASK THIS.

BUT YOU MENTIONED YOU HAD EXCLUDED LATIN CHARACTERS, I THINK, FOR THOSE CASES WHERE THERE WOULD BE CONFUSION.

>>MATT LARSON: WE'VE DONE THAT SINCE THE MIGRATION TO STANDARDS.

SO FUTURE REGISTRATIONS, PEOPLE CAN'T SORT OF TRY AND GAME THE IDN BY REGISTERING -- THE SITUATION YOU DESCRIBE. BUT I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE EXISTING IDNS WHERE THERE ARE SITUATIONS LIKE THAT.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.

>>MATT LARSON: WHERE THERE WOULD BE SOME AMBIGUITY. AND THOSE PREDATE THE MIGRATION.

>>VINT CERF: SO IF THERE -- PRESUMABLY, YOU GRANDFATHERED THOSE IN SO AS TO ALLOW THE PARTIES TO CONTINUE TO USE THEIR REGISTERED NAMES. WHEN THOSE -- IF THOSE NAMES SHOULD EXPIRE, WOULD YOU EXCLUDE THEM BECAUSE OF THE NEW POLICY, DO YOU THINK? OR IS THAT JUST AN UNKNOWN AT THIS POINT?

>>MATT LARSON: I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. BUT I COULD PERHAPS GET IT BEFORE THE PANEL IS DONE HERE.

>>VINT CERF: THE PURPOSE FOR ASKING THIS QUESTION WAS PRIMARILY TO ILLUSTRATE HOW COMPLICATED THIS CAN GET FROM THE POLICY POINT OF VIEW, IF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS EVENTUALLY ZERO IN ON A COMMON POLICY.

I THINK JOHN KLENSIN SAID IN HIS REMARKS THAT YOU HAD THE MOST DIFFICULT CHALLENGE BECAUSE OF THE GTLD NOT BEING COUNTRY-SPECIFIC.

CHUCK, YOU HAD AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION?

>>CHUCK GOMES: YES. THE ANSWER IS, YES, THAT AS THOSE EXPIRE, THAT IS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

>>VINT CERF: SO THIS IS -- IN SOME SENSE, THAT'S QUITE A TASK FOR YOU, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO, AS A REGISTRY NAME EXPIRES, YOU HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT IT SHOULDN'T STAY IN. SO THAT'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF WORK.

>>CHUCK GOMES: YOU HAVE TO PUT A MECHANISM IN TO FLAG THOSE WHEN IT HAPPENS. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, WE'VE HAD TO DO SOMETHING SIMILAR WITH REGARD TO SOME RESERVE NAMES THAT WERE LEGACY NAMES IN OUR AGREEMENT WITH ICANN THAT HAD TO BE RESERVED. SO WE'VE HAD TO PUT A SIMILAR PROCEDURE IN PLACE THERE.

>>VINT CERF: FASCINATING. IT'S SORT OF LIKE DEBUGGING ON THE FLY.

WELL, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT WE NOW HAVE VISIBILITY.

SO, RAM, IT'S ALL YOURS.

>>RAM MOHAN: THANK YOU, VINT.

THANK YOU, ALL.

THIS PRESENTATION, I'M GOING TO SPEND A FEW MINUTES TALKING ABOUT THE DOT INFO GERMAN SCRIPT IDN LAUNCH, WHICH HAPPENED JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO.

A VERY BRIEF OVERVIEW.

THE GERMAN SCRIPT IDN REGISTRATIONS AND DOT INFO COMMENCED IN MARCH 2004 WITH REGISTRATION OF UMLAUTS ONLY. AND ALL REGISTRATIONS WERE PROCESSED ON A FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVED BASIS.

THE DOT INFO IDN NAMES NEEDED TO BE REGISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE IETF IDN STANDARDS AND THE ICANN GUIDELINES. AND WHAT WE DID WAS TO TRY AND DIFFERENTIATE AND ALSO MOTIVATE REGISTRARS. WE MAINTAINED A SEPARATE LIST OF IDN REGISTRARS IN OUR WEB SITE WHICH ALLOWED REGISTRARS WHO WERE INTERESTED IN SELLING THESE NAMES TO ACTUALLY CONTACT THE REGISTRY.

THE THRUST OF TODAY'S PRESENTATION IS TO DISCUSS A FEW OF THE ISSUES, A FEW OF THE ITEMS THAT WE HAD TO FACE. BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS ILLUSTRATIVE OF WHAT GTLDS AND PERHAPS EVEN CCTLDS WILL NEED TO FACE WHEN THEY GO ABOUT DOING THEIR OWN IDN LAUNCHES. BUT I'M GOING TO SPECIFICALLY FOCUS ON THE GTLD EXPERIENCE.

THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR DOT INFO IN GERMANY AND THE GERMAN SCRIPT MARKET WAS FAIRLY CLEAR.

OUT OF ALL THE REGISTRATIONS THAT DOT INFO HAD IN MARCH, OVER 265,000, OVER A QUARTER MILLION, WERE FROM GERMANY, AND 135,000 WERE LIVE, DEDICATED SITES. AND STATISTICS THAT WE COULD FIND SHOW THAT THERE WERE 100 MILLION GERMAN SPEAKERS WORLDWIDE, WITH A GREAT DEAL OF GERMAN BUSINESSES ONLINE, MANY COMPANIES HAVING THEIR OWN WEB SITE, AND THAT THERE IS A STRONG ESTIMATE THAT A LARGE AMOUNT OF GERMANS AND GERMAN BUSINESSES WERE GOING TO BE ONLINE. SO IT WAS A NATURAL WAY TO SELECT A SCRIPT AND A GEOGRAPHY TO TRY AND FOCUS ON.

AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE FOCUSED ON ALLOWING PUNYCODE SUBMISSIONS ONLY.

IN 2003 AUGUST WE ADOPTED THE IDN GUIDELINES. AND ALL INFO IDNS NOT JUST FOR THE GERMAN SCRIPT, BUT GOING FORWARD, THEY WILL BE REGISTERED IN PUNYCODE ONLY, WHICH IS PART OF THE STANDARDS PROCESS.

SPEAKERS AHEAD OF ME HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT PUNYCODE, SO I WON'T BELABOR THE POINTS HERE.

AS MOST REGISTRIES DO, WE ALSO PROVIDED AN IDN REGISTRAR'S TOOL KIT TO REGISTRARS, WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO TAKE NAMES IN THE LOCAL ENCODING, CONVERT THEM INTO PUNYCODE AND SUBMIT IT TO THE REGISTRY IN THAT PUNYCODE FORMAT.

THE PROCESS OF THE REGISTRAR ITSELF WAS -- IT WAS AN INTERESTING ONE, BECAUSE, A, THIS IS AN APB-BASED REGISTRY AND, B, IT WAS A THICK REGISTRY. SO THERE WERE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WERE BRAND-NEW FOR REGISTRARS WHEN THEY GOT STARTED WITH THE GERMAN IDN REGISTRATION.

THE VARIOUS BULLET POINTS UP ON THE SCREEN SHOW TO YOU SOME OF THE MANY THINGS THAT A REGISTRAR NEEDS TO DO, NEEDS TO PLAN AND HAS TO PROCESS BEFORE THEY CAN ACTUALLY SUBMIT AN IDN REGISTRATION REQUEST FROM THEIR CUSTOMER OVER TO THE REGISTRY. AND THIS IS ONLY A SUBSET OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TASKS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY REGISTRAR.

WE PROVIDED A TRAINING MANUAL AND, AS MATT SAID, WE ALSO PROVIDED PROGRAMMATIC ASSISTANCE AND ANY OTHER SPECIALIZED ASSISTANCE THAT A REGISTRAR NEEDED, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE IT'S A BRAND-NEW TOPIC FOR MANY OF THEM. THEY HAVE ENTHUSIASM, IN SOME CASES, MORE THAN ENTHUSIASM THAN KNOWLEDGE, AND IN OTHER CASES, THE REVERSE.

AT THE REGISTRY ITSELF, WE CHECKED ON A FEW CONDITIONS, MAKE SURE THAT THE VARIOUS STANDARDS ARE -- CONFORM TO, IS THE NAME TAGGED, IS THE NAME UNIQUE, AND OTHER NORMAL DOMAIN REGISTRY RULES THAT APPLY.

WE HAD -- SINCE WE WERE STARTING THIS UP NEW, WE ALSO WENT THROUGH A FEW OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT OTHER REGISTRIES, WHEN THEY GO ABOUT THINKING OF IMPLEMENTING IDN, PROBABLY WILL FACE.

DO YOU ALLOW EXTRA CONNECTIONS FOR REGISTRARS?

WHAT KIND OF A QUEUING SYSTEM, IF ANY, ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE?

ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE A SUNRISE OR A TRADEMARK PROTECTION PROCESS?

ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE A LAND RUSH PROCESS?

WHAT WE DID WAS WE WENT FOR A MORE SIMPLE APPROACH. WE SAID FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED. NAMES PRESERVED IN THE FIRST 30 DAYS WERE LOCKED, WHICH ALLOWED FOR ANY ORGANIZATIONS OR COMPANIES OR INDIVIDUALS WHO OBJECTED TO IT TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO AND GO THROUGH THE UDRP PROCESS OR THROUGH THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITIES.

HERE COMES AN INTERESTING TOPIC. YOU REGISTER THE NAME IN THE LOCAL SCRIPT. HOW DO YOU DISPLAY IT?

WHAT DO YOU DISPLAY?

DO YOU DISPLAY JUST THE NAME IN THE LOCAL SCRIPT?

DO YOU DISPLAY THE CONTACT INFORMATION?

WE TOOK A SIMPLE APPROACH AGAIN HERE. WE SAID REGISTER THE NAME IN PUNYCODE, OBVIOUSLY. BUT THE DISPLAY, WE CHOSE TO DISPLAY THE NAME IN PUNYCODE AND UNICODE HACKS AND UNICODE HTML, WHICH ALLOWED REGISTRARS TO INTEGRATE THE HTML OUTPUT INTO THEIR APPLICATIONS SO THAT YOU COULD ACTUALLY SEE THE UMLAUT CHARACTERS.

AND YOU SEE THE EXAMPLE UP THERE ON THE SCREEN.

NOW -- AND THERE'S A SHORT EXCERPT THAT IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN AS WELL. WHAT YOU WILL FIND IS THAT THAT IS THE KIND OF DATA THAT IS PROVIDED AT BOTH PORT-43 AND ON THE WEB-BASED WHOIS.

SO IT ALLOWS SOME LEVEL OF STANDARDIZATION BY REGISTRARS. BUT IT ALSO ATTEMPTS TO BE USER FRIENDLY, BECAUSE, AS YOU SEE, WHAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW, THE PUNYCODE REPRESENTATION IS ACCURATE, BUT REALLY MEANINGLESS TO A USER. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS.

AND THE ACTUAL LOCAL SCRIPT DESCRIPTION OR THE DISPLAY IS MEANINGFUL, BUT IF YOU TYPE THAT EXACT WORD IN TO YOUR INTERNET EXPLORER BROWSER TODAY OR IN YOUR E-MAIL, IT DOESN'T WORK.

SO DISPLAY OF WHOIS, DISPLAY OF OTHER INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT.

WE ENDED UP CREATING A PUNYCODE CONVERSION TOOL AVAILABLE RIGHT UP ON THE WEB SITE.

A FEW OTHER ISSUES THAT WE ENDED UP HAVING TO DISCUSS AND EXPLAIN CLEARLY AHEAD OF TIME.

IDN E-MAIL DO NOT EXPECT IDN AT IDN.INFO TO WORK.
RULES AREN'T CREATED YET.
YOU CAN EXPECT ASCII AT IDN.INFO.
SO YOU CAN TAKE THE PUNYCODE AND USE THAT AT IDN.INFO. THAT'LL WORK.

AND IT'S -- THE ACTUAL FUNCTIONALITY IS OUT OF THE CONTROL OF THE REGISTRY, IN FACT, OUT OF THE CONTROL OF THE REGISTRAR AS WELL.
THE ZONE FILE, AGAIN, WE HAD TO BE CLEAR.
THE COMMUNICATION OF THESE ITEMS WAS VERY IMPORTANT, AND WE HAD FEEDBACK FROM REGISTRARS SAYING THAT THESE WERE TINY, SMALL DETAILS THAT THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, GOING TO TRIP UP ON PERHAPS LATER ON.

IN THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AREA, WE -- I SPOKE BRIEFLY ABOUT IT.

NAMES ARE REGISTERED FROM THE START OF REGISTRATIONS UNTIL 30 DAYS AFTER THE START. AND, IN GENERAL, THIS IS A PROCESS THAT WORKED WELL FOR US. WE DID NOT FIND ANY COMPLAINTS. WE DID NOT FIND ANY DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN SO FAR OUT OF THE GERMAN SCRIPT EXPERIENCE OF LOCKING NAMES IN THE FIRST 30 DAYS AND GOING FORWARD.

SO WE COME TO WHAT IS PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT SLIDE HERE.

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM ALL OF THIS AND WHERE DO WE GO? IT IS MY OPINION THAT IDN IMPLEMENTATIONS TODAY ARE ONLY TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATIONS.

THE REAL CHALLENGES COME IN THE INTERSECTION OF TECHNOLOGY WITH SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND ECONOMIC POLICY THAT HAPPENS IN VARIOUS SCRIPTS AND LANGUAGES AND GEOGRAPHIES AROUND THE WORLD. BUT IDN ITSELF, THE WAY WE'RE DOING IT, IS NOT ABOUT GEOGRAPHY AND PERHAPS NOT EVEN ABOUT LANGUAGE.

IT'S ABOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT SCRIPTS ARE DEPLOYED CORRECTLY AND ACCURATELY AND ARE DISPLAYED IN A MANNER THAT IS -- THAT WORKS NOT ONLY WITH ALL THE MODERN EQUIPMENT AND APPLICATIONS, BUT IS BACKWARD-COMPATIBLE IN LINE WITH HOW THE DNS ITSELF WORKS.

AS A REGISTRY, WE RAN INTO MANY TEMPTATIONS TO STRAY ALONG THE WAY. WE COULD HAVE MADE NUMBER OF CHOICES AS YOU SEE UP HERE ON THE SCREEN. IN ANY ONE OF THOSE CASES WE TOOK ADVICE FROM THE COMMUNITY, AND WE SPENT SOME TIME ON IT OURSELVES, BUT WE DIDN'T REALLY GO WITH THESE AREAS.

IN SUMMARY, IDN TECHNOLOGY IS COMPLEX, BUT OUR EXPERIENCE AT AFILIAS IS PROOF THAT TLD OPERATORS CAN LEARN AND IMPLEMENT IDNS QUICKLY, YET DELIBERATELY, AND CAN DO IT IN A FLEXIBLE MANNER YET IN COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS. SO IF YOU HEAR FOLKS SAY THAT THE SKY IS FALLING, IT'S ONLY GOING TO HAPPEN IF YOU DON'T WORK IN A COLLABORATIVE MANNER WITH THE FOLKS WHO ARE ACTUALLY GOOD AT THIS STUFF, BECAUSE IT IS COMPLEX STUFF. BUT IT'S VERY DOABLE. OUR EXPERIENCE IS VERY ENCOURAGING, AND I HOPE THAT WE FIND MORE REGISTRIES GO AHEAD AND LAUNCH IDNS.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, RAM. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR EITHER MATT OR RAM?

I HAVE ONE. OH, I'M SORRY; THERE'S ONE HERE. YES, KHALED.

>>KHALED FATTAL: THANK YOU, VINT. ACTUALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE AFILIAS ON A JOB WELL DONE. SOME OF THE AREAS THAT THEY HAVE COVERED AND THE CONSULTATIONS THAT THEY HAVE DONE IN LAUNCHING IDNS IN GERMAN -- FOR EXAMPLE, EVEN THE LANGUAGE TABLE FOR GERMAN, IF PEOPLE WERE TO LOOK AT IT PROPERLY THEY WILL SEE THAT IT HAD ADHERED AND LOOKED AT LINGUISTIC ELEMENTS THAT AFFECT GERMAN IDN. SO I THINK THAT THAT WAS EXCELLENT WORK AND EXCELLENT PREPARATION.

AND ALSO, THE RECOGNITION THAT THIS IS AN EXERCISE IN -- AT LEAST A BEGINNING OF UTILIZING WHAT THE SCRIPT CAN PROVIDE. AND FOR US TO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY A STARTING POINT TO TAKE IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL.

SO WELL DONE.

>>RAM MOHAN: THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU.

PLEASE.

OH, WE NEED TO GET YOU IDENTIFIED.

HOLD ON.

>>NASER SULAIMAN: I HAVE A SMALL QUESTION. ABOUT THE TESTING PERIOD, WHAT DO YOU THINK TO BE THE SUITABLE PERIOD FOR THE TESTING? BEFORE WE LAUNCH THE SERVICE.

>>RAM MOHAN: AS A TEST BED?

>>NASER SULAIMAN: YEAH.

>>RAM MOHAN: SO THE QUESTION IS WHAT DO YOU THINK IS AN APPROPRIATE PERIOD TO TEST AN IDN IMPLEMENTATION, A TEST BED.

>>NASER SULAIMAN: YEAH, BEFORE YOU PUBLISH THE SERVICE. DO YOU THINK WE CAN PUBLISH IT IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT THIS THING OR IS IT BETTER TO HAVE A TESTING PERIOD? THANK YOU.

>>RAM MOHAN: I THINK HAVING A TESTING PERIOD HAS VALUE IF IT'S NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE, OR IF IT IS SUFFICIENTLY COMPLEX.

IF YOU HAVE A SCRIPT THAT HAS MULTIPLE VARIANTS AND PACKAGES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, I THINK A TEST PERIOD IS CRITICAL. IN OUR CASE, IN DOT INFO, THE REGISTRAR PARTICULARLY OPENED UP A TESTING PERIOD WELL IN ADVANCE OF WHEN WE ACTUALLY LAUNCHED. IN OUR EXPERIENCE, REGISTRARS NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO INTEGRATE OR MAKE SURE THEY CAN ANSWER THEIR CUSTOMERS' QUESTIONS, AND THAT TAKES A FEW MONTHS. IN OUR CASE WE STARTED UP IN THE FIRST GLOBAL WEB CAST THAT WE DID FOR THE MARCH DEPLOYMENT WAS IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR.

SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FOUR MONTHS THERE.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, RAM.

OLE.

>>OLE JACOBSEN: IT'S BEEN SEVERAL YEARS SINCE I STUDIED GERMAN, BUT IF I RECALL CORRECTLY THERE'S AT LEAST ONE OR TWO OTHER SPECIAL CHARACTERS IN GERMAN, SUCH AS THE DOUBLE S OR WHATEVER IT'S CALLED. IS THERE SOME PARTICULAR REASON YOU DIDN'T INCLUDE THE OTHERS? AND MAYBE THERE IS ONLY ONE OTHER.

>>RAM MOHAN: THANKS, OLE. YES, I BELIEVE S ZED, THE ONE THAT LOOKS LIKE A BETA, IS THE ONLY OTHER. NAME PREP, IF YOU USE THE NAME PREP PROCESS S ZED LITERALLY GOES OUT OF EXISTENCE AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY. THE TECHNOLOGY TAKES CARE OF THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.

IF WE HAD HAD TO DO IT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A THORNY ISSUE. DNET HAS TACKLED THAT BECAUSE SZ HAS SOME UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS. IT'S A NON TRANSLATION. IF YOU WILL. NOT EVERY SS TRANSLATES BACK INTO SZ, AND THERE IS NO UPPER CASE; ONLY LOWER CASE SZ.

>>VINT CERF: I HAVE ONE MORE AND THEN WE WILL CLOSE QUESTIONS SO WE CAN MOVE AHEAD. PLEASE.

>>DAVID ALLEN: WE'VE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT THE VERY GREAT CHALLENGES THAT CHINESE PRESENT THIS MORNING.

