Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
| Subscribe: Newsletters & News Alerts | ICANN Blog | Public Comment
ICANN Meetings in Vancouver, Canada
IDN Workshop
Wednesday, 30 November 2005
9:00 a.m.
Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the IDN Workshop held on 30 November, 2005 in Vancouver, Canada. Although the captioning output is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: GOOD AFTERNOON.
CAN I JUST WELCOME EVERYBODY TO THIS WORKSHOP ON INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES.
AS THE COMPUTER SAYS, MY NAME IS PAUL TWOMEY.
I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYBODY AND THANK THE PRESENTERS FOR THE VARIOUS PANELS THIS AFTERNOON.
WE APPRECIATE VERY MUCH PEOPLE COMING AND SPEAKING FROM A WIDE DIVERSITY OF BACKGROUNDS.
I WON'T DO INTRODUCTIONS.
I'LL LET PEOPLE INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AS THEY'RE IN THE VARIOUS PANELS.
BUT I'D LIKE TO PARTICULARLY THANK CARY KARP, WHO IS GOING TO BE MODERATING THIS AFTERNOON'S SESSION FROM MUSEDOMA AND DOT MUSEUM.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF INITIATIVES UNDERWAY INSIDE AND OUTSIDE ICANN CONCERNING INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES.
A, THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
B, THERE'S DIFFERENT DEGREES OF TIME LINE AND URGENCY IN EACH OF THOSE INITIATIVES.
C, THOSE INITIATIVES ARE TAKING PLACE IN DIVERSE SPACES, BOTH GEOGRAPHICALLY, BECAUSE THERE'S BOTH GEOGRAPHIC AND LANGUAGE EMPHASES, DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD.
BUT I THINK, IMPORTANTLY, INITIATIVES ARE TAKING PLACE IN DIFFERENT LAYERS OF THE INTERNET.
AND WE'LL HEAR ABOUT SOME OF THAT TODAY.
I THINK AS FAR AS ICANN, THE ICANN BOARD, IS CONCERNED, WE CONSIDER IDNS TO BE, A, VERY IMPORTANT; BUT, B, THAT THERE'S A NECESSITY TO KEEP A DIALOGUE GOING ACROSS ALL THOSE INITIATIVES, AND NOT TO PRETEND THAT ALL THOSE INITIATIVES TAKE PLACE WITHIN ICANN, BUT TO TRY TO, A, PLAY THE ROLE THAT ICANN ITSELF NEEDS TO, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO NEW GTLDS, BUT, SECONDLY, TO TRY TO BE A CATALYST FOR HAVING THOSE VARIOUS INITIATIVES AND INTERESTS COME TOGETHER AND TALK AND SHARES THEIR SENSES OF IMPORTANCE, OF URGENCY, OF LIMITATIONS, OF CONCERNS, SO THAT THERE IS, I SUPPOSE, SOMEWHAT MORE OF A BROAD RIVER HEADING IN ROUGHLY THE SAME DIRECTION OF VARIOUS INITIATIVES AND VARIOUS CONCERNS.
WE THINK THAT'S PROBABLY VERY IMPORTANT.
TO THAT END, WE HAVE ANNOUNCED RECENTLY THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON IDNS.
IT HAS TAKEN SOME TIME TO POPULATE THAT COMMITTEE, PARTLY BECAUSE IT'S TAKEN TIME TO IDENTIFY PEOPLE, IDENTIFY INITIATIVES, ENGAGE INITIATIVES TO ASK PEOPLE TO ATTEND.
THE COMMITTEE ITSELF IS NOT YET FULLY POPULATED.
THERE ARE STILL OTHERS WHO WILL JOIN THAT COMMITTEE.
AND IF THERE ARE KEY PLAYERS WHO EMERGE IN THIS BROAD INITIATIVE AS BEING IMPORTANT PLAYERS, THEN THEY ALSO MAY BE INVITED ONTO THE COMMITTEE.
I WON'T GO ON TO MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE COMMITTEE HERE.