I'M CURIOUS, AS YOU MOVED TO IMPLEMENT CHINESE, THE EXTENT TO WHICH YOU'RE COORDINATING WITH YOUR COUSINS ACROSS THE PACIFIC WHO HAVE A CHINESE-CHINESE, TAIWANESE-CHINESE, SINGAPOREAN CHINESE, SO WHEN WE GET TO THE END OF THE ROAD HERE WE HAVE SOME COHERENCE ACROSS ALL THE DOMAINS IN WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY AN AMAZINGLY CHALLENGING, COMPLICATED SITUATION.

I REMEMBER SLIGHTLY SOME OF THE DETAILS OF YOUR EVEN IMPLEMENTATION OF CHINESE, AND IT MIRRORED, TO SOME EXTENT. IT CERTAINLY DID NOT HAVE IN IT THESE DISTINCTIONS AMONGST VARIOUS LINGUISTIC COMMUNITIES IN ASIA, BUT MORE GENERALLY, LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION.

WHAT STEPS, IF ANY, DO YOU TAKE TO N THE END, WIND UP WITH SOME COHERENCE BETWEEN YOUR IMPLEMENTATION AND THOSE IN ASIA SPECIFICALLY?

>>MATT LARSON: WELL, OUR POSITION ON LANGUAGE TABLES IN GENERAL IS THAT WE LOOK FOR THE AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE FOR A PARTICULAR LANGUAGE, AND WHEN SUCH A SOURCE APPEARS, WE WILL FOLLOW THAT SOURCE.

SO THE CDNC TABLES THAT WE'RE USING REPRESENT A COMBINED EFFORT BY SEVERAL DIFFERENT CHINESE-SPEAKING COMMUNITIES.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MATT. OKAY. WE'D LIKE TO MOVE ON NOW TO HEAR FROM NASK IN POLAND, AND IT'S ANDRZEJ BARTOSIEWICZ WHO WILL GIVE US HIS EXPERIENCES NOW WITH IDNS.

>>ANDRZEJ BARTOSIEWICZ: THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR EXPERIENCE WITH INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES.

THE FIRST, I WILL START WITH THE DEPLOYMENT SCHEDULE. WE STARTED WORKING ON INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES IN POLAND IN FEBRUARY 2002. WE STARTED WITH THE CONSULTATIONS WITH LOCAL INTERNET COMMUNITY. WE HAD TWO PRESS CONFERENCES, SEVERAL PRESS RELEASES. WE HAVE ALSO CONSULTED WITH AND DISCUSSED WITH EUROPEAN CCTLD REGISTRIES. CENTR ORGANIZED SEVERAL MEETINGS DEDICATED TO THE IDNS. WE HAD TECHNICAL WORKSHOPS, ADMINISTRATIVE AND IDN WORKSHOPS, SO WE HAD ALSO THE OPPORTUNITIES TO PRESENT OUR PLANS TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO GET FEEDBACK.

THEN MARCH 2003, WE HAD THE RFCS OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BY THE IETF. AND THEN IN AUGUST 2003, WE PUBLISHED OUR IETF DRAFT. THE LAUNCH DATE FOR IDN UNDER DOT PL WAS IN SEPTEMBER 2003 DURING THE COMMUNICATION SYMPOSIUM, AND WE STARTED WITH POLISH SCRIPT ONLY, SO THE NINE SPECIAL POLISH CHARACTERS. AFTER ONE WEEK WE STARTED WITH THE POLISH SCRIPT UNDER DOT COME PL, DOT NET PL, AND DOT EDU.PL. IT WAS BECAUSE WE WERE AFRAID OF THE RUSH SO WE STARTED THIS. THEN NEXT MONTH WE ADDED GERMAN UMLAUTS, AND IN OCTOBER WE ALSO ADDED THE WHOLE LATIN 1 SUPPLEMENT AND LATIN EXTENDED-A SET.

BECAUSE WE HAVE -- WE HAD NO PROBLEMS WITH THE REGISTRATION OF THE IDNS, WE DECIDED TO ADD ADDITIONAL SCRIPTS: ARABIC, GREEK, AND HEBREW, IN NOVEMBER. AND FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, THE CYRILLICS.

I WILL BRIEFLY GO THROUGH THE REGISTRATION RULES FOR IDNS IN POLAND.

SO THE FIRST AND THE MOST IMPORTANT IS THE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED RULE. WE HAD NO PREREGISTRATIONS. THERE WERE NO SUNRISE PERIODS. WE ACCEPT ACE VERSION ONLY FOR THE WHOLE PROCESS. SO FOR INPUT, OUTPUT, AND PROCESSING. WE ACCEPT ONLY VALID STRINGS ACCORDING TO THE RFCS, SO WE CHECKED THIS. AND WE DID IT ONLY WITH THE XN DASH DASH STRINGS. SO WE DO NOT ACCEPT THE UNICODE DOMAIN NAMES. WE ACCEPT THE DECODED XN DASH DASH STRINGS.

THERE ARE NO SPECIAL RULES FOR IDNS UNDER DOT PL EXCEPT A COMBINATION OF CHARACTERS FROM DIFFERENT CHARACTER SETS IS NOT ALLOWED. SO YOU CANNOT MIX -- YOU CAN MIX POLISH AND GERMAN CHARACTERS BUT YOU CAN'T MIX GERMAN AND CYRILLIC CHARACTERS IN ONE DOMAIN NAME.

WE HAVE NO VARIANTS, NO BUNDLING, AND WE ALSO DO NOT STORE THE DOMAIN NAME WITH THE ASSOCIATION WITH LANGUAGE. SO THERE IS NO LANGUAGE TAGS.

OUR APPROACH IS VERY SIMPLY, SO WE MADE NO CHANGES TO THE INTERNAL DATABASES, PROTOCOLS. WE USED THE EPP. BUT ALSO INVOICING, PROCEDURES, AND THE FULL CUSTOMER CARE SUPPORT.

THE SUBJECT OF THE CONTRACT IS THE XN DASH DASH DOMAIN NAME. SO IF WE EXCHANGE SOME INFORMATION WITH OUR CUSTOMERS OR THE ARBITRATION CODE, WE REFER TO THE XN DASH DASH VERSION, NOT THE UNICODE VERSION.

WE ARE PUBLISHING ALL THE RULES, THE CHARACTER SETS, AS THE IETF INTERNET DRAFTS, SO THE CURRENT VERSION IS 07. AND OUR TECHNICAL PART OF THE REGISTRY-REGISTRAR AGREEMENT ALSO REFERS TO THE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS.

AS I MENTIONED, WE DON'T NEED TO MAKE ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE ARBITRATION COURT PROCEDURES.

AS I SAID, THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT IS 07, SO IF YOU ARE INTERESTED HOW WE DEAL WITH IDNS, PLEASE REFER TO THIS DOCUMENT.

JUST AN EXAMPLE, WHOIS SERVICE, IF YOU CHECK THE DOMAIN NAME IN WHOIS, YOU GET -- YOU HAVE TO ENTER THE XN DASH DASH STRING, AND YOU GET THE ALSO THE OUTPUT XN DASH DASH DOMAIN NAME.

SOME STATISTICS. YOU CAN SEE THE WEEKLY STATISTICS. SO EVERY POINT IS -- ONE IS THE RESULT OF ONE WEEK OF THE REGISTRATION. SO THE FIRST WEEK WE REGISTERED 1,600 DOMAIN NAMES. AND THEN EVERY WEEK, ABOUT 2- OR 400 NEW DOMAIN NAMES. AND THEN AFTER TWO MONTHS, AND IT'S VERY STABLE RESULT, IT'S ABOUT 40 NEW CHARACTERS A WEEK.

THIS IS ALSO THE INFORMATION ON THE NEW REGISTRATIONS, BUT ADDING THE VALUE -- THE VOLUME OF THE ALREADY-REGISTERED DOMAIN NAME. SO NOW WE HAVE ALMOST 4,200 IDN DOMAIN NAMES.

THE PERCENTAGE, 2 PERCENT OF THE ZONE FILE ARE THE IDNS, AND 98 PERCENT ARE THE PURE ASCII DOMAIN NAMES. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF THE DOMAIN NAMES REGISTERED IN POLAND IS 238,000. SO YOU CAN CALCULATE IT BY YOURSELF. AND THE NUMBER, THE PERCENTAGE NUMBER OF THE IDNS IS DECREASING, NOT INCREASING BUT DECREASING. 86 PERCENT HAS BEEN -- HAVE BEEN REGISTERED BY THE REGISTRARS, AND ONLY 14 PERCENT ARE DIRECT REGISTRATIONS.

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PROBLEMS, ANY REPORTS WITH PROBLEMS SINCE SEPTEMBER OF 2003 REGARDING REGISTERED IDNS.

HOW WE PREPARE -- HOW WE ADD THE NEW SCRIPTS TO THE REGISTRATION, WE BASE ON THE RELIABLE SOURCES LIKE IBM OR OTHER WEB SITES. AND OF COURSE THE LANGUAGE EXPERTS.

JUST A FEW REMARKS. WHY WE ARE REGISTERING NOT ONLY POLISH SCRIPT BUT ALSO OTHER EUROPEAN AND NON-EUROPEAN SCRIPTS. GENERALLY, OUR MISSION IS TO SUPPORT ALL MINORITIES AND ETHNIC GROUPS LIVING IN POLAND. AND IN OUR OPINION, ALLOWING THE NON-POLISH CHARACTERS TO BE REGISTERED UNDER DOT PL, IT HELPS, JUST A VERY SMALL HELP TO PRESERVE THE CULTURE AND TRADITION OF DIFFERENT MINORITIES LIVING IN POLAND.

AND IN THE END, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU TO ALL THE REGISTRIES WHICH ALLOW REGISTRANTS TO REGISTER POLISH CHARACTERS. CURRENTLY, DENIC THE GERMAN REGISTRY SUPPORTS POLISH CHARACTERS. ALSO DOT NU, VERISIGN UNDER DOT COM, DOT NET AND DOT CC. PROBABLY THERE ARE OTHER REGISTRIES, SO I WILL BE VERY GLAD IF YOU CAN INFORM US IF YOU SUPPORT THE POLISH CHARACTERS.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO -- AND DOT MUSEUM?

>>CARY KARP: ARE YOU ENTERTAINING QUESTIONS?

>>ANDRZEJ BARTOSIEWICZ: NO, NO, I HAVE MORE SLIDES.

SO IF YOU ARE THE MANAGERS OF THE CCTLD OR GTLD REGISTRIES, I WOULD BE VERY WELCOME IF YOU CAN SUPPORT ALSO THE POLISH CHARACTERS IN YOUR REGISTRIES.

I WOULD LIKE ALSO TO SAY THANK YOU TO ICANN AND IANA FOR YOUR EFFORT, ESPECIALLY DOUG BARTON, AND ALL PUBLISHING THE LANGUAGE TABLES. JAPANESE REGISTRY, ALSO THEY PUBLISHED THEIR IETF DRAFT, AND OF COURSE THE IANA, THEIR DOCUMENT ON IANA LANGUAGE TABLE. ALSO DOT INFO, DOT KR, AND DOT MUSEUM.

THOSE WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE, MR. KHALED FATTAL LETTER TO ICANN, THEY MAY BE SURPRISED BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT THE MEANING DOES. I DON'T AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENTS IN THIS LETTER BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO KHALED FATTAL FOR YOUR EFFORTS SUPPORTING THE INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO THOSE WHO ARE SUPPORTING THE IDNS.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT IDN.ASCII IS FOR SOME COUNTRIES NOT SUFFICIENT. FOR US IT IS. SO WE ARE GRAD WITH THE SITUATION WE HAVE BECAUSE IN DOT PL IS IN ASCII BUT WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT FOR SOME COUNTRIES, IDN.ASCII SOLUTION IS NOT ENOUGH. AND WE REALLY SUPPORT THE EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT IDN.IDN DOMAIN NAMES.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, PLEASE CONTACT ME. THE PRESENTATION IS -- THIS PRESENTATION IS AVAILABLE ON MY WEB PAGE, SO THE SECOND ADDRESS IS -- THERE IS MY -- THERE IS THIS PRESENTATION. SO PLEASE DOWNLOAD THE PRESENTATION, IF YOU LIKE. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH, ANDRZEJ.

I GATHER, CARY, THAT YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT, SO PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>>CARY KARP: I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO HELP YOU FULFILL YOUR DREAM OF SEEING, FOR EXAMPLE, POLISH SUPPORT IN DOT MUSEUM. AND THANKS TO THE FACT THAT YOU'VE PUBLISHED WHAT WE CERTAINLY RECORD AS AN AUTHORITATIVE CHARACTER TABLE. THAT'S THE ONE PIECE OF IT, BUT ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS WE'RE OBLIGATED TO DO IF WE ADHERE TO THE ICANN GUIDELINES IS PROVIDE POLISH LANGUAGE SUPPORT IF WE ARE SUPPORTING POLISH. AND ALTHOUGH WE DON'T FEEL IT NECESSARY FOR US TO DRAFT DOCUMENTATION FOR DOT MUSEUM SPECIFICALLY, WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT A CC THAT HAS A NATURAL RELATIONSHIP WITH LANGUAGE HAS ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION FOR OUR PURPOSES. AND WE'VE RESTRICTED SUPPORT, FULL SUPPORT IN DOT MUSEUM TO THE LANGUAGES WHERE WE ARE CAPABLE OF RECOGNIZING THE AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTATION. AND I'M SURE THERE IS DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE IN POLISH PROVIDED BY YOURSELF, BUT WE CAN'T SPOT IT AND, THEREFORE, CANNOT POINT OUR PEOPLE IN ITS DIRECTION.

AS I SUPPOSE A GENERAL REQUEST TO ALL CC'S THAT I'M SURE ARE DOCUMENTING VERY, VERY CLEARLY FOR THEIR LANGUAGE COMMUNITIES, IF SOME POINT OF LIAISON COULD BE ESTABLISHED WHEREBY THE G'S WHO ARE UTTERLY DEPENDENT ON CC EFFORTS TO BE ABLE TO EXPAND OUR REPERTOIRES MIGHT BE ABLE -- I SUPPOSE IT'S SOME SORT OF COORDINATED DOCUMENTATION EFFORT, SO AS SUPPORT FOR VARIOUS LANGUAGE IS MADE AVAILABLE, ANYONE IN THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY COULD FIND THAT SUPPORT IN A MANNER THAT WOULD MAKE IT EASY FOR A GTLD TO RESPOND FAVORABLY TO REQUESTS FOR REGISTRATION GIVEN THAT THE CHARACTER TABLE IS ALSO THERE RELIABLY. AND THERE ARE ANY NUMBER OF QUESTIONS HERE. AND I NOTE THAT THE REGISTRY OF LANGUAGE TABLES IS A MARVELOUS FIRST STEP IN THAT DIRECTION BUT AS JOHN KLENSIN POINTED OUT THIS MORNING, EVERY STEP IN ANY DIRECTION PUTS YOU AS CLOSE TO A NEW QUICKSAND PIT AS IT DOES TO A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM.

SO MAYBE WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE LATER.

>>VINT CERF: YES, I THINK WE CAN.

I'M GOING TO TAKE ONE MORE QUESTION. AND JUST AN OBSERVATION TO MAKE. I NOW MESSED THINGS UP SO WE'RE 25 MINUTES LATE. BUT WITH YOUR PERMISSION, I'M GOING TO PRESS AHEAD WITHOUT TRYING TO CURTAIL ANY OF THIS BECAUSE THE DISCUSSIONS ARE VERY IMPORTANT.

ONE MORE QUESTION -- TWO MORE QUESTIONS, ONE FROM KHALED. AND THEN WE'LL GO ON TO THE NEXT PRESENTATION.

SO LET'S GO AHEAD WITH MY FRIEND FROM SPAIN.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: ME? OKAY.

I'M AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL, WHO AS THINGS GOES IS VERY HAPPY TO HAVE A NAME WITH NO NON-ASCII CHARACTERS IN IT.

JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR ANDRZEJ. IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU ARE NOT USING LANGUAGE TAGS IN DOT PL. AND MY QUESTION IS AS YOU ARE USING DIFFERENT LANGUAGE SCRIPTS, WHY YOU CHOSE NOT TO USE LANGUAGE TAGS.

>>ANDRZEJ BARTOSIEWICZ: SO WE NEED IN THESE CHARACTER TABLES TO VERIFY IF THE PROVIDED NAME OF THE -- THE DOMAIN NAME IS ACCORDING TO RFC OR NOT. IF IT IS A VALID UNICODE STRING.

BUT THEN AFTER THE REGISTRATION OF THE DOMAIN NAME, WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE TO KEEP THE INFORMATION OF THE LANGUAGE. SO IT IS ONLY FOR THE VERIFICATION PROCESS, ESPECIALLY TO AVOID THE POSSIBILITY OF MIXING SCRIPTS BETWEEN LATIN AND CYRILLIC, LATIN AND ARABIC, ET CETERA.

SO ONLY FOR VERIFICATION PROCESS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE REGISTRATION PROCESS.

>>VINT CERF: I'M SORRY; KHALED, YOU HAD A QUESTION.

>>KHALED FATTAL: THANK YOU, VINT.

FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK ANDRZEJ FOR THE POINTS HE MADE IN THE MULTILINGUALIZATION OF THE INTERNET. ALSO, IN HIS REFERENCE TO MY LETTER IN REGARD TO THE POLISH POSTING ON ARABIC, LET ME GO ON THE RECORD TO SAY AT NO TIME WAS THERE ANY BELIEF THAT THERE WAS ANY MALICE INTENDED. THAT'S QUITE CLEAR. AND I THINK ANYBODY WHO READS THAT LETTER WILL -- AND READ IT CLEARLY, COULD CONCLUDE THAT.

THE MORE IMPORTANT ELEMENT IS THAT THIS EVENT HAD BROUGHT RISE TO AN ISSUE THAT QUITE POSSIBLY NOBODY HAD ACTUALLY THOUGHT OF IN THE PAST. AND PERHAPS BY HIGHLIGHTING IT, WE ARE ABLE TO PREVENT FUTURE PROBLEMS FROM TAKING PLACE LONG AFTER DEPLOYMENT OF A PARTICULAR LANGUAGE IN FULL MULTILINGUAL OR IDNS HAS TAKEN PLACE. BECAUSE BY THAT TIME, TO TRY TO CORRECT A PROBLEM WOULD PROBABLY BE ABSOLUTELY VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

SO AGAIN, MY EMPHASIS IS IT WAS ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT YOUR EFFORT AND OTHER PEOPLE'S EFFORT IS IN GOOD FAITH, BUT SOMETIMES CONSEQUENCES ARE INADVERTENT, AND WE'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THOSE ISSUES.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, KHALED. LET'S MOVE ON NOW TO THE NEXT PRESENTATION WHICH IS BY WALID SIDHOM FROM THE TUNISIAN INTERNET AGENCY. WE NEED TO GET YOU CONNECTED UP. WE REALLY NEED A WIRELESS VERSION OF THIS, DON'T WE? THIS IS LIKE DIVERS SHARING OXYGEN.

AND NOW WE GET TO DISCOVER WHETHER OR NOT THE RESOLUTION IS TOO HIGH.

WELL, NO SIGNAL. THERE WE ARE. AMAZING! OKAY. YOU'RE ON.

>>WALID SIDHOM: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

SO FIRST, I WILL INTRODUCE MYSELF. MY NAME IS WALID SIDHOM. I'M MANAGING THE IP RESOURCE DEPARTMENT IN THE TUNISIAN INTERNET AGENCY.

I HAVE 15 MINUTES TO SPEAK ABOUT THE TUNISIAN EXPERIENCE IN MANAGING ARAB DOMAIN NAMES.

SO FIRST, I WILL INTRODUCE MY COMPANY, THE ATI, TUNISIAN INTERNET AGENCY, WAS FORMED IN EARLY 1996. THE ATI IS A NATIONAL OPERATOR OF INTERNET SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS. WE PROVIDE INTERNET ACCESS AND SERVICES FOR INSTITUTIONS.

WE MANAGE THE IP RESOURCES. WE ADMINISTRATE THE COUNTRY'S LINK AND BACKBONE.

WE ARE ALSO MANAGING THE CCTLD DOT TN, AND WE ARE TO DEVELOP INTERNET STRATEGIES, NEW APPLICATIONS, AND SERVICES IN TUNISIA SUCH AS E-COMMERCE, E-GOVERNMENT, E-LEARNING, IPV6. ACTUALLY, WE CO-ORGANIZE AN IPV6 WORKSHOP WITH ITU.

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WE ARE WORKING ON ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES.

I REPRESENT SOME FIGURES. THE POPULATION OF ARAB WORLD IS ABOUT 300 MILLIONS. ONLY 9 MILLIONS ARE USING INTERNET, WHICH REPRESENTS THREE PERCENT.

IT IS DUE MAINLY TO INFRASTRUCTURE, INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE COST AND INTERNET CONNECTION COST, BUT ALSO BECAUSE THERE IS NO ARABIC DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM.

99 PERCENT OF ARABIC INTERNET USERS WERE AT LEAST FRENCH OR ENGLISH SPEAKERS IN 1995. BUT BY 2001, THERE ARE ONLY 55 PERCENT ARE FRENCH OR ENGLISH SPEAKERS. WOMEN REPRESENTS ONLY FOUR PERCENT OF ARABIC INTERNET USERS, WHEREAS, THIS FIGURE IS ABOUT -- THIS NUMBER IS ABOUT 42 IN EUROPE. SO IT IS AN END USER POTENTIAL FOR INTERNET.

AND ARABIC IS THE SIXTH SPOKEN LANGUAGE IN THE WORLD BUT IT DOESN'T APPEAR ON THE TOP TEN OF COMMON USED LANGUAGES ON THE INTERNET.

SO WHY YOU -- WE HAVE TO USE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES? I WILL FOCUS ON TWO POINTS. FIRST, WE SHOULD MAKE NEW TECHNOLOGIES AFFORDABLE FOR ARABIC-ONLY SPEAKING PEOPLE. TWO, THE LATIN LANGUAGE CANNOT REPRESENT ARABIC CHARACTERS. ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES CAN PRESERVE OUR ARABIC ENTITY, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THAT WE SHOULD OFFER NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO ARABIC-ONLY SPEAKING PEOPLE AND ALSO FOR LITTLE ARABIC CHILDREN IN THEIR MOTHER TONGUE.

IN FACT, FOR CHILDREN, FOR ARABIC CHILDREN, THEY STUDY SECOND LANGUAGE, WHICH IS FRENCH OR ENGLISH, AT THE AGE OF EIGHT OR TEN. SO FROM THE AGE OF FOUR TO EIGHT, THEY DON'T USE INTERNET OR THEY USE INTERNET WITH THE HELP OF THEIR PARENTS. SO IT COULD BE INTERESTING TO OFFER INTERNET TO THEM FROM -- FOR THE AGE.

SO THIS WILL PARTICIPATE IN BRIDGING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE AND ENCOURAGE ARAB USERS TO WIDELY USE INTERNET.

ALSO, ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES WILL BOOST ELECTRONIC APPLICATION, SINCE THE USE OF E-COMMERCE, E-LEARNING, THIS COULD BE USED FOR REDUCING ILLITERACY.

E-GOVERNMENT.

IT WILL ENCOURAGE ARABIC CONTENT ON WEB SITES AND OFFER TO THE WELL-KNOWN ARABIC ENTITIES TO KEEP USING THEIR ARABIC NAMES ON THE INTERNET. FOR THAT, THE AINC WAS FOUNDED IN 30 APRIL 2001, WITH THE MISSION OF TEACHING, COMMUNICATING, AND ALSO MAKING PROGRESS USING DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY. TEN COMMITTEES WAS SET UP: TECHNICAL COMMITTEE, POLICIES COMMITTEE, ARAB GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE, EVENTS COMMITTEE, MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, LINGUISTIC COMMITTEE, FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL COMMITTEE, CCTLD COMMITTEE, AND ABLINC COMMITTEE.

SO THE TUNISIAN INTERNET AGENCY WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF SETTING UP ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES SINCE AUGUST 2000. AND THE PROJECT PAPER WAS PREPARED AND APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

WE HAVE SET UP TWO COMMITTEES, A TECHNICAL COMMITTEE AND A LINGUISTIC COMMITTEE, AND THEY COLLABORATED IN A CLOSER MANNER WITH THE AINC COMMITTEES IN ORDER TO SET UP A SOLUTION FOR ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES. WE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH MANY UNIVERSITIES AND RESEARCH CENTERS, AND THEY ARE ACTUALLY PARTICIPATING WITH US IN SETTING UP A NEW SOLUTION.

TUNISIA HOSTED THE THIRD ANNUAL AINC MEETING ON APRIL 2002.

WE SUCCEEDED TO SET UP A TECHNICAL SOLUTION FOR RESOLVING ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES ON NOVEMBER 2002. THE SOLUTION OFFERS A RESOLUTION OF DOMAIN NAMES BY USING A PLUG-IN APPLICATION. IN FACT, THE FIRST APPLICATION DEVELOPED USES A PLUG-IN APPLICATION WITH ALL WINDOWS PLATFORM, BUT ONLY INTERNET EXPLORER NAVIGATING. AND THIS APPLICATION WAS LAUNCHED FOR TEST IN JANUARY 2003 WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF MANY ISPS. WE HAVE DEVELOPED AND UPGRADED THIS -- A NEW VERSION OF THE APPLICATION ON NOVEMBER 2003 USING NETSCAPE AND MOZILLA.

ACTUALLY, NOWADAYS, WE HAVE ABOUT 30 TUNISIAN ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, BUT THEY ARE USED ONLY IN TUNISIA, SINCE THEY USE THE TUNISIAN DNS. AND THE SOLUTION CONSISTS OF DOWNLOADING THE PLUG-IN AND USE IT FOR INTERNET EXPLORER WITH REGISTRATION OF THE DOMAINS AT THE ATI.

ACTUALLY, THE TECHNICAL TEAM IS NOW STUDYING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF OTHER SERVICES, SUCH AS E-MAIL AND FTP. AND WE ARE PREPARING A PROJECT PAPER.

WE HAVE PREPARED THE PROJECT PAPER AND SENT IT TO THE WORLD BANK THROUGH OUR GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO FINANCE THE PROJECT, AND WE GET APPROVAL, THE FIRST APPROVAL. AND THE PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT IS THE IMPLEMENTATION, THE DEPLOYMENT, AND ALSO THE STANDARDIZATION OF THE SOLUTION IN COORDINATION WITH ICANN, MINC, AINC AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.

MANY ARAB COUNTRIES HAVE DEVELOPED SOLUTION TO RESOLVE DOMAIN NAMES, ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES. AND WHAT WE SHOULD DO, I THINK, IS TO COLLABORATE AND TO MERGE THE EXPERIENCE, ALL THE EXPERIENCE, IN ORDER TO STANDARDIZE THE SOLUTION, AND MAYBE IT WILL BE DONE, LET'S SAY, BY THE END OF THE YEAR 2006.

THAT'S ALL.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: ARE THERE QUESTIONS EITHER FROM THE REST OF THE PANEL OR FROM THE FLOOR?

OKAY.

WHEN WE GET INTO THE FINAL DISCUSSIONS OF THE AFTERNOON, WE MAY COME BACK TO SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS NORBERT KLEIN, WHO IS GOING TO BE SPEAKING ABOUT THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CAMBODIAN LANGUAGE INTO IDNS, I BELIEVE.

>>NORBERT KLEIN: MY NAME IS NORBERT KLEIN. I HAVE BEEN WORKING IN CAMBODIA FOR 14 YEARS NOW, AND SINCE TEN YEARS, IT IS SINCE WE ESTABLISHED THE FIRST CONNECTION TO THE INTERNET.

IN A WAY, FROM THAT TIME ON, SINCE TEN YEARS, WE HAVE BEEN FACED WITH THE QUESTION OF LANGUAGE, BECAUSE THE CAMBODIAN LANGUAGE HAS A VERY OLD HISTORY OF ALMOST 1,000 YEARS, BUT WHEN WE STARTED TO HAVE E-MAIL ACCESS, OF COURSE, THERE WAS NO WAY TO USE THE CAMBODIAN LANGUAGE. AND THIS WAS, OF COURSE, A VERY STRONG REQUEST, WHAT CAN WE DO TO USE OUR OWN LANGUAGE.

NOW, I AM VERY HAPPY TO SEE THAT THE FIRST OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES OF THE WORLD CONFERENCE -- OF THE WORLD SUMMIT FOR THE INFORMATION SOCIETY HAS THIS SENTENCE HERE WHICH I HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN THAT THE LEADERS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD HAVE COMMITTED THEMSELF TO PEOPLE A PEOPLE-CENTERED, INCLUSIVE, AND DEVELOPMENT-ORIENTED INFORMATION SOCIETY WHERE EVERYONE CAN CREATE, ACCESS, UTILIZE, AND SHARE INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE.
THIS IS, OF COURSE, VERY HIGHLY APPRECIATED.

BUT I IMMEDIATELY ASKED MYSELF THAT EVERYONE CAN CREATE, ACCESS, UTILIZE, AND SHARE INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE, IN WHICH LANGUAGE IS THIS GOING TO HAPPEN?

IN A WAY, IT MEANS THAT THIS GOAL CANNOT BE ACHIEVED AT ALL, NOT EVEN APPROACHED, AS LONG AS MANY LANGUAGES ARE NOT ACCESSIBLE ON THE INTERNET.

I REPRODUCED HERE JUST A PART OF A WEEKLY PRESS REVIEW, JUST TO GIVE AN IMPRESSION HOW THIS LANGUAGE LOOKS LIKE. AND IN THE HEADLINE, YOU CAN ALREADY SEE THERE ARE SUBSCRIPTS AND SUPERSCRIPTS. THE CAMBODIAN LANGUAGE IS, AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE LANGUAGE WHICH HAS THE LARGEST NUMBER OF LETTERS IN A LETTER-BASED SCRIPT. IT'S ABOUT 100. AND SO IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND WAYS WITH A NORMAL KEYBOARD TO FIND WAYS TO REPRESENT THE SCRIPT.

NOW, WHEN WE STARTED TO LOOK INTO THE POSSIBILITIES TO USE THE CAMBODIAN LANGUAGE, WE FOUND OUT ESPECIALLY SINCE THE WINDOWS PROGRAM BECAME AVAILABLE THAT CAMBODIANS ABROAD -- AND THERE IS A LARGE NUMBER OF CAMBODIAN PEOPLE ABROAD SINCE THE CIVIL WAR SITUATIONS IN THE COUNTRY, IN THE UNITED STATES, IN AUSTRALIA, IN FRANCE, IN CANADA, AND SO ON. AND CAMBODIANS ABROAD STARTED TO CREATE WINDOWS FONTS, WHICH IS VERY NICE.

BUT AT PRESENT, WE ARE AWARE OF MORE THAN 20 DIFFERENT CAMBODIAN WINDOW FONT FAMILIES, WHICH ARE ALL MUTUALLY NOT COMPATIBLE.

NOW, WE ARE INTERESTED FROM WHEN WE HAD THIS INFORMATION WHAT CAN BE DONE.

AND WE DISCOVERED THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED UNICODE. ALREADY IN '95, '96, I HEARD FOR THE FIRST TIME ABOUT IT.

AND I WAS ABLE TO GET ON THE MAIL LIST WHERE KMER WAS ONE OF THE LANGUAGES DISCUSSED TO BE ENCODED IN UNICODE. BUT BECAUSE CAMBODIA WAS STILL IN A POST-WAR SITUATION, THE CAMBODIAN AUTHORITIES DID NOT TAKE ANY INITIATIVE ON THEIR OWN, AND THE INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS WHICH WERE WORKING ON THE CAMBODIAN LANGUAGE ALSO DID NOT TAKE ANY INITIATIVE TO CONTACT CAMBODIA. I WAS THE ONLY RESIDENT IN CAMBODIA ON THE MAILING LIST.

AND, FINALLY, THE UNICODE CONSORTIUM DECIDED ABOUT THE CAMBODIAN LANGUAGE, FINALLY DECIDED ABOUT AN ENCODING. AND BY THAT TIME, THE CAMBODIAN AUTHORITIES BECAME AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM, BECAUSE IT IS AN EXTREMELY HIGH WASTE OF ENERGY TO HAVE SO MANY DIFFERENT FONT SCRIPTS WHICH ARE NOT -- FONTS WHICH ARE NOT COMPATIBLE, AND THEY LOOKED INTO WHAT UNICODE HAD BEEN PUBLISHED AT THAT TIME AND SAID, "BUT THAT IS COMPLETELY WRONG.

THAT IS NOT THE WAY HOW WE HAD EXPECTED AND HOPED THIS LANGUAGE SHOULD BE TREATED."

AND I WAS THEN ALSO A PART OF THE NEGOTIATION TEAM OF THE CAMBODIAN AUTHORITIES WITH UNICODE AND WITH ISO. AND WE FOUND A SITUATION WHICH WAS VERY DISAPPOINTING.

UNICODE, WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED. AND WHATEVER IS PUBLISHED STAYS FOREVER. EVEN IF IT IS WRONG, YOU GET SOME FOOTNOTES TO IT.

BUT THE TRUST IN THE NORMATIVITY OF THE SYSTEM WOULD BE SHAKEN IF THERE WOULD BE ANY CORRECTION ACCEPTED.

AND IT WAS A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION WHEN ALSO ISO, WHICH IS NOT A U.N. BODY, BUT A MEMBERSHIP BODY, AND CAMBODIA WAS ONLY A SUBSCRIPTION MEMBER, NOT A FULL MEMBER, EVEN WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE IASIAN WORKING GROUP, WE WENT TO A MEETING, AND THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE SAID IASIAN, WHAT IS THAT?

ARE THEY MEMBERS OF ISO? WE DON'T CARE.

AND I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU A LETTER WHICH WE FINALLY RECEIVED FROM THE UNICODE CONSORTIUM TO SHOW THE DEGREE OF DIFFICULTIES WHICH WE HAVE. I WILL READ SOME OF THESE SECTIONS.

AS A RESULT OF OUR DISCUSSIONS, WE HAVE LEARNED -- THAT IS, THE UNICODE CONSORTIUM -- THE ENCODING APPROACH TAKEN FOR THE REPRESENTATION OF THE KHMER SCRIPT IS NOT THE PREFERRED APPROACH OF THE CAMBODIAN NATIONAL BODY OR OF KHMER LINGUISTIC EXPERTS AND IS AT ODDS WITH THE WAY THE KHMER SCRIPT IS PERCEIVED AND TAUGHT IN CAMBODIA.

A NUMBER OF CHARACTERS WERE ADDED TO THE ENCODING OF THE KHMER SCRIPT WHICH NOW APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN CLEAR MISTAKES.

A NUMBER OF SYMBOLS AND OTHER CHARACTERS USED IN THE REPRESENTATION OF THE KHMER SCRIPT WERE OVERLOOKED IN THE ENCODING.

THIS IS REGRETTED, BUT WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH THIS SITUATION.

FORTUNATELY, THE UNICODE CONSORTIUM WAS PREPARED TO ACCEPT A LITTLE BIT OVER 20 LETTERS WHICH THEY HAD FORGOTTEN AND A NUMBER OF OTHER LETTERS ARE NOW FOREVER IN THE UNICODE LIST AND HAVE JUST A FOOTNOTE, PLEASE DON'T USE THEM, THEY ARE WRONG. BUT THEY WILL NOT BE REMOVED.

I WANTED TO SHARE JUST THIS SITUATION WHICH WE ARE FACING.

AT PRESENT, SINCE 2002, THE ENCODING PROBLEM HAS BEEN SOLVED. NOW A CAMBODIAN GOVERNMENT GROUP IS WORKING TO LOCALIZE MICROSOFT SOFTWARE, AND WE HOPE THAT THIS WILL LEAD TO SOME PUBLICLY AVAILABLE PRODUCTS IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

BUT MICROSOFT PRODUCTS ARE COMPLETELY OUT OF THE RESEARCH OF THE CAMBODIAN POPULATION, WHERE AT PRESENT, A HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER HAS A MONTHLY SALARY OF ABOUT 30 OR $35. YOU CAN CALCULATE HOW MANY YEARS A TEACHER WILL HAVE TO SPEND HIS MONTHLY SALARY BEFORE YOU CAN BUY A WINDOWS SYSTEM AND A WINDOWS OFFICE SUITE.

OUR ORGANIZATION, A CAMBODIAN NGO, THE OPEN FORUM OF CAMBODIA, IS AT PRESENT, SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR, WORKING ON A THREE-YEAR PLAN TO PRODUCE OPEN SOURCE UNICODE-BASED SOFTWARE.

AND WE SAY SOFTWARE WHICH SHOULD COVER 80% OF THE NEEDS OF 100% OF THE USERS. IT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR US TO GET SUCH SUPPORT WHILE THE OTHER WORK SEEMS TO BE DOING BETTER.

OUR HOPE. WE HAVE EXPRESSED THIS HOPE TO THE UNICODE CONSORTIUM AND WANTED TO GET A KIND OF PLEA. BUT THEY SAID, WELL, WE HAVE OUR EXPERTS. IT IS OUR HOPE THAT NO OTHER LANGUAGE GROUP WILL SUFFER THE SAME FATE AS THE CAMBODIAN SCRIPT AND ITS USERS HAD TO UNDERGO. WE HOPE THAT THERE WILL BE INTERNATIONAL SENSITIVITY TO ASSIST LANGUAGE STANDARDIZATION EFFORTS FOR LANGUAGES WHICH ARE NOT AN INTERESTING MARKET. AND WE HOPE THAT ONCE STANDARDIZATION IS ACHIEVED, IN THE CAMBODIAN CASE, THIS IS ALREADY TWO YEARS, THERE WILL BE EXPERT AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOP LOCALIZED APPLICATIONS. FOR SMALL COUNTRIES, FOR SMALL LANGUAGE GROUPS, THIS IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT ECONOMICALLY AND ALSO THE EXPERT HUMAN RESOURCES ARE NORMALLY NOT AVAILABLE. ONLY WHEN THIS IS ACHIEVED WE MAY START TO TALK ABOUT IDN. AND MUCH LATER, EVEN, THE WSIS VISION THAT EVERYBODY CAN PARTICIPATE IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE MAY DRAW NEARER.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND I SAID, THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO A VOICE FROM A CONSTITUENCY WHICH HAS NO REPRESENTATION, THE SMALL LANGUAGES, ESPECIALLY WSIS SPEAKS ABOUT MINORITY LANGUAGE GROUPS WITH THEIR OWN SCRIPTS IN A NUMBER OF CASES IN ASIA, IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, I AM AFRAID.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: I HAVE TO THANK NORBERT FOR HIS DETERMINATION AND ENERGY SPEAKING FOR THOSE WHO WOULD OTHERWISE BE SPEECHLESS.

IF -- ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR NORBERT AT THIS POINT?

IN THAT CASE, WE'LL MOVE ON NOW TO KHALED FATTAL, WHO IS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MINC. AND I AM ASSUMING MINC IS SPELLED MINC, NOT MINK, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE GROUP.

JUST SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MINC AS OPPOSED TO MINK, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE GROUP, A LITTLE, SOFT, FURRY ANIMAL THAT HAS AN UNUSUAL LANGUAGE.

>>KHALED FATTAL: ACTUALLY, VINT, I CAN ASSURE YOU -- SORRY.

>>VINT CERF: WE'RE BACK TO OUR -- LET'S -- YES -- CABLES AND CONNECTORS.
I LOVE THEM.
THEY NEVER MATCH.

>>KHALED FATTAL: CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME?

>>VINT CERF: WE CAN PROBABLY CRANK.

>>KHALED FATTAL: MY ANSWER ABOUT WHICH MINC WE WOULD BE TALKING TO, I WILL ASK YOU TO TELL ME AT THE END OF MY PRESENTATION WHICH ANIMAL WAS UP THERE.