I'LL JUST POINT OUT THAT MY TWO COCHAIRS FOR THAT COMMITTEE ARE MOUHAMET DIOP FROM SENEGAL, WHO'S ONE OF THE ICANN BOARD MEMBERS, AND ALSO HUALIN QIAN, FROM CHINA.
I THINK PROFESSOR QIAN IS IN THE ROOM.
THERE HE IS, YES.
CAN I JUST SAY WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT PEOPLE HAVE DONE IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS AND AT THIS MEETING TO COME TOGETHER AND DELIVER THESE WORKSHOPS, TO SHARE INFORMATION.
WE APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE BY THE REGISTRIES, FOR INSTANCE, ON UPDATING OF REGISTRY -- ON THE GUIDELINES; WE APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE ON THE IANA IDN REGISTRY, DISCUSSIONS THAT ARE TAKING PLACE.
SO FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU.
AND SECONDLY, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, MAY I SAY THAT I KNOW MYSELF AND OTHERS ARE VERY INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT WE EXPECT WILL BE A VERY DIVERSE AND HOPEFULLY VERY, AS THEY SAY IN DIPLOMATIC LANGUAGE, OPEN AND FRANK EXCHANGE THIS AFTERNOON ON ISSUES.
FIRST OF ALL, ABOUT INTERNATIONALIZED TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN APPROACHES, WHICH WILL TAKE US THROUGH TO A COFFEE BREAK AT 4:45.
SECOND SESSION FOCUSING ON INTERNATIONALIZED SECOND-LEVEL DOMAIN IMPLEMENTATION, THROUGH TO 6:30.
AND THE THIRD SESSION ON ADDITIONAL IDN COMMUNITY INITIATIVES, WHICH WILL COMPLETE, THEN, AT 7:30.
SO THANKS VERY MUCH.
I THOUGHT I'D INTRODUCE VINT CERF, WHO MIGHT HAVE ONE OR TWO IDEAS ON THIS TOPIC, TO TALK AND GIVE A FURTHER INTRODUCTION.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PAUL. AND GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.
I HOPE I CAN JUST PUT A LITTLE BIT OF FRAMING ON WHAT I EXPECT IS GOING TO BE A REALLY INTERESTING DISCUSSION TODAY.
LET ME START OUT BY ADMITTING THAT I HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE MORE SKEPTICAL OF THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THE EASE WITH WHICH INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES COULD BE SUCCESSFULLY INTRODUCED INTO THE EXISTING DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM.
AND I CONFESS THAT I COME TO THIS VIEW LARGELY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF A TYPICAL ENGINEERING BELIEF THAT YOU SHOULD TRY TO MAKE SURE YOU'VE SOLVED ALL THE PROBLEMS BEFORE YOU START SO THAT YOU WON'T BE SURPRISED WHEN YOU BEGIN IMPLEMENTATION.
BUT I HAVE COME TO BELIEVE -- I'VE BEEN PERSUADED BY MY COLLEAGUES THAT WE MIGHT HAVE A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT PATH FORWARD THAT WILL ALLOW US TO MAKE SOME PROGRESS.
MOUHAMET DIOP IS ELOQUENT IN HIS ARGUMENT THAT WE SHOULD BE WILLING TO EXPERIMENT WITH SOME OF THESE IDEAS.
THAT'S HOW THE INTERNET GOT STARTED.
AND WE SHOULDN'T BE AFRAID THAT SOMETIMES THE EXPERIMENTS WON'T ALWAYS GO AS PLANNED.
MOREOVER, WE MIGHT TRY TO SOLVE LESS THAN WHAT I WOULD CALL THE ENTIRE PROBLEM AND GET SOME USEFUL RESULTS.
AND BY THIS I MEAN UTILITY FROM THE WORK.
LET ME START OUT, THOUGH, BY SUGGESTING THAT BEFORE WE CAN ARGUE A LOT ABOUT HOW TO DO SOMETHING, WE MIGHT WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
AND IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT CRISP AND CONCRETE, I WOULD ASK YOU TO THINK FOR A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT A USER TO EXPERIENCE.
I'M USING THE WORD "EXPERIENCE" RATHER THAN "SEE," BECAUSE THERE IS MORE TO IDN THAN WHAT YOU SEE.
FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN YOU REGISTER AN IDN, YOU'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME PROCESS THAT EXPOSES YOU TO A REGISTRAR'S PROCEDURES OR POSSIBLY DIRECTLY INTERACTING WITH A CCTLD REGISTRY THAT DOESN'T USE A REGISTRAR.
SO PART OF YOUR EXPERIENCE WILL HAVE LITTLE TO DO WITH THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM ITSELF BUT HAVE A LOT TO DO WITH THE THINGS THAT SURROUND IT.
PART OF YOUR EXPERIENCE WILL BE A CONSEQUENCE OF THE SOFTWARE THAT YOU'RE USING THAT IS INTENDED TO RECOGNIZE THAT YOU HAVE ENTERED AN INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME OR TO RECOGNIZE THAT YOU HAVE MOVED YOUR MOUSE OVER ON TOP OF AN INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME.
AND SUPPOSE THAT YOU WERE TO USE THE CUT AND PASTE FUNCTION TO TAKE THE INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME, COPY IT, AND PLACE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.
THAT'S PART OF YOUR USER EXPERIENCE, TOO.
OF COURSE, THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WHEN YOU DO CUT AND PASTE, ESPECIALLY OVER AN HTML OR AN XML FILE.
CUT AND PASTE, -- OR OVER A PDF FILE.
CUT AND PASTE IS NOT A TRIVIAL FUNCTION.
IF IT EVER WAS, IT ISN'T ANYMORE.
SO IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES, THESE VARIOUS ACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS THAT WE TAKE AS WE USE THEM, MANIPULATE THEM, SEE THEM, AND FORWARD THEM, ARE GOING TO COLOR WHAT OUR EXPERIENCE IS.
SO THE MENTAL EXERCISE, OR AS EINSTEIN PUTS IT, THE GADONKIN EXPERIMENT, IS TO IMAGINE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS IN WHICH INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES MIGHT APPEAR AND MIGHT BE USED.
THE USER IS SITTING IN, LET'S SAY, IN RUSSIA, AND WANTS TO INTERACT WITH THE NETWORK USING CYRILLIC CHARACTERS IN THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE AND IS -- WOULD BE VERY HAPPY IF ALL OF HIS INTERACTIONS, OR HER INTERACTIONS, WERE IN CYRILLIC.
NOW, IT'S FAIR TO POINT OUT THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO PRODUCE AN INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME BY TYPING ON YOUR KEYBOARD, THERE WILL PROBABLY BE SOME SYMBOLS THAT YOU WILL USE THAT ARE NOT CYRILLIC.
THEY ARE THINGS LIKE A PERIOD OR MAYBE A SLASH, BECAUSE IT'S PART OF A REFERENCE TO A URL.
YOU MAY EVEN FIND YOURSELF HAVING TO ENTER SOME ASCII CHARACTERS, LIKE HTTP COLON SLASH SLASH, UNLESS THERE'S -- SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED TO THE SOFTWARE LOCALLY THAT HAS A CYRILLIC EQUIVALENT THAT'S GOING TO BE TRANSLATED INTO HTTP FOR PURPOSES OF INTERACTING WITH THE REST OF THE NETWORK.
SO I'M -- WHAT I'M SUGGESTING HERE IS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE ONE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THE PARTY WHO'S USING INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES IS ONLY INTERACTING WITH OTHER PARTIES USING THE SAME SET OF CHARACTERS, THE SAME LANGUAGE.
THAT MIGHT BE THE SIMPLEST OF THE CASES.
MY CORRESPONDENTS ALL SPEAK RUSSIAN, THEY ALL USE CYRILLIC, THEIR CHARACTER SETS AND KEYBOARDS ARE CONFIGURED FOR THAT.
AND SO THIS APPEARS TO WORK QUITE WELL.
AND PEOPLE ARE HAPPY.
THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU HAVE TO INTERACT WITH SOMEONE WHO USES A CHARACTER SET THAT IS USING ARABIC SCRIPT -- AND I APOLOGIZE TO THE EXPERTS IF I AM USING INADEQUATE LANGUAGE HERE.