>>VINT CERF: OH, OKAY.

SO THIS'LL BE MY TASK.

THANK YOU.

>>KHALED FATTAL: WHILE WE'RE SETTING THIS UP, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS, FIRST OF ALL, THANK ALL WHO ARE HERE.

IT'S 6:00. MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE ARE ON A DIFFERENT TIME ZONE. AND I AM I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT MOST OF THEM HAVE ALSO STARTED NODDING LEFT, RIGHT.

AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO THINK, THE FACT THAT THEY ARE STILL ENDURING AND STILL HERE IS A ATTRIBUTE TO THE GREAT EFFORT IN PUTTING ON THIS WORKSHOP. AND FOR THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO PAY ATTRIBUTE TO THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE FOR PUTTING THIS WORKSHOP UP, AND FOR ICANN FOR AT LONG LAST TABLING THIS SO AT LEAST WE CAN SHARE WITH ALL OF THE EXPERIENCES THAT WE HAVE HEARD.

FOR THOSE OF WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW ME, MY NAME IS KHALED FATTAL. I AM THE CHAIRMAN AND CEO OF MINC, MINC, WHICH STANDS FOR MULTILINGUAL INTERNET NAMES CONSORTIUM.

BEFORE WE START, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION AND ISSUE A CHALLENGE. SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE. WHEN ASKED NEW QUESTIONS, DO YOU ANSWER WITH OLD ANSWERS?

TO SET THE STAGE FOR THIS, THIS IS THE OUTLINE OF WHAT I HAVE PREPARED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT.

AND MORE THAN LIKELY, I WILL ACTUALLY DIVERT FROM IT, BECAUSE THE BENEFIT OF HEARING SOME OF THE GREAT PRESENTATIONS THAT HAVE COME UP AND PRESENTED AND SHARED SOME OF THE EXPERIENCES TO MANY OF YOU, THIS MAY HAVE BEEN FIRSTHAND, I KNOW SOME OF THESE EXPERIENCES -- TO MANY OF YOU, IT MAY HAVE BEEN FIRST TIME.

I KNOW SOME OF THESE EXPERIENCES FIRSTHAND MYSELF. AND YOU WOULD BE AMAZED WHEN YOU HEAR ABOUT THEM FOR THE FIRST TIME, YOU THINK, "MY GOD, HOW COULD THAT HAVE HAPPENED?" BUT THIS IS THE CHALLENGE OF WHAT WE ARE ALL FACED WITH OF WHAT WE NEED TO DO FOR THE FUTURE.

SO, BASICALLY, FIRST, FOR MOST OF YOU, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHO IS MINC.

WHAT IS THE GLOBAL INTERNET?
WHY MULTILINGUALIZATION?
AND MULTILINGUALIZATION, BUT HOW?
AND THE CALL TO ACTION. AND THEN THE SUMMARY TO REALLY PUT NONPROFITS PERSPECTIVE. WELL, WHO IS MINC?

MINC IS A NONPROFIT, NONGOVERNMENTAL, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION. WE ARE COMMITTED TO THE MULTILINGUALIZATION OF THE INTERNET. OUR MEMBERS ARE INDUSTRY, ACADEMIA, GOVERNMENT. WE ARE FOCUSED ON SOME OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PREREQUISITES OF ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GLOBAL INTERNET. LANGUAGE STANDARDS, INTEROPERABILITY TESTING, GLOBAL COOPERATION WITHOUT WHICH NONE OF THIS COULD HAPPEN, LOCAL EMPOWERMENT. AND THAT'S A KEY ISSUE HERE.

FOR MOST OF YOU WHO MAY NOT KNOW, LET ME JUST DISCUSS WITH YOU WHAT ARE SOME OF THE MINC'S STRENGTHS.

THEY'RE DERIVED THROUGH ITS OUTREACH FROM ITS LANGUAGE COMMUNITIES, WHICH REPRESENT OVER FOUR AND A HALF BILLION PEOPLE. SOME OF THESE WORKING GROUPS YOU HAVE HEARD FROM, SOME OF THEM YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH.
I AM NOT GOING TO READ THEM ALL. BUT AT LEAST IT'S UP THERE.

IT SPANS FROM URDU TO ARABIC, TO INFITT, TO ARABIC LANGUAGE. AND THERE'S MORE TORE ADDED. AND THE EXPERIENCE OF THE CAMBODIAN IS AN AMAZING STORY AND PROVIDING THEM A PLATFORM THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY DEVELOP THIS WORK WILL BE A MAJOR CHALLENGE, BUT WE WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO LEND A HELPING HAND TO THE CAMBODIANS. AND ALSO AFRICAN LANGUAGE GROUPS, WHICH WE WILL BE TACKLING SWAHILI IN THE VERY SHORT FUTURE.

THE STRENGTHS OF MINC. FIRST OF ALL, OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS REPRESENTED FROM MANY DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES OF THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA. WE HAVE KOREAN, TAMIL, SINGAPOREAN, NIGERIAN, JORDANIAN, CHINESE-AMERICAN, FRENCH, JAPANESE, AND ALSO ARAB-AMERICAN. SO THE EXPERIENCES WE ALL BRING TO THE TABLE IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE SHARING OF THESE EXPERIENCES. SO AT LEAST WE'RE NOT REALLY PUTTING BLINDERS ON OUR EYES AND MOVING FORWARD.

MANY OF YOU MAY BE AWARE THAT MINC IS GOING THROUGH A MAJOR RESTRUCTURING. THIS MOVE HAS STARTED IN DECEMBER OF 2002. AND A LOT OF THINGS HAVE HAPPENED SINCE THEN.
I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM. THIS WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THE WEB. YOU CAN PULL THEM OUT.

KEY ISSUES I WILL HIGHLIGHT ARE, IN JUNE OF 2003, THE MINC BOARD APPROVED A MOTION ON LINGUISTIC RELEVANCE FOR IDN DEVELOPMENT. ALSO, THE REFORM OF THE LANGUAGE WORKING GROUPS, OUR CORE STRENGTH TO PROMOTE COOPERATION AND COORDINATION BETWEEN LANGUAGES OF SIMILAR SCRIPTS AND VARIANTS. THESE ARE FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF HOW TO PROGRESS AND DEVELOP THINGS THAT WILL ACTUALLY WITHSTAND THE TEST OF TIME.

ALSO, OUR LANGUAGE GROUPS NO LONGER ARE JUST LANGUAGE GROUPS. THEY'RE MANDATED TO DEVELOP AND PUBLISH RFCS, LANGUAGE TABLES, AND DEVELOP STANDARDS FOR THEIR OWN LANGUAGES AND VARIANTS IN ORDER TO REMAIN IN GOOD STANDING. THIS ALSO WAS TAKEN -- WAS APPROVED IN 2003.

INTEROPERABILITY TESTING, WHICH IS A VERY INTEGRAL FUNCTION OF WHAT MINC DOES. WE HAVE ALSO COORDINATED WITH IDN CONNECT ON THE TEST BED INTEROPERABILITY IN SEPTEMBER OF 2003. AND SINCE THEN, WE'VE HAD ONGOING REFORMS IN -- TO OUR ELECTION AND VOTING STRUCTURE. THIS WAS ANNOUNCED IN OCTOBER 2003. AND SINCE THEN, WE'VE ANNOUNCED INITIATIVES AND COMMISSIONS. AT THE TIME WHEN WE ANNOUNCED THEM, A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE RAISING EYEBROWS, SAYING, WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT. AND RESULTS WILL REALLY SHOW WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.

FOR EXAMPLE, AT MINC CARTHAGE CONFERENCE IN OCTOBER OF 2003, THERE WERE TWO INITIATIVES. ONE OF THEM WAS A MULTILINGUAL UDRP DEALING WITH UNIFORM DISPUTE RESOLUTION, IN COOPERATION WITH WIPO. AND, BASICALLY, WHAT WE HAD SET OUT TO DO IS RECOGNIZE WHAT UDRP HAS BEEN FUNCTIONAL IN THE ASCII INTERNET AND THE ENGLISH INTERNET, AND TRY TO TAKE THAT TO THE NEXT LEVEL. NOT TRY TO CHANGE IT, BUT TRY TO APPEND AND IMPROVE ON IT AND TAKE IT TO THE LOCAL REGIONS, A BASIC ELEMENT IN ARBITRATION, DISPUTE RESOLUTION, IS ONE ASSUMES THERE WILL BE A ARBITRATION CENTER. GUESS WHAT, IN SOME AREAS, SOME LANGUAGE COMMUNITIES, THERE WILL NOT BE AN ARBITRATION CENTER TO GO TO. SO ONE MAY NEED TO BE CREATED. AND ONLY UNTIL WE REALIZE WHAT IS MISSING TO THAT STRUCTURE ARE WE ABLE TO ADDRESS AND DEAL WITH IT.

THE OTHER ONE IS A MULTILINGUAL FUNCTION OF WHAT THE GREAT WORK OF IETF HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE TO US. WE RECOGNIZE ALL STANDARDS OF IETF, BUT WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT IETF STANDARDS DEAL WITH SCRIPT. THEY DO NOT DEAL WITH LANGUAGES. SO WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS, BY LOCALIZING SOME OF THESE FUNCTIONS AND TAKING THEM TO THE NEXT LEVEL, WE BRING IN LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL EXPERTS TO COME IN AND ADD THE MISSING LINK, SO TO SPEAK, TO WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN FACTORED IN ON THESE STANDARDS.

ALSO, AT APRICOT IN KL, FEBRUARY 2004, THERE WERE FOUR CHAIRMAN'S COMMISSIONS, MINC TECHNICAL ON TECHNICAL CHALLENGES, MINC COMMISSION ON LANGUAGE AND STANDARDIZATION AND COORDINATION IN IDN, COMMISSION ON ROOT COORDINATION FOR IDN DEPLOYMENT, AND COMMISSION ON KEY WORDS AND IDN INTERNET NAVIGATION.

HERE NOW, WE NEED TO ASK OURSELVES, WHAT IS THE GLOBAL INTERNET?

WELL, THERE ARE THREE TOPICS I AM GOING TO BE DISCUSSING HERE.

THE INTERNET OF THE PAST AND THE PRESENT; THE INTERNET OF THE FUTURE; AND THE ROLE OF IDN AND MULTILINGUALIZATION.

AND HERE WE NEED TO MAKE SOME SERIOUS DISTINCTIONS.

THE INTERNET OF THE PAST AND PRESENT IS ONE THAT IS BASED ON AN -- AN INTERNET BASED ON ASCII, ASCII OR THE ENGLISH IS WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE GLOBAL INTERNET.

UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S, IN MY OPINION, AND THE OPINION OF MANY OTHER EXPERTS AS WELL, IS ACTUALLY INACCURATE, PRIMARILY BECAUSE, FOR AS LONG AS YOU CAN SPEAK ENGLISH OR USE ENGLISH, BECAUSE IF YOU CAN'T, YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO ACTUALLY NAVIGATE AND BE PART OF THAT PHENOMENON.

SO THE EXISTING INTERNET IS MERELY A SERIES OF LANGUAGE-BASED INTERNETS WITH THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE OR ASCII INTERNET BEING THE MOST DOMINANT.

THIS IS WHAT WE OFTEN REFER TO AS THE GLOBAL INTERNET. SO HOW DO WE CREATE A GLOBAL INTERNET, A TRULY GLOBAL INTERNET? THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS. SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE HEARD ME ADDRESS THESE TWO OPTIONS. ONE OF THEM, OBVIOUSLY, IS NOT FEASIBLE AT ALL. ONE OF THEM IS TO TEACH ENGLISH TO MORE THAN 4.5 BILLION NON-ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLE WORLDWIDE. AND THE OTHER IS TO MULTILINGUALIZE IT BY FULLY INCORPORATING THE LANGUAGES OF THE NON-ENGLISH SPEAKERS INTO THE INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH LOCAL COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT.

SO THE INTERNET OF THE FUTURE, WHICH IS A TRULY MULTILINGUALIZED, GLOBAL INTERNET, IS SOMETHING LIKE THIS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE GRAPH, YOU'LL SEE YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SURF AND ACCESS FROM ACROSS WHICHEVER LANGUAGE YOU START WITH. IT MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE DEPLOYABLE TOMORROW. BUT WE NEED TO HAVE A VISION OF WHAT IS IT WE ARE TRYING TO IMPLEMENT. BECAUSE THE IDEA IS SHARING OF KNOWLEDGE, SHARING OF EXPERIENCES, BRINGING DOWN THE PRINCIPLE OF THE HUMANITY OF EACH COMMUNITY. AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS BY PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS IT DIRECTLY.

SO WHAT IS IDN? AND HERE I WON'T GO INTO DETAIL WITH THIS, BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS A LOT MORE THAT WE AGREE ON THAN WHAT WE DON'T AGREE ON. THE FACT IS, IDN IS UTILIZED AS AN INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES AS IF IT'S A DOMAIN NAME ISSUE.

WELL, WE ACTUALLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S ACTUALLY ENOUGH IN FULLY MULTILINGUALIZING THE INTERNET. BECAUSE THAT ACTUALLY GIVES YOU A VERY NARROW FOCUS. IT DOES NOT ADDRESS ISSUES OF LOCAL COMMUNITY NEEDS AND RESPECT TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.

WE CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT FULL IDN, WHICH IS THE SAME THING AS ML.ML, CAN BE SUCCESSFULLY DEPLOYED AS THE NEXT OBJECTIVE, BUT ONLY IF THE FOCUS IS ON MULTILINGUALIZATION.

WHY THIS IS RELEVANT? BECAUSE MULTILINGUALIZATION IS PART OF THE FUTURE. IT'S MAKING THE INTERNET ACCESSIBLE TO ALL PEOPLE IN THEIR OWN NATIVE LANGUAGE REGARDLESS OF THE LANGUAGE -- INDIVIDUAL LANGUAGE THAT MAY BE.

AND HERE I'M GOING TO DRAW A PARALLEL, AN IDEA FOR YOU. IF IDN WAS -- EVERYBODY WAS PROBABLY SAYING WHAT'S A TOMATO DOING UP THERE? WE'RE NOT OPENING A RESTAURANT ANYTIME SOON. IF IDN WAS A TOMATO, WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH IT? YOU CAN SLICE IT, DICE IT BUT YOU'RE LIMITED WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH THIS TOMATO. BUT WHAT IS IDN? IS IT A SALAD? BECAUSE ONLY WHEN WE START THINKING ABOUT WHAT MULTILINGUALIZING THE INTERNET IS CAN WE START TO SEE WITH CLARITY SOME OF THE ANSWERS TO THE ISSUES THAT MIGHT BE PERCEIVED AS CONTENTIOUS TODAY, AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE NEED TO THINK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX.

SO IDN VERSUS MULTILINGUALIZATION. WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE ISSUE OF IDN, PEOPLE SEE IT AS DOMAIN NAMES, INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES. GIVE IT AN INTERNET COMMUNITY, LAUNCH IT AND SEE WHO BUYS IT. BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF ISSUES MISSING WITH THAT. POLICIES THAT ACTUALLY SUPPORT THIS. AND WHAT IS IT -- WHAT ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE THIS BECOMES FUNCTIONAL?

WELL, LANGUAGE AND COMMUNITY RIGHTS, WE HAVE, I THINK, TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE WILL DISAGREE ON VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES. SOME OF THESE ISSUES MAY STEM OUT OF THE FACT THAT DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES. BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THE RIGHT OF 300 MILLION ARABS CANNOT BE IGNORED JUST BECAUSE WE NEED TO DEPLOY IDN IN A PARTICULAR CCTLD. THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THAT PARTICULAR CCTLD SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO IT. ON THE CONTRARY. WE ENCOURAGE THAT. BUT WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY BALANCE THE RIGHTS OF WHO HAS AND WHO CAN DO WHAT FIRST.

SO AT LEAST WE DON'T END UP DOING WHAT NORBERT KLEIN WAS EXPLAINING EARLIER ON IN CAMBODIA. TRYING TO REMOVE IT TODAY IS HARDER THAN REMOVING TEETH. SO THIS IS AVOIDING IT BEFORE IT HAPPENS. SO THESE ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES MULTILINGUALIZATION WILL ALLOW US TO DEAL WITH, IS LANGUAGE AND COMMUNITY RIGHTS, LOCAL EMPOWERMENT, CULTURAL RELEVANCE, UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE STANDARDS, RECOGNITION, ACCEPTANCE AND PARTICIPATION OF THE COMMUNITY. WITHOUT THE ACCEPTANCE AND RECOGNITION OF THIS, NONE OF THIS WILL TAKE PLACE, AND ON THIS I THINK WE ALL AGREE TO START WITH ANYWAY.

AND THEN WE TALK ABOUT A GLOBAL POLICY INFRASTRUCTURE. AND I WILL ELABORATE MORE ON THIS.

THE TRUTH IS WHEN YOU PUT ALL THIS TOGETHER AT LEAST YOU HAVE THE BASIS. DOES THIS ADDRESS EVERYTHING? ABSOLUTELY NOT. I DON'T PRESUME THAT I HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. BUT THESE ACTUALLY ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TABLED IN ADDRESSING WHAT A MULTILINGUAL INTERNET IS BUT NOW WE NEED TO OPEN OUR EYES AND SEE IT.

SO WHY MULTILINGUALIZATION? LOCAL EMPOWERMENT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY, INTERNET GOVERNMENTS, AND THE MORAL DUTY TO DO THIS. IF WE WERE TO WAIT FOR CAMBODIA TO BE DEVELOPED, WAITING FOR COMMERCIAL VALIDITY OR POSSIBILITY FOR IT TO BE DEVELOPED, QUITE POSSIBLY WE WILL NOT WAIT -- WE CAN WAIT FOR ANOTHER TEN YEARS. SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT FOR DELIVERING TO THE LANGUAGE COMMUNITIES, THEIR ABILITY TO ACCESS THE INTERNET IN THEIR OWN LOCAL LANGUAGE, IS ACTUALLY A MORAL DUTY. IT IS BEYOND COMMERCIAL VALUE.

SO WHY MULTILINGUALIZATION? WELL, ONLY WHEN WE FOCUS ON MULTILINGUALIZATION WE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THE RELEVANCE OF THE FOLLOWING CRUCIAL ISSUES IN DEPLOYING FULL IDNS OR ML.ML.

FOR EXAMPLE, LOCAL EMPOWERMENT. WE BELIEVE THAT LOCAL EMPOWERMENT IS A FUNCTION OF THE DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. IT ALSO MEANS THE INCORPORATION OF THE INTERNET'S DISENFRANCHISED, THOSE WHO REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION OF THE GLOBE, WHO HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT SPEAK ENGLISH AND HAVE BEEN CRYING OUT FOR BEING INVOLVED. THEY NEED TO BE INVOLVED AND THEY NEED TO ACTUALLY FEEL THE BENEFIT OF THIS PHENOMENON.

AS I SAID BEFORE, LANGUAGE AND COMMUNITY RIGHTS, ACCEPTANCE AND RECOGNITION, REPRESENTATION, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, AND COMMUNITY BUILDING. BECAUSE IT MAY START WITH JUST IDNS AS A PRODUCT, BUT IT CERTAINLY WILL NOT STOP THERE. THIS IS OPENING THE DOOR AND THE CHANNELS TO EMPOWER AND DELIVER SOMETHING OF BENEFIT TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.

WELL, WORLD SUMMIT DECLARATION, WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY ON PRINCIPLE AND ACTION PLAN. BRIDGE THE DIGITAL DIVIDE, CREATE THE INFORMATION SOCIETY. THE INTERNET SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT MULTILINGUALISM. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THESE ARE NOT THINGS I MADE UP. THESE HAVE ALREADY BEEN MANDATED AND RECOGNIZED BY THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY. BE ADAPTED TO LOCAL NEEDS IN LANGUAGES AND CULTURES. RESPECT CULTURAL IDENTITY. AND I WILL EMPHASIZE THE ELEMENT OF RESPECT. AS WELL AS CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY.

ACTUALLY, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY. WHAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY? TO PUT INTO PLACE TECHNICAL CONDITIONS TO FACILITATE THE PRESENCE AND USE OF ALL WORLD'S LANGUAGES ON THE INTERNET.

CREATE POLICIES THAT SUPPORT, RESPECT, PRESERVE, PROMOTE, AND ENHANCE CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY WITHIN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY. AND ENHANCE THE CAPACITY OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES TO DEVELOP AND ACCESS CONTENT IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE.

SO TOUCHING HERE ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT DEFINITION THE WORD GOVERNANCE WILL END UP BEING DEFINED AS, AND THIS PROBABLY WILL BE A DYNAMIC, ONGOING PROCESS, NOT FINISHED FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS WHAT TO BE DEFINED. LET ME JUST PUT IT TO YOU AS SUCH. MULTILINGUALIZATION. IT IS A PREREQUISITE TO ANY TYPE OF INTERNET OR INFORMATION SOCIETY GOVERNANCE. PRIMARILY FOR THE SOLE FACT THAT THE INVOLVEMENT OF THOSE LOCAL COMMUNITIES IS PARAMOUNT TO MAKING THE PROCESS LEGITIMATE, TRANSPARENT, AND INCLUSIVE. WELL, UNLESS THEY CAN DO IT IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE, THEY WILL REALLY BE VERY CHALLENGED TO CREATE ANY FORM OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE.

SO IT ENCOURAGES AWARENESS OF AND PARTICIPATION IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE. IT INVOLVES LOCAL COMMUNITY IN THE INTERNET, AND THUS ENSURES INCREASED COOPERATION IN REGULATORY MATTERS.

NOW I GO TO THE MORAL DUTY. MULTILINGUALIZATION BENEFITS ALL MANKIND. I'M QUOTING HERE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS, MR. KOFI ANNAN IN HIS CLOSING REMARKS AT THE TIME OF HIS WELCOME SPEECH ON THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM IN MARCH OF 2004. AND HE SAID, "I URGE YOU TO KEEP IN MIND THE PARAMOUNT GOAL OF HELPING PEOPLE EVERYWHERE BUILD FREE AND DECENT LIVES. THIS IS THE REAL BACKBONE OF YOUR DELIBERATION. WHATEVER YOU MUST CONTRIBUTE TO THE -- WHATEVER YOU DO MUST CONTRIBUTE TO THE CAUSE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT."

I THINK THIS REALLY PUTS IT IN PERSPECTIVE. THIS IS NOT ABOUT DOMAIN NAMES. THIS IS NOT ABOUT INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES. IT'S NOT ABOUT GIVING A DOMAIN NAME IN A PARTICULAR LANGUAGE. IT'S ABOUT USING THIS PHENOMENON THAT HAS BEEN CREATED TO BETTER THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR MANKIND.

SO HOW DO WE DO THAT? WELL, LOCAL EMPOWERMENT, SAFETY AND INTEGRITY OF THE SYSTEM AND GLOBAL POLICY INFRASTRUCTURE ARE SOME OF THE HIGHTLIGHTS.

LOCAL EMPOWERMENT RELATES TO CULTURAL RELEVANCE. THIS IS ALLOWING THE LOCAL COMMUNITY TO TAKE CHARGE AND BE ABLE TO DICTATE PARTICIPATE IN THEIR FUTURE. WE TALKED ABOUT THE COORDINATION METHOD. IT'S QUITE CLEAR, AND I THINK THERE'S A CONSENSUS ON THIS. THERE'S NO SINGLE ORGANIZATION CAN DO IT ALL. NEITHER BY MANDATE NOR BY EXPERTISE NOR BY KNOWLEDGE. SO WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER. THAT'S KEY.

ONE OTHER MATTER I TRULY BELIEVE IN IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION. WE NEED TO ENCOURAGE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE ML -- IN THE MULTILINGUAL REGIONS TO SPUR PRODUCT AND SERVICE DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY PARAMOUNT, WITHOUT WHICH WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO OVERCOME MANY OF THE FUTURE CHALLENGES.

LET'S TALK ABOUT RECENT SUCCESSES AND PILOT PROJECTS THAT I THINK WE CAN DRAW ON AND SEE HOW THEY CAN BE UTILIZED SINCE NOW WE'RE SHARING DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES.

FOR EXAMPLE, IN COOPERATION BETWEEN MINC AND THE UNITED NATIONS ESCWA, WE ALREADY HAVE A BABY. THAT BABY IS AN ARABIC RFC DERIVED FROM THE LOCAL COMMUNITY, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL RELEVANCE. AND IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED TO IETF, AND IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO ICANN AND IANA.

SOMETHING ELSE. IN OCTOBER -- IN FEBRUARY OF 2004 AT THE MINC KL CONFERENCE, ONE OF THE INITIATIVES WAS -- NO, EXCUSE ME. IN OCTOBER. CORRECT, IN OCTOBER OF 2003, ONE OF THE INITIATIVES WAS THE MULTILINGUAL IETF FUNCTION TO COMPLEMENT THE GREAT WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE BY THE IETF SO FAR.

THE RESULT IS FORMATION OF AN ARABIC INFORMATION ENGINEERING TASK FORCE WITH MORE THAN 120 MEMBERS WITH OVER 20 PERCENT BEING LINGUISTIC EXPERTS FROM THE PAN ARAB REGION. AND THIS, BY THE WAY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS A CONSENSUS BUILDING MECHANISM. VERY IMPORTANT TO DRAW AUTHORITATIVE CONCLUSIONS WHEN YOU HAVE CONSENSUS.

TO ADDRESS LOCAL CONCERNS IN DEPLOYMENT OF THE FUTURE ARABIC DNS AND ARABIC MULTILINGUAL UDRP I TALKED ABOUT WHICH WE ARE WORKING IN COOPERATION WITH WIPO.

THERE ARE ISSUES THAT WE ARE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH OTHERS. THIS IS THAT THE SAFETY AND INTEGRITY OF THE SYSTEM ARE PARAMOUNT. THERE CANNOT BE ANY DEPLOYMENT OF ANYTHING THAT COULD ACTUALLY FRACTURE THE SYSTEM. SO THAT IS A GIVEN.

BUT HOW DO WE ACTUALLY ADD MORE TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT IS GOING TO BE DEPLOYED IN MULTILINGUAL IS ACTUALLY A FUNCTION OF ENSURING THE INTEGRITY OF THE SYSTEM?

WELL, WE BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE STANDARDS. BASED ON LEGITIMATE LANGUAGE TABLES DERIVED FROM THE LOCAL REGIONS THEMSELVES, AS IN THE MINC WORKING LANGUAGE GROUPS.

WHERE APPLICABLE, AND I SAY WHERE APPLICABLE, ONE VERSION PER LANGUAGE SHOULD BE THE IDEAL. NOT 243 VERSIONS OR POTENTIAL VERSIONS.

WE RECOGNIZE THAT PART OF LOCAL EMPOWERMENT IS THE LOCAL COMMUNITY TO DETERMINE WHAT IS RIGHT TO BE DEPLOYED, WHAT IS NOT. JAMES SENG MENTIONED EARLIER ON THAT IT WAS DIFFICULT TO TRY TO UNIFY OR CREATE A SINGLE VERSION OF CHINESE STANDARD BECAUSE OF THE USE OF THE CHARACTER IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES. AND THIS ACTUALLY GOES HAND IN HAND WITH THE ISSUE OF LOCAL EMPOWERMENT. IF THAT IS THE CASE IN CHINESE, AND THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED BY CONSENSUS, WELL, WE SAY SO BE IT. WHEREAS, WITH THE EXAMPLE OF ARABIC, THERE ARE 22 ARAB COUNTRIES; HOWEVER, IT'S THE SAME SCRIPT FOR ALL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THERE'S NO VARIANTS. IT'S THE SAME SCRIPT.

SO DO WE NEED 22 DIFFERENT STANDARDS OUT OF 22 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES FOR ARABIC? I SAY ABSOLUTELY NOT. IT'S THE SAME ONE.

HOWEVER, LANGUAGES THAT USE SCRIPTS THAT ARE ARABIC WILL FALL INTO THE CATEGORY THAT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE TALK ABOUT BETWEEN ENGLISH AND THE VARIANTS OF ASCII TO GERMAN, FRENCH, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. SO THAT'S ALSO NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.

THE KEY HERE IS EMPOWERING THE LOCAL COMMUNITY IN DEALING WITH ISSUES THAT ACTUALLY AFFECT AND ARE RESPONSIVE TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY'S NEEDS.

ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE TALK ABOUT IS IN AREAS WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSES IN SOME OF THESE PILOT LAUNCHES IS THAT THESE CAN BE DUPLICATED, BUT NOT DUPLICATED IN THEIR ACTUAL FORM. THEY CAN BE DUPLICATED AND AMENDED BASED ON THE NEED OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.

SO GLOBAL POLICY INFRASTRUCTURE WE TALK ABOUT. SOMEBODY MENTIONED TO ME ONCE AS IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE POLICY THAT APPLIES TO ALL. LET ME GO ON THE RECORD HERE, THAT COULD NEVER EXIST IN THAT FORMAT. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A SINGLE POLICY, ONE SIZE FITS ALL.

THE GLOBAL POLICY INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN ITSELF A SERIES OF LOCALLY EMPOWERING POLICIES THAT ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY. THEIR TOTAL ACTUALLY ENDS UP BEING THIS GLOBAL POLICY INFRASTRUCTURE.

IS IT READY THAT I CAN PUT IT UP FOR YOU ON THE SCREEN AND THEN TELL YOU THIS IS IT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN? ABSOLUTELY NOT, BECAUSE I AM NOT AN EXPERT IN MULTITUDE OF LANGUAGE REGIONS. WE HAVE TO LET THE LOCAL REGIONS BE ABLE TO COME UP AND SUBMIT THEIR SUGGESTIONS OF WHAT IS DEPLOYABLE.

EXCUSE ME.

SO BASICALLY, CAN WE AFFORD TO PURSUE IDN ONLY AS A PRODUCT? AND THE ANSWER IS NO. BECAUSE IF WE DO NOT MULTILINGUALIZE, WHAT WE WILL DO IS FALL INTO THE CATEGORY WHERE WE DO NOT DELIVER FULL INDIGENOUS LANGUAGE URL SCRIPTING, LANGUAGE AND COMMUNITY RIGHTS, LOCAL EMPOWERMENT, LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL RELEVANCE, UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE STANDARDS, ET CETERA, TO LEAD TO SOMETHING CALLED MULTILINGUALIZATION.

ONE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO ISSUE IS A CHALLENGE. FOR THOSE WHO MAY OR MAY NOT AGREE WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING, I WOULD LIKE THEM TO GO ON RECORD AND STATE WHETHER THEY SPEAK MORE THAN ONE LANGUAGE, WHETHER THEY COME FROM A COMMUNITY THAT IS NOT FROM THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE. BECAUSE IN ALL HONESTY, ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS THAT WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE IS WE SOMETIMES LACK THE ABILITY TO THINK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX. AND I FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY AT TIMES, AND QUITE OFTEN WE NEED TO ASK OURSELVES WHAT IS IT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.

SO IN SUMMARY, LET ME JUST PUT IT TO YOU. THIS COULD BE NO INFORMATION SOCIETY GOVERNANCE WITHOUT A GLOBAL AND MULTILINGUAL INTERNET. THAT'S ONE. NO GLOBAL MULTILINGUAL INTERNET WITHOUT THE INCLUSION AND ACTIVE PARTICIPATION OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY IN THEIR OWN NATIVE LANGUAGE. THERE COULD BE NO MULTILINGUALIZATION WITHOUT A NEW GLOBAL POLICY INFRASTRUCTURE BASED ON LOCAL EMPOWERMENT. NO FUNCTIONAL IDN WITHOUT MULTILINGUALIZATION. NO IDNS WITHOUT LEGITIMATE LANGUAGE TABLES DERIVED FROM THE LOCAL COMMUNITY. NO MULTILINGUALIZATION WITHOUT ACTIVE PARTICIPATION OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AND THE RECOGNITION AND RESPECT OF THEIR RIGHTS TO THEIR LANGUAGE AND COMMUNITY. BUT LUCKILY, MANY OF THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY TACKLED BUT WHAT STILL NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS NEW THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE BOX.

ONE LAST POINT. NO FUTURE WITHOUT GOOD FAITH COORDINATION AMONGST ALL.

SO, WE STARTED WITH A QUESTION. I'M GOING TO FINISH WITH A QUESTION. THIS ONE IS A NEW ONE.

NOW WHEN ASKED NEW QUESTIONS, WILL WE STILL ANSWER WITH OLD ANSWERS OR WILL WE ANSWER THEM WITH NEW ONES?

THIS IS A CHALLENGE TO ALL OF US. AND FOR THAT, I THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.).

>>VINT CERF: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS -- YES, I SEE JAMES SENG.

>>JAMES SENG: I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. DO YOU MIND IF WE GO BACK A COUPLE OF SLIDES? WHERE YOU ACTUALLY SHOW YOU HAVE SOME DOCUMENTS AND WORKING GROUP BEING FORMED? THE MINC RFC.

>>KHALED FATTAL: WHICH ONE?

>>JAMES SENG: JUST KEEP GOING BACK. I'LL TELL YOU WHEN TO STOP.

>>KHALED FATTAL: HOW FAR BACK?

>>JAMES SENG: NO, GO, GO.

>>KHALED FATTAL: MR. CHAIRMAN, DO WE HAVE TIME?

>>JAMES SENG: WAIT, STOP. GO BACK. YES.

>>KHALED FATTAL: THIS IS IT?

>>JAMES SENG: YES. I'M INTERESTED IN THIS DOCUMENT. I'VE BEEN TRYING TO HUNT DOWN THINGS, YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING YOU HAVE THIS DOCUMENT. HOW DO I GET AT THIS? BECAUSE HONESTLY, I CAN'T FIND IT IN THE IETF.

>>KHALED FATTAL: IT'S ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE IETF.

>>JAMES SENG: I READ THE IETF RELIGIOUSLY.

>>KHALED FATTAL: I DON'T HAVE THE NAME BUT IT'S ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED TO ICANN AND IANA.

>>JAMES SENG: I CAN TELL YOU I DID NOT SEE IN THE IETF TREE, I DID NOT SEE IT PUBLISHED. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE THE LINK. COULD YOU PROVIDE US WITH THE LINK?

>>KHALED FATTAL: I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE LINK.

>>SPEAKER6: I CAN'T FIND YOU ON THE WEB SITE, I CAN'T FIND IT. I AM CURIOUS TO SEE THE DOCUMENT.

>>KHALED FATTAL: I WILL PROVIDE YOU THE DOCUMENT. IF YOU LIKE, I WILL SEND IT TO YOU BY E-MAIL.

>>JAMES SENG: DO YOU MIND GOING BACK TO THE COMPARISON BETWEEN IDN AND MULTILINGUALISM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

>>KHALED FATTAL: DO YOU REMEMBER THE SLIDE NUMBER?

>>JAMES SENG: NO, NOT REALLY, BUT JUST KEEP GOING BACK. THERE'S A VERY BEAUTIFUL CHART. BY THE WAY I WANT TO MAKE ONE COMMENT, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU THAT IDN IS NOT SUFFICIENT. WE DO NEED TO WORK MORE. SO PLEASE GO ON.

>>KHALED FATTAL: THANK YOU.

>>JAMES SENG: OKAY. IT SEEMS THAT SLIDE IS HARD TO FIND. GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

>>KHALED FATTAL: AFTER?

>>JAMES SENG: YES, NEXT SLIDE. IT SAYS MULTILINGUALIZATION IS A PREREQUISITE. SORRY, GO BACK. BY THE WAY --

>>KHALED FATTAL: JAMES, YOU HAVE TO PAY ME FOR THIS.

>>JAMES SENG: I'M SO SORRY. I'LL PAY FOR BEER FOR EVERYONE HERE.

>>KHALED FATTAL: THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

ARE WE THERE OR NOT?

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: IT'S NOT CHEAP IN THIS HOTEL.

>>JAMES SENG: I KNOW. DO YOU HAVE A DIAGRAM COMPARING IDN AND MULTILINGUALISM?

>>KHALED FATTAL: SURE.

>>JAMES SENG: YES.

>>KHALED FATTAL: THIS IS THE ONE?

>>JAMES SENG: YES. THANK YOU. DO YOU MIND BLOWING UP?

>>KHALED FATTAL: I WILL DO MY BEST. HANG ON A SECOND.

>>JAMES SENG: IT'S ALL RIGHT. SLIDE SHOW.

>>KHALED FATTAL: YEAH, YEAH, BUT SLIDE SHOW IS GOING TO START FROM THE BEGINNING. I HOPE YOU HAVE PATIENCE. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. I'LL GET IT THERE.

>>JAMES SENG: WHY DON'T WE JUST ESCAPE AND GO TO THE CHART.

>>KHALED FATTAL: I'M HITTING THE BUTTON AS FAST AS I CAN.

>>JAMES SENG: OH, NO, THE BEER IS GOING TO COST ME A LOT OF MONEY.

>>VINT CERF: KHALED, WHY CAN'T YOU GO BACK INTO EDIT MODE AND GET THE SLIDES ALL UP IN THE EDIT FORMAT, AND THEN PICK THE ONE YOU WANT?

>>KHALED FATTAL: GIVE ME TEN SECONDS AND I'LL GET IT UP THERE, VINT. THANK YOU.

>>JAMES SENG: AH, GREAT.

>>KHALED FATTAL: WHICH PART WOULD YOU LIKE?

>>JAMES SENG: JUST FLASH YOUR WHOLE SLIDE.

FIRST OF ALL, I WAS LOOKING AT DICTIONARY.COM TRYING TO LOOK FOR THE TERM MULTILINGUALISM, MULTILINGUALIZATION. SERIOUSLY I CAN'T FIND THAT WORD AT ALL SO I SUPPOSE IT'S A WORD YOU'VE COME UP WITH. THE CLOSEST DEFINITION I CAN COME UP WITH IS MULTILINGUAL -- MULTILINGUAL, WHICH SAYS USING AND HAVING THE ABILITY TO USE SEVERAL LANGUAGE.

DO YOU MIND IF YOU FLASH THE ACTION ITEM? COMMITTEE -- LOCAL EMPOWERMENT, CULTURAL RELEVANCE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. HOW IS THIS RELEVANT TO MULTILINGUALISM?

>>KHALED FATTAL: HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE ON THE QUESTION, VINT?

>>VINT CERF: WE ARE WAY OVER TIME RIGHT NOW SO IF YOU CAN CONFINE YOURSELF TO A FEW MORE MINUTES.

>>KHALED FATTAL: I WILL DO MY BEST.

>>JAMES SENG: JUST A QUESTION. WHY IS THIS RELEVANT TO MULTILINGUALISM AND WHY IS IT THAT WHAT HAPPENED IN WSIS, IN THE WSIS PROCESS THAT'S NOT DEALING WITH THIS, THAT IS SO UNIQUE TO MULTILINGUALISM? THE QUESTION IS, HAS MINC EXPANDED THE MEANING OF MULTILINGUALISM INTO INTERNET GOVERNANCE?

>>KHALED FATTAL: OKAY. LET ME ADDRESS YOUR -- I THINK YOU'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS THERE. ONE OF THEM IS WHERE THE WORD MULTILINGUALIZATION COMES FROM. AND I THINK YOU'RE MAKING REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE A DEFINITION; IS THAT CORRECT?