I MIGHT HAVE USED SYMBOLS OR FONTS OR GLYPHS OR SOME OTHER THING.
BUT THE POINT HERE IS THAT WHEN YOU ARE CONFRONTED WITH A MULTITUDE, WHERE MULTITUDE MIGHT BE JUST MORE THAN ONE, ALTERNATIVE SCRIPT AND LANGUAGE, IT CAN CAUSE SOME PROBLEMS, BECAUSE SUDDENLY THE SOFTWARE HAS TO BE AWARE OF THE DISTINCTIONS AMONG THEM AND HOW TO TREAT THEM.
LIFE GETS MORE COMPLICATED WHEN SOME OF THE LANGUAGES ARE RIGHT TO LEFT AND SOME OF THEM ARE LEFT TO RIGHT.
SO I RAISE ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS ASKING YOU TO DO SOME THINKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENT CASES THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOLVED IN THE USE OF IDNS.
AND MAYBE WE SHOULD DIVIDE THESE CASES UP INTO THESE ARE THE SIMPLER ONES AND THESE ARE THE HARDER ONES.
AND I THINK THE HARDER ONES ARE THE ONES THAT INVOLVE EXCHANGES THAT REQUIRE SOME AWARENESS OF MULTIPLE SCRIPTS, MULTIPLE LANGUAGES.
AND AFTER WE DO AT LEAST THIS TOKEN CASE ANALYSIS, MAYBE OUT OF THAT WILL COME SOME SPECIFIC CASES THAT ARE EASIER TO SOLVE THAN OTHERS.
IF THAT'S TRUE, MAYBE WE SHOULD START WITH SOME OF THOSE.
MY ONLY BIG CONCERN IS THAT AS WE BEGIN TO EXPLORE SOLUTIONS TO OR ANSWERS TO THESE CASES, THAT WE NOT INTRODUCE CONSTRAINTS ON FUTURE SOLUTIONS TO THE MORE COMPLEX CASES.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE CONSCIOUS OF THE POTENTIAL FOR ADOPTING, FOR EXAMPLE, A STANDARD WHICH WORKS FOR THE SIMPLER CASES AND DOESN'T WORK FOR THE MORE COMPLEX ONES.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO KNOW THE ANSWERS TO ALL OF THE COMPLEX ONES.
BUT WE AT LEAST SHOULD BE TRYING HARD NOT TO LET THE EARLY SOLUTIONS IMPEDE OUR ABILITY TO SOLVE MORE COMPLEX PROBLEMS.
I THINK THAT ANOTHER ISSUE FOR ME, ANYWAY, IS THAT THE DNS ITSELF, WHEN IT WAS DESIGNED, WAS DESIGNED WITH EIGHT-BIT CHARACTERS IN MIND.
IT'S ACTUALLY WHAT WE COULD CALL EIGHT-BIT CLEAN.
PAUL MOCKAPETRIS ISN'T HERE TO SPEAK ON HIS OWN BEHALF.
AND I WAS ACTUALLY NOT PART OF THE DESIGN TEAM THAT PUT DNS TOGETHER.
SO I'M EXPERT AMONG K HERE.
BUT MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE COMMUNITY ADOPTED AN EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE REPRESENTATION OF DOMAIN NAMES THAN THE SYSTEM ITSELF COULD SUPPORT, BECAUSE IT ADOPTED A SEVEN-BIT ASCII REPRESENTATION AND IT LIMITED THE CHARACTERS OF DOMAIN NAMES TO ALPHABETIC CHARACTERS, ROMAN ALPHABETIC CHARACTERS, THE DIGITS 0 THROUGH 9, AND THE HYPHEN.
OF COURSE, THE PERIOD BEING USED AS A SEPARATOR BETWEEN LABELS.
THAT SIMPLIFICATION SERVED VERY WELL FOR THE PURPOSES THAT IT WAS INTENDED.
LOWER CASE WAS MAPPED INTO UPPER CASE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF SIDE EFFECTS OF THE SIMPLIFICATION THAT MADE THE SOFTWARE EASIER TO WRITE.
AND IT CREATED A SUBSTANTIAL UNIFORMITY.
WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF 16-BIT UNICODE, THE ATTEMPT TO MAP THAT INTO SEVEN-BIT ASCII USING THE PUNYCODE AND NAMEPREP MECHANISMS AT LEAST I THINK HAS PROVED TO BE TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE.
PEOPLE HAVE IMPLEMENTED IT.
BUT IT MAY HAVE TURNED OUT TO BE INSUFFICIENT TO SOLVE EVEN THE SIMPLER-CASE PROBLEMS.
AS WE LEARNED VERY QUICKLY WHEN WE TRIED DOING SOME OF THESE IDN EXPERIMENTS AND DISCOVERED THAT PEOPLE COULD REGISTER STRINGS THAT TURNED OUT TO BE AMBIGUOUS, THAT TURNED OUT TO BE CONFUSING, OR IN SOME CASES, TURNED OUT TO MASQUERADE AS URLS WHEN IN FACT THEY WEREN'T, BECAUSE THE SYMBOLS APPEARED TO BE PART OF THE SYMBOLS OF THE URL SYNTAX BUT IN FACT WERE DRAWN FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE UNICODE SPACE THAN ONE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED.
SO WE CLEARLY STILL HAVE WORK TO DO.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE SITTING IN THIS ROOM.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION.
I THINK THAT IN THE END, AS PAUL POINTED OUT, THERE WILL BE A LARGE NUMBER OF INITIATIVES UNDERTAKEN TO EXPLORE THE SPACE OF POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS FOR DEFINITION AND USE OF INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES.
I THINK IT WILL BE VERY VALUABLE FOR THERE TO BE AS MUCH COORDINATION AS POSSIBLE IN THE COURSE OF THAT EXPLORATION SO THAT WE ARE GENERALLY AWARE OF WHAT ALL THE OTHER PARTIES ARE DOING.
AND, FINALLY, I WANT TO ECHO WHAT MY COLLEAGUE JOHN KLENSIN HAS FREQUENTLY REMINDED US OF, AND THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOCALIZATION AND INTERNATIONALIZATION, OR IF YOU LIKE, INTERNATIONAL INTEROPERABILITY.
IN THE POSTAL SERVICE, AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT WAS MADE THAT EVEN IF ALL OF THE CONTENTS OF A LETTER AND THE FACE OF THE ENVELOPE, THE ADDRESS OF THE ENVELOPE, HAPPENED TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN A LANGUAGE NOT LOCAL TO THE COUNTRY, TO BE CONCRETE, IF I'M SITTING IN THE U.K. AND I'M WRITING TO A FRIEND WHO HAPPENS TO SPEAK URDU, IT'S PERFECTLY ALL RIGHT IN THE U.K. AND IN MOST OTHER COUNTRIES, TO WRITE THE ADDRESS OF THE PARTY IN URDU.
BUT AT THE BOTTOM, THE POSTAL UNION AGREED INTERNATIONALLY THAT THE NAME OF THE DESTINATION COUNTRY WAS TO BE WRITTEN IN UPPER-CASE FRENCH ROMAN CHARACTERS.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, I MIGHT WRITE TO MY FRIEND IN URDU -- WHICH I DON'T SPEAK, SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU A CONCRETE RENDERING -- AND AT THE BOTTOM, I MIGHT WRITE IN BLOCK LETTERS, "INDIA."
OR ANOTHER -- OR PERHAPS OTHER COUNTRY WHERE URDU WAS SPOKEN.
IN FACT, MY FRIEND MIGHT SPEAK URDU BUT MIGHT BE LIVING IN A COUNTRY WHERE URDU IS NOT A COMMON LANGUAGE.
IF THAT'S TRUE AND THE REST OF THE ENVELOPE IS WRITTEN IN URDU AND THE LETTER ARRIVES, LET'S SAY, IN HONOLULU, THE LOCAL HONOLULU POSTAL SERVICE MAY NOT HAVE FACILITY WITH URDU AND THEY HAVE TROUBLE FIGURING OUT HOW TO DELIVER THE ENVELOPE.