WELL, ACTUALLY, THE OXFORD DICTIONARY ONLY RECENTLY INPUTTED THE WORD, THE FULL MONTY IN ITS DICTIONARY BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN UTILIZED QUITE OFTEN AND IT MEANS SOMETHING. AND BY THE WAY, IT WAS DERIVEN FROM THE MOVIE. AND WITHOUT DEBATING SEMANTICS HERE, WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT MULTILINGUALIZATION MEANS, AND WE'VE ALREADY ISSUED A DEFINITION TO IT. SO AS TO YOUR LAST QUESTION, I'M GLAD YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION BECAUSE THE RELEVANCE OF THESE ITEMS IN THE MULTILINGUALIZATION IS THAT CONTRARY TO COMMON PERCEPTION IS THAT DEALING WITH IDNS HAS BEEN VIEWED BY MANY, AND PERHAPS INCORRECTLY, THAT IT IS A FUNCTION JUST OF DOMAIN NAMES. IF IT WAS ONLY A FUNCTION OF DOMAIN NAMES, THEN WHY WOULD WE NEED -- AND SCRIPT AS WELL, WHY WOULD WE NEED TO ACTUALLY INVOLVE LOCAL EXPERTS WHO ARE LINGUISTIC EXPERTS IN THAT FUNCTION? SO CULTURAL RELEVANCE RELATES TO LINGUISTIC, LOCAL EMPOWERMENT RELATES TO --

>>JAMES SENG: SORRY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I JUST WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU BECAUSE I ASKED A VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION. WHAT MULTILINGUALISM HAS TO DO WITH GLOBAL POLICY INFRASTRUCTURE?

>>KHALED FATTAL: IF WE WANT TO MAKE THIS A DEBATE, JAMES, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO IT BUT I THINK UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DON'T HAVE THAT TIME. I WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

GLOBAL POLICY INFRASTRUCTURE IS A FUNCTION OF DELIVERING POLICIES THAT ARE HARMONIOUS TO THE NEEDS OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY IN THE WAY POLICIES ARE DEPLOYED.

EXCUSE ME, JAMES, YOU HAVE TO ASK THE CHAIRMAN IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT BECAUSE I'M SORRY, I CAN'T TAKE MORE TIME. ACCEPT IT OR NOT. THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENT. AND IT'S ACTUALLY PART OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY'S DESIRE TO FIND A ROLE FOR THEMSELVES AND IMPLEMENT WHAT IS CULTURALLY RELEVANT TO THEIR OWN COMMUNITY.

THAT ACTUALLY IS PART OF LOCAL EMPOWERMENT. AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER ON, THE TOTAL OF THE LOCAL EMPOWERMENT'S POLICIES IS WHAT CREATES THE GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY. THAT'S IT.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY. I'M GOING TO STOP THE EXCHANGE NOW BECAUSE WE HAVE ONE OTHER SPEAKER, AND IT'S GETTING LATE AND WE DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE YET TO HAVE THE MORE GENERAL DISCUSSION.

BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH, KHALED. I APPRECIATE YOUR INPUTS TODAY.

>>RAM MOHAN: VINT, I HAD ONE COMMENT TO MAKE.

>>VINT CERF: GO AHEAD. WE'RE GOING TO BE UNDOING CORDS AND EVERYTHING WHILE WE PREPARE FOR THE NEXT SPEAKER, WHO IS ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN FROM SAUDINIC.

>>RAM MOHAN: THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT IN THE PRESENTATION, I SAW TERMS SUCH AS ARABIC DNS, AND I THINK THAT TERMS SUCH AS ARABIC DNS UNNECESSARILY SUGGEST A NEED TO BALKANIZE WHAT IS AT ITS CORE A GLOBAL SHARED RESOURCE. SO I WOULD SAY WHILE THERE ARE NUMEROUS VALID POINTS BEING MADE, THAT WE STAY AWAY FROM PUTTING GEOGRAPHIC OR LOCAL TYPE OF TAGS FROM WHAT IS AT ITS CORE AN IMPORTANT GLOBAL SHARED RESOURCE.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, RAM.

I'M GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE MICROPHONE JUST TO MAKE ONE OBSERVATION.

I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, KHALED, WHAT ALL THE IMPLICATIONS WERE OF YOUR OBJECTIVES, AND I DON'T THINK THAT I WOULD QUIBBLE WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF TRYING TO MAKE ALL LANGUAGES EQUALLY USEFUL AND ACCESSIBLE ON THE NET.

I WILL SAY, HOWEVER, THAT IF YOU THINK OF THE BASIC INTERNET AS IF IT WERE THE INVENTION OF A WHEEL, AND WHERE WE'VE GOTTEN NOW WITH THE DNS AND EVEN OUR EFFORTS AT IDN AS APPROXIMATELY AN OXCART, THE SET OF THINGS YOU WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN IN THAT LONG LIST IS MORE LIKE A ROCKET SHIP. AND IT MAY VERY WELL BE THAT WE CAN'T GET TO THE ROCKETSHIP FROM THE OXCART THAT. THE FUNDAMENTAL TECHNOLOGY THAT WAS USED TO CREATE TODAY'S INTERNET, AND EVEN THE ONE THAT WE ARE INCREMENTALLY TALKING ABOUT TODAY, IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO BUILD THE ROCKETSHIP.

AND SO WE MAY HAVE TO SERIOUSLY GO AFTER NEW TECHNOLOGY.

THE THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST TO YOU IS THAT IF, INDEED, NEW TECHNOLOGY IS NEEDED, THEN IT PROBABLY IS LESS USEFUL TO TRY TO IMPOSE ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU'VE LISTED ON THE PRESENT INTERNET, BUT RATHER, TO IMMEDIATELY ATTACK THE QUESTION WHAT TECHNOLOGIES NEED TO BE DEVELOPED IN ORDER TO CREATE THE WORLD THAT YOU ENVISION.

BUT TO ATTEMPT TO TURN THE OXCART INTO A ROCKETSHIP MAY BE LESS EFFECTIVE AND LESS SUCCESSFUL THAN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO BUILD THE ROCKET ENGINE FIRST.

LET'S GO ON NOW TO THE NEXT SPEAKER.

YOU NEED TO RESPOND.

OKAY.

>>KHALED FATTAL: ACTUALLY, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT.

I THINK, IF ANYTHING, THIS WAS TO ILLUSTRATE THE CHALLENGES OF WHERE WE NEED TO GET.

THAT MAY NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT ALL OF THIS, LIKE I SAID EARLIER ON, IS DOABLE BY TOMORROW NOON, NOR IS IT POSSIBLE PROBABLY BY WHATEVER.

THE IMPORTANT ELEMENT IS, SPEAKING CHAIRMAN TO CHAIRMAN, IS THAT WE NEED TO SHOW VISION TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY OF WHAT IS DEPLOYABLE.

AND I AM GOING TO PAY A TRIBUTE TO SOMETHING HAD YOU DONE.

IF IT HAD NOT BEEN FOR THE FACT THAT YOU HAD ACTUALLY BEEN ONE OF THE PIONEERS IN DEVELOPING THE INTERNET, WE WOULD NOT BE HERE DEBATING OF WHERE TO TAKE IT NEXT.

SO PART OF THE RATIONALE IS, WE ARE AT A JUNCTURE OF WHERE DO WE GO NEXT AND WHAT VISION DO WE IMPLEMENT.

AND I PERSONALLY BELIEVE, AND, BY THE WAY, I THINK IT'S HEALTHY TO DISAGREE, I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE OUR EYE ON WHERE IS IT WE WANT TO GET.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.

WE'LL TAKE SOME OF THIS UP WHEN WE GET TO THE REGULAR DISCUSSION.

LET'S GO ON NOW WITH THE NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE.

>>ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

MY NAME IS ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN. I AM THE MANAGER OF SAUDINIC, CCTLD OF SAUDI ARABIA.

BEFORE I START, THIS PRESENTATION WAS PLANNED TO BE PRESENTED ON THE ICANN ITU WORKSHOP ON SUNDAY, BUT I AM REALLY GRATEFUL FOR THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE TO INVITE ME TO PRESENT IT ALSO HERE.

BECAUSE, REALLY, WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME, AND ALSO SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES COVERED SOME OF THE AREAS, I WILL GO FAST ON SOME OF THE SLIDES THAT I HAVE.

THE OBJECTIVE OF MY PRESENTATION IS ACTUALLY TO SHARE WITH YOU OUR EXPERIENCES AND CONTRIBUTIONS IN SUPPORTING OUR DOMAIN NAMES, AND NOT TO ACTUALLY GIVE THE CREDIT TO SAUDINIC FOR THE RESULTANT WORK, BUT TO HIGHLIGHT OUR METHODOLOGIES ON HOW WE GET THIS WORK WITH THE COOPERATION WITH INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS.

AND ALSO, WE WANTED TO SEND A MESSAGE THAT, REALLY, THERE ARE A LOT OF DEMANDS ON OUR COMMUNITY FOR HAVING DOMAIN NAMES AND THAT LOCAL COMMUNITY COULD HELP IN DEFINING WHAT THE NEED AND HOW THIS COULD BE IMPLEMENTED.

THE AGENDA, I WILL GO QUICKLY, ACTUALLY, SO AS TO COVER BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN COVERED BEFORE.

I WILL CONCENTRATE REALLY ON OUR METHODOLOGIES IN CONTRIBUTING ON SUPPORTING OUR DOMAIN NAMES PER SE.

ABOUT SAUDINIC, I WILL SKIP THIS ONE.

STATISTICS HAS BEEN COVERED BY MY COLLEAGUE KHALED. THE PERCENT ONE HERE IS THAT, REALLY, THE (INAUDIBLE) IN THE ARAB WORLD IS VERY LOW. THAT COULD BE BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE, COULD BE THE CONTENT, COULD BE THE TOOLS, AND ALSO THE DOMAIN NAMES.

AND THIS IS OUR BUSINESS HERE.

WHY ARABIZING DOMAIN NAMES? KHALED HAS ALREADY COVERED THIS AREA.

THE EXISTING SOLUTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE VENDORS, ACTUALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THEM, WHEN THEY HAVE APPROACHED US, WE FIND THAT MOST OF THEM, THEY ARE NOT REALLY STANDARD.

THEY ARE BASED ON VENDOR SOLUTION.

THEY ARE UNRECOGNIZED.

I AM TALKING ABOUT ARABIC DOT ARABIC, NOT OTHER SOLUTION.

THEY ARE UNRECOGNIZED BY INTERNATIONAL BODIES AND ALSO THE SOLUTION, THEY ARE INCOMPATIBLE BETWEEN THEMSELVES, AND THEY MIGHT ALSO HAVE MULTIPLE REGISTRATION.

OUR VISION TO HAVE SOLUTION FOR ARABIC IDN SHOULD COVER FOUR AREAS. ONE IS THE LINGUISTIC ISSUES. SECOND IS THE HIERARCHY OF THE ARABIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES. THIRD, THE TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS. AND THE FOURTH ONE IS HAVING STRUCTURE FOR THE ARABIC ROOT SERVERS.

AND THIS PRESENTATION WILL TALK ABOUT OUR METHODOLOGIES TO COVER ALL ABOUT HOW WE CONTRIBUTE TO THESE AREAS.

FIRST WE IDENTIFY THE PROBLEMS AND THE AREAS THAT WE COULD CONTRIBUTE IN. AND WE PARTICIPATE AND ALSO INITIATE INTEREST GROUPS AND TASK FORCES TO HELP THE SUPPORTING ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES. WE CONDUCT SURVEYS FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING PARTICULARLY TO THE LINGUISTIC ISSUES. WE PUBLISH REPORTS AND SCIENTIFIC PAPERS IN THE AREA. WE MEET WITH THE LINGUISTS, EXPERT PEOPLE IN THE LANGUAGE, TO MAKE SURE THAT REALLY WE COVER ALL THE RELATED ISSUES WITH THE LINGUISTIC -- WITH RESPECT TO THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. AND WE DISSEMINATE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE TO THE PUBLIC. AND AT THE END, WE HAVE SOME TEST.

I WILL COVER THIS AREA IN MORE DETAILS.

FOR IDENTIFYING THE AREA OF CONTRIBUTION, WITH RESPECT TO THE LINGUISTIC ISSUES, WE COULD REALLY HELP.

WE ARE LIKE CCTLDS FOR ARABIC COUNTRIES, WE COULD REALLY HELP IN IDENTIFYING THE ARABIC CHARACTER SET AND DISCUSS ALL THE LINGUISTIC ISSUES. THE SAME THING, WE COULD ALSO CONTRIBUTE IN DEFINING ARABIC TLDS WHICH REALLY SUIT ARABIC LANGUAGE.

WITH RESPECT TO THE TECHNICAL SOLUTION, IT HAS BEEN COVERED BY IETF.

AND WITH ARABIC ROOT SERVERS, WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR, LIKE, A WORLDWIDE RECOGNITION TO HAVE A SOLUTION FOR HAVING -- TO HAVE THE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES TO BE WORLDWIDE RECOGNIZED, WHICH I MEAN ARABIC DOT ARABIC.

WITH RESPECT TO THE LINGUISTIC ISSUES, WE HAVE DEFINED ALL THE LINGUISTIC ISSUES RELATED TO ARABIC, STARTING FROM THE VOWELS AND SO ON, AND WE LIST THEM.

AND WE DISCUSS THEM THROUGH TECHNICAL COMMITTEES, AND WE DISCUSS THEM OVER THE WEB AS A SURVEY, AND ALSO WE DISCUSS THEM FACE TO FACE WITH LINGUISTS.

THE SAME THING WITH STRUCTURING THE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES.

WITH RESPECT TO PARTICIPATING AND INITIATING GROUPS, WE ARE PARTICIPATING WITH THE MINC IN THEIR ARABIC SCRIPT-BASED WORKING GROUP.

WE ARE ALSO A FOUNDER OF AINC, THE ARABIC INTERNET NAMES CONSORTIUM. AND I WAS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE LINGUISTIC COMMITTEE OF AINC, ALSO A MEMBER OF THE ARABIC DOMAIN NAME TASK THAT IS OF THE UNITED NATIONS ESCWA, DRAFTING THE RFC. AND ALSO THE GCC, WHICH IS THE GULF CORPORATION COUNCIL, THE GULF COUNTRIES TLDS, AND WE HAVE A COMMITTEE FOR TESTING THE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES.

AND I WILL TALK ABOUT THIS ONE IN MORE DETAIL.

WITH THE PUBLISHING REPORTS, WE HAVE ALREADY PUBLISHED WITH RESPECT TO USING ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES FIVE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS IN JOURNALS AND CONFERENCES. WE HAVE ALSO PUBLISHED TECHNICAL REPORTS. AND WE ARE PART OF DRAFTING THE REQUEST FOR COMMENT. HERE ARE THE PAPERS, IF YOU WISH TO REFERENCE.

WE HAVE CONDUCTED THREE ONLINE SURVEYS WITH RESPECT TO THE LINGUISTIC PART, BOTH IN ARABIC AND IN ENGLISH. WE COLLECT THIS INFORMATION. WE COMPARE IT WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE AINC LINGUISTIC COMMITTEES, AND WE PUBLISHED THE RESULTS. ALSO, WE CONSULTED FOUR PROFESSIONAL ARABIC LINGUISTS ON THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT, REALLY, WE ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK. ALSO, WE PUBLISHED ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE IN ALL THE MEDIUM THAT WE COULD. WE PUT THEM ON THE WEB, IN JOURNALS, AT CONFERENCES.

WE ALREADY HAVE PROGRAMS, PUBLIC SEMINARS, AND JUST TO MAKE PEOPLE AWARE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR DOMAIN NAMES.

WITH RESPECT TO THE TEST, THE MANAGERS OF THE TLDS OF THE GCC COUNTRIES, IN THEIR MEETING IN MARCH 2004 HAD ESTABLISHED A PILOT PROJECT TO TEST THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. AND THIS IS JUST FOR TESTING. WE WANTED TO TEST THE TECHNOLOGY, AND ALSO WE WANT TO GAIN SOME EXPERIENCES AND DEVELOP SOME TOOLS TO BE USED WITH THE ARABIC LANGUAGE.

AND CURRENTLY WE ARE DEVELOPING TOOL FOR EDITING A ZONE FILE THAT'S AN EDITOR FOR ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES AND ALSO A DNS CHECKER FOR ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES. WE HAVE ALMOST FINISHED THE PHASE ONE IN WHICH THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO REALLY TYPE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, FULL ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES.

AND WE STILL HAVE TWO PHASES, WHICH MOST OF THEM ARE LIKE JUST POLICIES TO MAKE SURE THIS IS -- THIS IS ONLY A TEST. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE OPEN. THIS IS NOT JUST LIKE THINGS, OPEN FOR COMMERCIAL OR OPEN FOR THE PUBLIC; THIS IS JUST FOR TEST TO MAKE SURE -- UNTIL THE ARABIC DOT ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES ARE BEING RECOGNIZED WORLDWIDE.

AND NOW WITH THIS TEST, WE CAN TYPE REALLY THE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, AND YOU COULD EASILY REACH THE SITES.

IF WE LOOK -- IF YOU GO BACK WITH THIS -- THE AREA OF THE SOLUTION FOR ARABIC IDN, WE FIND THAT NOW ALMOST LING -- ALL THE LINGUISTIC ISSUES HAVE BEEN DONE.

WE HAVE DISCUSSED IT, WE HAVE REPORTS, WE HAVE RFC. THE SAME WITH ARABIC TLDS.

THE TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, THE IETF HAS ALREADY PUBLISHED THEIR RFCS.

NOW, THE REMAINING PART IS TO HAVE THIS ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES TO BE WORLDWIDE RECOGNIZED. AND WE ARE WAITING FOR ICANN OR OTHER ENTITIES TO REALLY ENABLE US TO REALLY BE -- USE OUR LANGUAGES WORLDWIDE, NOT JUST LOCALLY.

THE LEARNED LESSONS FROM OUR EXPERIENCE AND THE EXPERIENCE IS ALMOST MORE THAN THREE YEARS, THAT WE HAVE TO GET PEOPLE AS MUCH AS WE CAN INVOLVED IN OUR PROCESS.

WE HAVE TO GET INVOLVED IN LOCAL AND REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES. WE THINK THAT NATIVE LANGUAGE MEANS NATIVE PEOPLE. YOU HAVE TO GET THEM INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THE STANDARDS. YOU HAVE TO SHARE YOUR EXPERIENCES WITH OTHERS. WE HAVE TO GIVE -- LIKE, KEEP GOING, LIKE OTHER ENTITIES HAVE STOPPED.

IN OUR THREE YEARS' EXPERIENCE, WE HAVE FORMED GROUPS, AND THESE GROUPS STOP IN THE MIDDLE. WE KEEP -- CONTINUE TO REACH OUR GOAL. WE HAVE TO ALSO OPEN CHANNELS WITH THE LINGUISTIC EXPERTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK, AS I SAID BEFORE. AND WE HAVE TO PUSH FOR STANDARDS.

IN CONCLUSION, THAT REALLY -- AS A CCTLD, WE HAVE A LOT OF PRESSURE AND A LOT OF DEMANDS FROM THE LOCAL COMMUNITY TO HAVE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES.

AND WE CANNOT REALLY TELL THEM ALL THE TIME WE ARE WAITING FOR THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION TO ACCEPT THIS IDEA. WE HAVE A LOT OF STRESS. SO THAT'S WHY WE ARE SAYING TO ENTITIES LIKE ICANN OR IANA OR MINC OR IETF OR WHATEVER THAT WE HAVE TO REALLY SPEED UP THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IDN.

WITH THIS ONE, I AM FINISHED AND I AM HAPPY TO. ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: WELL, I GUESS THE FIRST QUESTION IS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR?

OR FROM THE PANEL?

I HAVE ONE. ONE THING THAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT THIS VISION THAT YOU HAVE PRESENTED, I CAN UNDERSTAND HOW WELL FOR A COMMUNITY OF ARABIC SPEAKERS. BUT WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WHAT IT DOES TO THE INTEROPERABILITY OF THE REST OF THE INTERNET. I DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND HOW WE ACHIEVE WHAT JOHN KLENSIN TALKED ABOUT THIS MORNING, WHICH WAS INTERNATIONALIZATION, WHICH MEANT ALL PARTIES COULD COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER.

SO -- AND PARTICULARLY, IF YOU'VE BEEN FOLLOWING SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES WE'VE HAD JUST WITH TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS IN THE COUNTRY CODE WORLD, FINDING A WAY TO AVOID BEING THE -- THIS IS ICANN NOW -- FINDING A WAY TO AVOID BEING THE PARTY THAT DECIDES HOW EACH COUNTRY NAME WILL BE REPRESENTED IN EVERY POSSIBLE LANGUAGE.

RIGHT NOW, WE TURN TO THE 3166-1 TABLE IN ORDER TO PROTECT OURSELVES AND TO TURN TO THE UNITED NATIONS FOR GUIDANCE. AS SOON AS WE OPEN UP THE DOOR TO THE MULTILINGUAL TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN, WE OPEN UP A GREAT DEAL OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHAT WILL BE PUT THERE. AND WE ARE NOT -- I AM NOT SURE, ANYWAY, HOW TO CONSTRAIN THE OUTCOME SO THAT WE DON'T END UP WITH TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THESE TLDS.

THE REASON IT GET COMPLEX, I THINK YOU CAN SEE, IS THAT IF I AM A FRENCH SPEAKER, I MAY WANT TO HAVE THE FRENCH TERM FOR SAUDI ARABIA IN THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN. IF I'M A GERMAN SPEAKER, I WANT THE GERMAN VERSION. IF I AM SOME OTHER LANGUAGE, A CAMBODIAN, I WANT THAT LANGUAGE. SO NOW WE HAVE A CROSS PRODUCT OF ALL THESE DIFFERENT REPRESENTATIONS.

THEN THE QUESTION WILL BE SINCE THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS DESIGNED IN SUCH A WAY THAT EACH TLD IS DISTINCT AND SEPARATE, EACH REGISTRATION IN A GIVEN TLD IS DISTINCT AND SEPARATE, WE NOW HAVE THE QUESTION OF WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REGISTERING DOMAIN NAMES IN THE OTHER LANGUAGE VERSION OF YOUR COUNTRY'S NAME.

SO IF IT'S THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN IN -- FRENCH NAME FOR SAUDI ARABIA, WHICH I DON'T REMEMBER, IS IT -- IS IT SAUDI THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING THOSE REGISTRATIONS OR IS IT SOMEONE ELSE?

IS IT THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT?
IS IT SOME OTHER PARTY?

I'M NOT TRYING TO TRAP ANYONE HERE, BUT I AM TRYING TO SAY THAT THERE ARE SOME VERY TOUGH COMPLEXITIES IN THE POLICY AREA THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO APPROACH EASILY.

WHEN YOU MENTION ARABIC ROOT SERVERS, MANY RED FLAGS GO UP, BECAUSE IF THAT IMPLIES A PARALLEL SET OF ROOTS THAT ARE INDEPENDENT OF THE ICANN-RECOGNIZED ROOT SYSTEM, WE GET INTO ANOTHER VERY COMPLEX ENVIRONMENT, TOO.

SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S NOT THE CASE. SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT EVEN WHAT BOTH YOU AND KHALED HAVE SUGGESTED EXCEED AT LEAST TODAY'S TECHNICAL AND POLICY CAPABILITIES.

AND IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE PROGRESS AT THE RATE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, WE HAVE TO FIND SOME PRETTY CREATIVE SOLUTIONS TO THOSE KINDS OF PROBLEMS.

>>JAMES SENG: I HAVE A COMMENT FOR YOU.

ACTUALLY, I REALLY LIKE WHAT DR. AL-ZOMAN SAID IN HIS PRESENTATION. AND IN CERTAIN WAYS, I THINK THE ARABIC DOT ARABIC ISSUES DOES BRING OUT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN COMMUNITIES IN THE INTERNET THAT REALLY NEED FULL MULTILINGUAL DOMAIN NAMES -- I'M SORRY, FULL INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES.

LET ME CORRECT MYSELF. I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTIES THAT ICANN FACES BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE A REFERENCE OF 3166. BUT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO ACTUALLY WORK HARDER TO ACTUALLY FIND SOME REFERENCE TABLE AND TO WORK ON IT THAT ICANN RELY UPON. IF THIS IS NOT DONE IN A TIMELY MANNER, THE FRAGMENTATION OF THE INTERNET IS HAPPENING.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.

I THINK EITHER KHALED -- ABDULAZIZ, YES, PLEASE.

>>ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN: JUST TO ADD TO WHAT YOU HAVE SAID, WE DON'T HAVE THE INTENTION TO HAVE A SEPARATE ROOT SERVER. THAT'S FULL STOP.

AND THE SECOND ONE, YOU KNOW, THE ARABIC LANGUAGE, WE WRITE IT FROM RIGHT TO LEFT.

IT WOULD BE VERY HARD TO THE USER TO WRITE RIGHT TO LEFT AND THEN SWITCH LEFT TO RIGHT TO WRITE ASCII TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES.

THAT'S WHAT OUR COMMITTEE REALLY NEEDS ARABIC TO ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES.

AND WITH RESPECT TO THE STANDARDS FOR THE COUNTRIES, WE HAVE AN ARABIC AS A STANDARD FOR ALL THE WORLD COUNTRIES, TWO LETTERS IN ARABIC WHICH, YOU KNOW, LIKE CODING ALL THE COUNTRIES.

AND IT'S ALL 1985, FROM ASMO WHICH IS THE ARABIC STANDARD ORGANIZATION, WHICH IS REALLY EQUIVALENT TO THE ISO 3600. SO WE HAVE THAT. WE COULD -- WE HAVE THAT ONE FOR THE ARABIC LANGUAGE.

THANK YOU.

>>NASER SULAIMAN: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I HAVE A QUESTION. AT THE SAME TIME, I NEED YOUR HELP TO HELP ME, BECAUSE THE TERM DILUTION. THE TERM DILUTION TO APPLY TO THE DNN, FOR EXAMPLE. LET'S SAY FOR EXAMPLE, THE UNITED STATES HAVE A TERM DILUTION, THEY HAVE DEFINED IT VERY WELL, WHICH MEANS NOT INFRINGEMENT OF THE TRADEMARK BUT IT WILL MAKE THE TRADEMARK IN LESS POSITION.

SO I JUST -- THIS QUESTION WAS RAISED IN MY MIND. SO I THINK IT IS GOOD CHANCE TO ASK THIS QUESTION. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: LET'S SEE. I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT I UNDERSTAND WHICH TRADEMARK YOU THINK MIGHT BE DILUTED HERE, SO YOU MAY NEED TO GIVE ME A LITTLE MORE GUIDANCE.

>>NASER SULAIMAN: I WAS TALKING GENERALLY TO AVOID ANY PROBLEMS.

THE EXAMPLE IS FOR DOMAIN NAME, FOR EXAMPLE, WE'LL USE IT, LET'S SAY, IN ARABIC, THE STANDARD OF THE LANGUAGE. IF WE HAVE MADE IT NOT COMPLYING WITH THE CORRECT STANDARD, IS THIS TO DILUTE THE ORIGINAL ARABIC?

>>VINT CERF: I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, TO BE QUITE HONEST WITH YOU, BECAUSE YOU'RE DRAWING A PARALLEL BY REFERRING TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONCEPT. AND YOU'RE SORT OF MAPPING THAT INTO A LINGUISTIC QUESTION.

AND I HAVE THE FEELING THAT IT'S VERY HARD TO MAKE THAT PARALLEL WORK. PART OF THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT LANGUAGES CHANGE, AND WE COULD ARGUE THAT THEY ARE BEING DILUTED SOMEHOW BY THE CHANGE. THEY INGEST TERMS FROM OTHER LANGUAGES. AND SO I'M NOT SURE THAT WE CAN USE THIS PARALLEL TO REASON VERY CAREFULLY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATCH OUR ACTUAL EXPERIENCE WITH THE WAY LANGUAGES EVOLVE.

>>NASER SULAIMAN: SO I THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD CHANCE TO ASK THIS QUESTION. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: YOU'RE WELCOME.

KHALED, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.

>>KHALED FATTAL: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUST FOR THE RECORD AS WELL, SO THERE'S NO CONFUSION, WE ARE STRONG PROPONENTS OF SINGLE ROOT FOR ALL. I THINK ANYBODY WHO HAS NOT TAKEN NOTICE OF THAT, I WOULD BE HARD PRESSED TO FIND OUT HOW. BECAUSE LITERALLY IN EVERY PRESS RELEASE WE ISSUE, IN EVERY DOCUMENT WE PUT IN, WE'RE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ROOT. BUT FOR THAT TO HAPPEN, THERE HAS TO BE COORDINATION FROM THE DIFFERENT PLAYERS WITHOUT A DOUBT. AND WHILE OUR VISION IS AMBITIOUS, IT REALLY COMES FROM AN ANGLE WHERE, IN A PARTICULAR LANGUAGE, LIKE IN ARABIC, AND I'M SPEAKING OF ARABIC NOW, NOT JUST MINC WHICH IS INTERNATIONAL, BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN DEPLOYED YET, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY DO IT IN A BETTER WAY, PERHAPS, THAN WHAT HAS BEEN USED IN THE PAST AND MAY HAVE HAD NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES. AND THIS IS WHERE THE SHARE OF EXPERIENCES WHAT HAD NOT WORKED, WHAT MAY HAVE WORKED REALLY COMES IN.

IT'S FROM THAT EXPERIENCE THAT PERHAPS WE ARE SETTING THE BAR A BIT HIGH. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY. WE ARE SORT OF INTO THE POST PRESENTATION DISCUSSION, SO LET ME OPEN THIS UP TO MORE GENERAL ISSUES AND QUESTIONS, IF ANYONE HAS THE ENERGY TO DO SO.

>>: AM I THE FIRST?

FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE A PROCEDURAL POINT THAT --

>>VINT CERF: I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. THIS IS NOT CHUCK GOMES. THIS IS VITTORIO BERTOLA.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: THE PROCEDURAL POINT IS PERHAPS THE BOARD SHOULD PASS A RESOLUTION THAT FORBIDS SCHEDULING EVENTS THAT END AT 7:00 P.M. OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO -- AND ESPECIALLY (INAUDIBLE) 7:00 P.M. SO IT'S INTERESTING TO LISTEN TO THESE PRESENTATIONS BUT PERHAPS IT SHOULD BE A BIT EARLIER.

WELL, I HAVE A LONG LIST OF STUFF. PART OF THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT MY COMMITTEE BUT WE DON'T HAVE AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT YET, SO AT THIS POINT, IT IS MY PERSONAL OPINION.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS THAT ARE GOING ON IN THIS FIELD AND THE FACT THAT SO MANY PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO DO SO MANY THINGS. AND I THINK THAT ACTUALLY THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, SO WE HAVE TO PUSH FOR THIS TO HAPPEN QUICKLY, ESPECIALLY TO PUSH TO HAVE THE IDN DOMAINS. AND I THINK PERHAPS EVEN HAVING THE HTTP PART TRANSLATED BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO HAVE TO RIGHT HTTP (INAUDIBLE) ALL THE REST IS IDN.

BUT, HOWEVER, I THINK I AM ABSOLUTELY WORRIED ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING. AND I THINK ESPECIALLY FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF HOW ICANN IS QUITE A FAILURE BECAUSE I SEE WE ARE FAILING TO COORDINATE ALL THIS. SO EVERYBODY IS GOING HIS OWN WAY. THIS IS THE IMPRESSION I HAD FROM THE PRESENTATIONS TODAY. BASICALLY EVERYBODY IS DOING WHAT HE WANTS, AND SO THERE'S NO COMMON POLICY, THERE'S NO AGREEMENT, ON, FOR EXAMPLE, A COMMON LANGUAGE TABLE FOR A GIVEN LANGUAGE, ALL THIS KIND OF STUFF. AND I AM QUITE WORRIED BY THE FACT THAT IF WE DON'T MAKE POLICY NOW ON THIS FIELD, WE WILL END WITH A LOT OF MESS WHEN THESE DOMAINS ACTUALLY START TO BE USED.

SO EVERYBODY WAS SAYING WE DON'T HAVE PROBLEMS UNTIL NOW, BUT I THINK THIS IS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE NOT USING THESE DOMAINS BECAUSE THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH PCS THAT HAVE THE CORRECT SOFTWARE, AND POSSIBLY IT'S NOT SUPPORTED ENOUGH BY THE WORLD.

BUT I SEE A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS THAT COULD ARISE, AND THEY ARE, I THINK, VERY IMPORTANT PROBLEMS.

SO PERSONALLY, I THINK WE SHOULD START TO -- I MEAN, TO CONSIDER AT LEAST SOME OF THEM. FOR EXAMPLE, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, NOBODY IS ACTUALLY DOING BUNDLING, SO YOU HAVE THE SAME DOMAIN NAME WHICH ARE MORE OR LESS EQUIVALENT OR FUNDAMENTALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE WHICH ARE BEING COMPLETELY SEPARATED AND THIS PRESENTS A COUPLE OF POTENTIAL PROBLEMS. ONE IS IF YOU HAVE ONE OF THESE DOMAIN NAMES AND YOU WANT TO PROTECT YOURSELF YOU HAVE TO REGISTER ALL THE DIFFERENT VERSIONS AND PAY EACH TIME A NEW REGISTRATION FEE FOR EACH OF THEM. AND THIS IS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE REGISTRANT IS GOING TO BE A MESS.

IF YOU HAVE EVEN JUST TWO VARIANTS FOR A SINGLE CHARACTER BUT YOU HAVE FIVE EXTRA CHARACTERS, THAT'S 32 DOMAIN NAMES YOU HAVE TO REGISTER AND PAY FOR. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

AND THIS ALSO OPENS THE WAY TO SPOOFING, FISHING, ALL KINDS OF PROBLEMS BECAUSE WHAT I REGISTER MICROSOFT.COM WITH AN EXTENDED (INAUDIBLE). I CAN PUT THE LINK AND I CAN SPOOF AND WHATEVER I WANT. I HAD A LONG LIST OF STUFF THAT DOESN'T WORK. FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE NO (INAUDIBLE), SO THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO REGISTERED (INAUDIBLE). SO CONVERTING THE ACCENTED VOWELS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THE NON-ACCENTED VOWELS, AND THEY POSSIBLY EXPECT TO BE THE FIRST TO REGISTER THE REAL VERSION OF THEIR DOMAIN NAME, THE ONE WITH THE CORRECT LETTERS. IF SOMEONE ELSE CAN REGISTER THAT, I MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE, AN E-COMMERCE CAN MAKE THE BUSINESS (INAUDIBLE). I AM NOT GOING TO GO INTO DETAIL ON ALL THE PROBLEMS BECAUSE IT WILL TAKE TOO LONG BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A COORDINATED WAY AT LEAST FOR THE GTLDS IN WHICH THIS IS INTRODUCED. AND. AND THIS SHOULD BE INTRODUCED IN A BINDING WAY. SO I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE WE WILL NEVER GET CAMBODIAN SCRIPT.COM BECAUSE CAMBO!

DIA IS NOT INTERESTED IN MARKET FOR VERISIGN. SO WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DEFINE WHO WILL DECIDE THE RULES FOR CAMBODIAN SCRIPT REGISTRATION AND GTLDS AND THEN WE SHOULD OBLIGE ALL OUR GTLD REGISTRIES TO ACCEPT REGISTRATIONS IN CAMBODIAN SCRIPT OR IN WHICHEVER OTHER SCRIPTS. SO THIS IS JUST THOUGHTS AT THIS STAGE. I PERSONALLY THINK WE SHOULD STOP THE LAUNCH OF NEW GTLDS FROM HAPPENING AND URGE THE GNSO TO START THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS IN THIS FIELD. BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE WILL END UP IN A TOTAL MESS AND WE WILL NOT BE DOING OUR JOB OF COORDINATING THE STUFF. AND PERHAPS IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF THE GNSO. IT WOULD REQUIRE WORK WITH THE IETF. IT IS A COMPLEX PROBLEM AND MANY OF THE PROBLEMS, THEY ARE REAL.

BUT PERHAPS WE NEED TO SOLVE THE IDN STEERING COMMITTEE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT WE REALLY HAVE TO TAKE CARE ABOUT THIS BECAUSE IF WE MAKE MISTAKES, IT WILL BE MISTAKES THAT WE KEEP WITH US FOR 100 YEARS OR SO.

>>VINT CERF:THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VITTORIO:

KHALED HAD HIS HAND UP AND THEN I'LL RECOGNIZE JOHN KLENSIN.

CARY, I'LL TAKE YOU AFTER JOHN.

>>JOHN KLENSIN: I WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION RATHER THAN MAKE A SPEECH SO MAYBE I KEEP THIS BRIEF. I'M CURIOUS FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE LOOKED CAREFULLY AT ARABIC WHAT YOUR PLANS ARE ABOUT WHAT TO DO. NOT ABOUT THE DOMAIN NAMES, WHICH IN SOME SENSE ARE EASY, BUT ABOUT THE URLS AND THE REFERENCES AND THE TAILS OF THE URLS, ALL OF WHICH REQUIRED RIGHT NOW AS PROTOCOL ELEMENTS THAT WE USE ASCII CHARACTERS THERE.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WE'RE IN A SITUATION IN WHICH IN THE NORMAL USAGE FOR THE WEB, THE STRING HTTP, BECAUSE THE NAMES ARE PROTOCOL HAS TO BE IN ASCII, THERE ARE NO SYNONYMS FOR THAT NAME, THE COLON, THE SLASHES, THE QUESTION MARK, THE PLUS SIGNS, EQUAL SIGNS ARE ALL ASCII CHARACTERS, BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF THE PROTOCOL DEFINITION.

AND EVEN GETTING A DOMAIN NAME WHICH RUNS APPROPRIATELY FROM RIGHT TO LEFT DOES NOT ALLEVIATE THE NECESSITY TO SURROUND THAT WITH A WHOLE LOT OF ASCII CHARACTERS IN SEQUENCES WHICH ARE DEFINED BY THE PROTOCOLS AS RUNNING LEFT TO RIGHT.

AND VARIOUS WAYS AROUND THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BUT I'M INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU'VE LOOKED AT AND WHAT YOU'RE DOING ABOUT IT.

>>VINT CERF: GOOD QUESTION.

>>ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN: ACTUALLY, WE HAVEN'T REACHED THAT REALLY YET TO DISCUSS DETAIL. WE HAVE REALLY JUST FINISHED LINGUISTIC PART OF DOMAIN NAMES. AND ACTUALLY, AS WALID PRESENTED, (INAUDIBLE) INC WILL DISCUSS ALL THESE TECHNICAL DETAILS. I WAS LOOKING FROM THE LINGUISTIC PART FROM THE ARABIC, FOR EXAMPLE, SOMETHING RELATED TO WHAT CHARACTERS SHOULD BE USED, SHOULD WE USE LIKE THE VOWELS, SHOULD WE USE LIKE -- SHOULD WE LIKE DO FOLDING AS SOME PEOPLE ALREADY SUGGESTED. AND WE REACH AGREEMENTS ON ALL THESE THINGS. NOW THAT PART IS ACTUALLY NOT PURELY LINGUISTIC. IT'S LIKE CODING, TECHNICAL PART OF IT.

>>JOHN KLENSIN: IF I MAY RESPECTFULLY MAKE A SUGGESTION. TRY TO LOOK EARLY AT THE REST OF THOSE THINGS, LIKE THE URL STRINGS, BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO BE AS DIFFICULT AS THE DOMAIN NAME PIECE, AND IF YOU DON'T SOLVE THEM TOGETHER, YOU WILL NOT HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S USABLE BY THE END USER.

>>VINT CERF: KHALED?

>>KHALED FATTAL: NO, I JUST WANTED TO THANK JOHN FOR RAISING THIS POINT. MANY WHO KNOW ME KNOW I'M NOT A TECHNICAL PERSON TO START WITH. SO I THINK PART OF THE PROBLEM THAT WE ARE FACING IN ARABIC IS WE ARE STILL IN THE INFANCY STAGE THAT SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN, LET'S SAY, ENGLISH, AND THEY'RE FAR MORE ADVANCED, HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO BE TABLED TO BE DISCUSSED, ESPECIALLY THAT MOST OF THE WORK HAS BEEN DONE BY VOLUNTEERS.

SO I THANK JOHN FOR HIGHLIGHTING IT AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WILL BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

>>VINT CERF: LET ME SUGGEST ONE MORE THING IF YOU FORGIVE ME FOR INTERJECTING. JOHN'S COMMENT THAT A LOT OF THESE CHARACTERS ARE ASCII HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ENGLISH. IT SIMPLY HAS TO DO WITH WHICH CHARACTER SET WAS USED TO DEFINE THE PROTOCOLS.

IT MAY VERY WELL BE THAT A SUCCESSFUL INTERNATIONALIZATION WOULD MOVE AWAY FROM THESE STRINGS AND USE, FOR EXAMPLE, NUMERIC INDEXES TO MEAN WHATEVER FUNCTION IT IS YOU WANT. WE'VE DONE THAT FOR EXAMPLE IN THE ERROR CODES OF A LOT OF THE PROTOCOLS BECAUSE WE WANTED THE ABILITY FOR A PROGRAM TO FIGURE OUT WHAT ERROR WAS IT WITHOUT HAVING TO READ A STRING AND INTERPRET IT. MOREOVER, THE ERROR CODE COULD BE PRESENTED TO A USER IN WHATEVER LANGUAGE THAT USER NEEDED. THE LOCALIZATION WAS EASY BECAUSE YOU WENT FROM A SIMPLE NUMERIC STRING.

THE POINT I WANT TO MAKE HERE IS IN ORDER TO GET TO WHERE YOU WANT TO GO, YOU MAY HAVE TO REALLY BUILD THAT ROCKET ENGINE, BECAUSE THE OXCART MAY NOT GET YOU THERE.

>>CHRISTOPHER WILKINSON: CHRISTOPHER WILKINSON, VINT. I HAVE A GENERAL QUESTION ABOUT UNICODE. I'M TROUBLED BY WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM NORBERT KLEIN. I THOUGHT INTERNET STANDARDS STABILIZED ON THE BASIS OF SUCCESSFUL RUNNING CODE, AND I'M ALARMED TO HEAR THAT A STANDARD COULD BE WRONG BUT COULD STILL BE SO RIGID THAT IT COULDN'T BE ADAPTED TO BE CORRECTED OR UPDATED.

WHAT IS THE STATUS OF UNICODE AS A STANDARD AND WHAT IS THE MECHANISM FOR UPDATING IT?

>>VINT CERF: JOHN KLENSIN IS GOING TO RESPOND. I AM GOING TO INJECT ONE OBSERVATION. UNICODE IS A DYNAMIC STANDARD AND IT DOES CHANGE. AND ONE OF THE BIG PROBLEMS WE HAVE IN REFERENCING IT FOR OUR SPECIFICATIONS IS WHICH VERSION OF IT ARE WE REFERRING TO WHEN WE TRY TO STANDARDIZE.

SO, JOHN.

>>JOHN KLENSIN: THE IETF TRIES TO UNDERSTAND ITS LIMITATIONS, SOMETIMES MORE SUCCESSFULLY THAN OTHERS. AND ONE OF ITS LIMITATIONS IS THAT WE DON'T DO CHARACTER CODING BECAUSE IT REQUIRES LINGUISTIC EXPERTISE AND SCRIPT EXPERTISE AND A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER EXPERTISE WHICH DO NOT EXIST IN THE IETF AND ENGINEERING COMMUNITY. SO THIS IS A STANDARD WHICH HAS COME OUT OF A PRIVATE SECTOR CONSORTIUM WHICH IS GLOBAL. AT LEAST THEY SAY SO. AS WELL AS A PIECE OF ISO EJ (INAUDIBLE) WHICH REVIEWS THE STUFF AND TURNS THEM INTO ISO STANDARDS. THE ISO PROCESS IS NOT PERFECT, LIKE EVERY OTHER PROCESS.

I PERSONALLY HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF PERSONALLY DISLIKING A NUMBER OF DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE WITH UNICODE AND THE WAYS THAT THEY WERE MADE. AND I THINK THOSE DECISIONS IN SOME RESPECTS ARE PRONE TO THE KINDS OF PROBLEMS WE ENCOUNTER WITH CAMBODIA.

BUT THE DIFFICULTY IS WE HAVE NO BETTER MECHANISM. WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE STANDARD. I CAN VIRTUALLY ASSURE YOU THAT IF A BODY LIKE THE IETF WERE TO TRY TO INVENT A CODING STANDARD WHICH WOULD BE GLOBAL, THEY WOULD DO MUCH WORSE. AND AS I SAID IN MY CONCLUDING REMARKS THIS MORNING, TO ADDRESS THE CAMBODIAN QUESTION SPECIFICALLY, EVEN WITH THE CAMBODIAN SITUATION, THEY HAVE CODED BADLY, THEY HAVE MESSED UP CHARACTERS, THEY HAVE DONE A LOT OF EVIL THINGS. ONE NEEDS RULES ABOUT HOW TO HANDLE CAMBODIAN CHARACTERS PROPERLY IN ORDER TO MAKE THINGS WORK WHICH DON'T INVOLVE DOING THINGS THE WAY THE UNICODE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ANTICIPATED IT. BUT THE CHARACTERS ARE THERE AND AS A CONSEQUENCE IT'S POSSIBLE TO OVERLAY REGISTRY NORMS OR DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM NORMS ADEQUATELY TO PERMIT NAMES IN CAMBODIAN TO BE REGISTERED GOING FORWARD, ALBEIT WITH SOME RESTRICTIONS AND IDIOSYNCRASIES WHICH ARE REALLY MISERABLE. BUT, YOU KNOW, TAKE IT UP WITH THEM. THEY WON'T LISTEN, BUT THAT'S T!

HE ONLY COURSE OF ACTION RIGHT NOW.

>>JAMES SENG: I KNOW JOHN DOES NOT WANT ME TO SAY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, NOBODY WAS THERE AT THE (INAUDIBLE) MEETING.

I WAS THERE. I KNOW NORBERT WAS VERY UPSET WITH THE EXPERIENCES. BUT I WILL TRY AND SAY THERE WAS SOME POLITICAL PROBLEM ON THE WAY THAT CAMBODIAN DELEGATES BRING THE ISSUES BACK TO THE SE 2 WHICH CAUSED THE DELAY AND THE BAD EXPERIENCES.

AFTER SOME MEDIATION, I WAS INVOLVED IN THE MEDIATION, MATT DAVIS WAS INVOLVED IN THE MEDIATION, WE DID GET THE CAMBODIAN PROBLEMS RESOLVED.

SO IT'S ACTUALLY THE APPROACH THAT WAS THE PROBLEM RATHER THAN A GENERAL PROBLEM.

I JUST WANT TO CLEAR THE AIR.

IT'S NOT TO SAY ISO (INAUDIBLE) IS (INAUDIBLE).

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, JAMES.

AS WITH ALL EVERY PROBLEM I CAN THINK OF, EVERYTHING IS MORE COMPLICATED.

CARY.

>>CARY KARP: THE ICANN GUIDELINES THAT ARE CERTAINLY NORMATIVE FOR THE GTLD IMPLEMENTATIONS OF THIS STATE THAT IN IMPLEMENTING THE IDN STANDARDS, TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN REGISTRIES WILL EMPLOY AN INCLUSION -- WRONG PARAGRAPH.

TLD REGISTRIES THAT -- WHERE AM I?

IN IMPLEMENTING THE IDN STANDARDS, TLD REGISTRIES WILL, A, ASSOCIATE EACH REGISTERED INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME WITH ONE LANGUAGE OR SET OF LANGUAGES, WHICH IMPLIES THAT A SET OF LANGUAGES MIGHT APPEAR WITH AN APPELLATION OF ITS OWN, FOR EXAMPLE, THE GROUP OF LANGUAGES USED WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION.

THERE IS NO EU DOCUMENT PRODUCED IN A LANGUAGE THAT CAN EQUALLY LEGITIMATELY APPEAR IN ANOTHER ONE OF THE LANGUAGES.

THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE THAT'S OBLIGATORY. AND MANY OF THE EU MEMBER STATES CCS SEEM TO BE APPROACHING THIS WITH IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR US TO PRODUCE UNIARY SUPPORT FOR OUR LANGUAGES, WE NEED TO HAVE SUPPORT FOR ALL THE LANGUAGES, INCLUDING THE MINORITY LANGUAGES, WHICH ARE GOING TO BE PRODUCING SUPPORT FOR ALL LANGUAGES THAT CAN BE REPRESENTED FOR THIS TABLE THEN ALL LANGUAGES THAT CAN BE SUPPORTED WITH THAT.

AND I'M SAYING THIS WITH TONGUE IN CHEEK, BUT THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT.

US POOR GTLDS CAN'T.

SO WHAT MECHANISM CAN WE DEVELOP THAT WILL ALLOW THIS -- THE CC FREEDOM TO ENABLE THE G'S TO DO A BETTER JOB OF THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT PEOPLE ARE WISHING WOULD GET DONE AT THE TABLE?

AND THAT THERE'S PLENTY OF STUFF THAT'S IMPLEMENTABLE TOMORROW WITHOUT EXACERBATING ANY OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE ALL WELL AWARE OF.

BUT THE DOCUMENT -- THE FORMALITIES OF IT ALL, THE DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS, JUST TAKE THEIR TIME, IF NOTHING ELSE.

SO MAY I ASK, I SEE DOUG IS IN THE ROOM, JOHN IS STILL HERE.

THE IANA REGISTRY, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH IS A REGISTRY OF LANGUAGE TABLES, IS IT REASONABLE TO WONDER IF THAT MIGHT NOT OUGHT ALSO TO BE A REGISTRY OF LANGUAGE GROUP TABLES?

YOU CRINGE, SO I ASSUME THERE'S A VERY GOOD REASON WHY IT'S NOT.

>>VINT CERF: NO.

I JUST HAVEN'T THOUGHT MY WAY THROUGH THE POINT.

I MEAN, IT'S -- SO I WOULD NEED TO THINK MORE ABOUT IT.

>>CARY KARP: ONE OF THE REASONS I AM ASKING THIS IS AGAIN THE G'S REQUIRE THE GUIDANCE OF THE CCTLDS.

AND THERE ARE LANGUAGES THAT MUSEUMS WISH FOR US IN DOT MUSEUM TO SUPPORT BUT WITHOUT AN OBVIOUS CC, EVEN IF THERE MAY BE SOME CONTENTION THERE, EVEN IF NOT ONE OF THE OBVIOUS CC'S HAS DESCRIBED THE TERMS OF USING THAT LANGUAGE.

>>VINT CERF: I THINK THE GLIB -- I DON'T MEAN TO SAY GLIB ANSWER -- BUT THE RATHER HURRIEDLY THOUGHT-THROUGH ANSWER IS THAT IF EACH GTLD CHOSE A SUBSET OF ALL THE POSSIBLE TABLES AND SAID THESE ARE THE THINGS WE CAN REGISTER IN, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE APPLIED A SET OF RESTRICTIONS TO, YOU KNOW, EVERY LANGUAGE THAT YOU CHOSE.

THE PROBLEM WITH THAT STRATEGY, OF COURSE, IS THAT IF THERE WERE TWO VARIANTS OF, LET'S SAY, CHINESE THAT -- OR PERHAPS THAT'S A BAD EXAMPLE BECAUSE OF THE JET GROUP.

BUT TWO VARIATIONS OF FRENCH, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO INCLUDE BOTH OF THEM IF THERE WERE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE TWO TABLES THAT WOULD LEAD TO CONFLICTING REGISTRATION RESTRICTIONS.

THERE MIGHT BE A WAY TO DRAW ON A SUBSET.

BUT IT WOULD BE AT THE REGISTRATION TIME NORMS AS OPPOSED TO ANY KIND OF CLEVER CODING.

>>CARY KARP: AT SOME POINT, OUR JUDGMENT ALSO HAS TO BE TRUSTED.

IF WE PERCEIVE SOME NEED FOR SUPPORTING A LANGUAGE AND THERE'S SOMETHING PRECIPITOUS ABOUT THE WAY WE MIGHT DO THAT, IT'S NOT WELL ESTABLISHED WHERE IT OUGHT TO BE WELL ESTABLISHED, WE NEED TO ASSESS THE LIKELIHOOD OF DIFFICULTY ARISING.

CASE IN POINT, ONE OF THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES OF ICOM IS FRENCH -- THERE IS NO QUESTION OTHER THAN THAT WE MUST SUPPORT FRENCH. THE ICOM SECRETARIAT, IS AS FRANCOPHONE AS YOU CAN GET. SO THERE'S NO QUESTION OF UNDERSTANDING THE LANGUAGE.

WE WAITED UNTIL ONE OF THE OBVIOUS CC'S WAS PUBLISHED -- INITIATED SUPPORT. AND THAT WAS DOT CH.

THE FRANCOPHONE COMMUNITY SUPPORTS FRENCH.

WE JUST HAVE TO HOLD OUR BREATH AND HOPE WHEN THE FRENCH -- IT'S KIND OF HARD TO IMAGINE WHAT CONFLICTS MIGHT BE OTHER THAN WITH CHARACTER EQUIVALENCES.

BUT MOST OF THE EUROPEAN THINKING THAT'S BEEN PUBLISHED THUS FAR SUGGEST THAT IS IT'S ENTIRELY UP TO REGISTRANTS TO USE THE CJK TERM, BUNDLE AS THEY SEE FIT.

>>VINT CERF: NATIONAL RESTRICTIONS MIGHT BE OTHER THAN BASED ON CHARACTERS.

THEY MIGHT BE BASED ON CONSTRAINTS ON WHICH TERMS CAN BE REGISTERED OR EXCLUSIONS AND THINGS OF THAT SORT.

THIS IS THE WRONG TIME TO GET TOO DEEP.

RAM HAD HIS HAND UP.

AND THEN AMADEU.

>>RAM MOHAN: THANK YOU, VINT.

I WANTED TO COMMENT ON VITTORIO'S STATEMENTS EARLIER, BECAUSE I -- WE DIDN'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THAT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT VITTORIO WAS SUGGESTING WAS TO STOP THE LAUNCH OF FURTHER IDNS IN GTLDS UNTIL COMMON REGISTRATION POLICIES ARE ADOPTED ACROSS THE VARIOUS GTLDS.

I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE, BECAUSE WHAT'S NEEDED HERE IS COORDINATION WITH LOCAL FORA AND TO CONSIDER USAGE AND OTHER SENSIBILITIES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE SCRIPT AND THE LANGUAGES.

AND THIS KIND OF COORDINATION, I BELIEVE, IS A BETTER APPLICATION OF ICANN'S ENERGIES AND RESOURCES, RATHER THAN THE ACTUAL CREATION OF A SINGLE COORDINATED REGISTRATION POLICY FOR EACH LANGUAGE.

I THINK THAT'S -- TO ME, IT'S A UTOPIAN DREAM.

I HAD JUST ONE MORE POINT.

BUT --

>>VINT CERF: GO AHEAD.

>>RAM MOHAN: THE SECOND IS, THE -- WHICH IS, AGAIN, REACTING TO ONE OF VITTORIO'S COMMENTS.

THE FUTURE, THE WAY WE ARE GOING RIGHT NOW, THE FUTURE HOLDS THE FOLLOWING.

HUNDREDS OF LANGUAGES OR LANGUAGE TAGS, SCRIPTS, REGISTERED IN EACH ZONE, AND FOR A COMPANY OR AN ORGANIZATION, THE NECESSITY TO REGISTER EACH OF THOSE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE TAGS OR DIFFERENT SCRIPTS IN EACH OF THE ZONES SO THAT THEY PROTECT THEMSELVES.

WE'RE NOT TALKING TWO TO THE POWER OF FIVE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER NUMBER, PARTICULARLY AS WE GO ABOUT INCREASING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ZONES THAT ARE AUTHORIZED.

SO IT'S NOT A SMALL PROBLEM.

>>VINT CERF: I AGREE.

AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY.

THANKS.

AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL.

I (INAUDIBLE) IDN WORKSHOP ENDING WITHOUT JUST POINTING OUT THAT I STILL BELIEVE THAT ALLOWING ALL THE TEST BED REGISTRATION GOING INTO THE ZONE WITHOUT ANY PROCESS DESIGNED BY ICANN, IT'S OF ABSOLUTION.

I AM NOT SAYING WE HAVE TO BE DELIGHTED, BUT PROBABLY THEY SHOULD CONCUR WITH A SORT OF SUNRISE OR WHATEVER.

HAVING SAID THAT AND REGARDING WHAT HAPPENED TODAY, I THINK IT'S ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE MANY DANGERS THAT ICANN IS FACING HERE IN THE STRUCTURE AND THE INTERNET AS A SERVICE.

IT'S FRIGHTENING -- I EXAGGERATE, FOR THOSE WHO KNOW KNOW ME, I EXAGGERATE A LOT.

SO LET ME DO IT A LITTLE BIT.

BUT YOU LISTEN HERE ON THE ONE SIDE PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN THAT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE REGISTRY, THEY WANT TO SELL MORE DOMAINS.

THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT TOO MUCH ELSE. AND THIS IS WHY THEY TAKE THE CHOICE OF WHICH LANGUAGES AND WHICH ORDER AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU HAVE TWO OTHER THINGS. SOME LOCAL COMMUNITIES SAYING WE DO IT OUR WAY AND WE COULDN'T CARE LESS WHAT HAPPENS IN THE REST OF THE INTERNET. AND THEN EVEN MORE FRIGHTENING, SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE DISCOURSES ABOUT CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND PROMOTION OF MULTILINGUALISM IN THE INTERNET, THAT I CAN ONLY COMPLETELY SUPPORT BECAUSE IT'S MY DAY-TO-DAY BATTLE ON THE INTERNET ON THE OUTSIDE, PERHAPS NOT IDN BUT ON INTERNET ON THE OUTSIDE, TO TRY TO USE THAT AS POWER FIGHTING STRUGGLE TO FIGHT POLITICAL BATTLES. AND THIS IS FRIGHTENING. AND LET ME SAY THAT ALL THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN CULTURAL DIVERSITY WILL NOT ALLOW THAT ANYBODY TAKES THIS FLAG TO FIGHT ANY POLITICAL BATTLE ON THEIR OWN ACCOUNT. NO THANKS.

AND FINALLY, TWO VERY SHORT QUESTIONS. I CAN'T SUPPORT VITTORIO'S BELIEF FOR SPENDING SOONER. I WOULD HAVE MY PLEA FOR STARTING LATER IN THE MORNING, AND THEN KEEPING UNTIL LATER EVENING IF NECESSARY.

AND FINALLY, A CULTURAL REQUEST FOR RAM AND MANY OTHERS. PLEASE STOP USING BALKANIZATION IN THE WAY YOU USE BECAUSE WE EUROPEANS REALLY DON'T APPRECIATE THAT.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I THINK THAT WE HAVE COME TOTHE END OF A VERY LONG DAY. I WANT TO THANK ALL OF THE PANELISTS WHO WERE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE, AND CERTAINLY ALL OF YOU WHO STAYED FOR SO LONG. I HOPE THIS HAS BEEN USEFUL TO AT LEAST GIVE YOU A SENSE FOR THE DIVERSE CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH ANY INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE INTERNET.

WE STILL HAVE A GOOD DEAL OF WORK TO DO, AND I THINK THAT THE MEASURE OF THAT IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE RANGE OF PRESENTATIONS AND PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED TODAY.

SO I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS WORKSHOP TO A CLOSE AND INVITE YOU TO ENJOY SOME OF THE REFRESHMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN LAID OUT FOR YOU. AND TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSIONS ON A PRIVATE BASIS. AND WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE THIS WORKSHOP.

(APPLAUSE.)

(7:34 P.M.)