SO YOU DO HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHICH LANGUAGE -- IN WHICH LANGUAGE THE POSTAL SERVICE IS LIKELY TO BE ABLE TO DELIVER THE LETTER.
BUT THE POSTAL UNION'S AGREEMENT WAS THAT THERE WAS ONE STANDARD FOR THE REFERENCE TO THE NAME OF THE COUNTRY WHERE THE LETTER WAS SUPPOSED TO GO.
THAT CREATES INTERNATIONAL INTEROPERABILITY AT LEAST AT THE ENVELOPE LEVEL.
IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT WHAT'S INSIDE.
WE NEED TO THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT WHAT WE DO WITH IDNS SO AS TO MAINTAIN THE INTERNATIONAL INTEROPERABILITY OF THE INTERNET.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT EVERY SINGLE E-MAIL, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT YOU RECEIVE IS NECESSARILY UNDERSTANDABLE TO YOU.
I RECEIVE E-MAILS THAT I SUSPECT WERE WRITTEN USING KANJI CHARACTERS, WHICH MY COMPUTER IS NOT CAPABLE OF DISPLAYING. AND IT PRODUCES A RATHER INTERESTING IMAGE ON THE SCREEN WHEN I RECEIVE ONE OF THESE.
BUT IT'S ALSO POSSIBLE FOR ME TO REPLY TO IT.
OF COURSE, THAT PRESUMES I'VE FIGURED OUT WHO IT CAME FROM AND WHAT IT WAS THAT THEY WERE ASKING ME TO DO.
BUT THE MECHANISM ALLOWED ME TO RESPOND, EVEN IF I COULDN'T READ IT.
I THINK WE WANT TO BE CAREFUL TO TRY TO PRESERVE THAT SORT OF CAPABILITY SO THAT EVEN IF WE DON'T QUITE KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING, WE CAN STILL MAKE THE SYSTEM WORK.
I'M EVEN WILLING TO ACCEPT THE POSSIBILITY THAT FOR SOME CASES, I WON'T BE ABLE TO REPLY, I WON'T BE ABLE TO DISPLAY, AND I HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT FOR SOME SEGMENT OF MY POSSIBLE UNIVERSE, I WON'T BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THAT PARTY.
BUT I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT WANT TO INTRODUCE A SYSTEM THAT GUARANTEED THAT FOR THE MOST PART, I WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD BECAUSE THEIR E-MAIL ADDRESSES COULD NOT BE REPRODUCED ON MY KEYBOARD.
SO I THINK IT'S A CHALLENGE FOR THE PEOPLE AT THIS TABLE, THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM, AND THOSE OF US IN THE REST OF THE INTERNET WORLD WHO ARE EAGER TO SEE INTRODUCTION OF INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT WILL DELIVER TRUE UTILITY TO THE LARGEST SEGMENT OF OUR USER SPACE.
SO I NOW LEAVE IT TO THIS COMMITTEE TO HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT SOME OF THOSE CHALLENGES ARE.
AND I INTEND TO STAY HERE FOR THIS MEETING AND LEARN JUST AS MUCH AS I POSSIBLY CAN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME THESE OPENING REMARKS.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>CARY KARP: I HAD ACTUALLY PREPARED A NUMBER OF SIMILAR OPENING REMARKS AND DON'T NEED TO SAY ABOUT MORE THAN 2% OF WHAT I HAD PLANNED TO, THANKS TO VINT'S QUITE COGENT PRESENTATION OF ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER TODAY.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS WORKSHOP IS, IN FACT, TO TAKE INVENTORY OF THE CONCERNS THAT IMPINGE UPON THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE DOMAIN NAME SPACE AND EQUALLY MUCH, IF NOT EVEN MORE SO, AFFECT THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE LOCALIZING THEIR OWN WORKING ENVIRONMENTS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE POTENTIAL THAT IDN IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE.
THERE ARE FOUR PREPARED PRESENTATIONS TO PROVIDE SOME SIGNIFICANT CONTEXT TO THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE ARE, I HOPE, UNABLE TO ANTICIPATE AT THIS POINT.
WE EXPECT THERE TO BE QUITE A BIT OF NEW PERSPECTIVE ADDED TO THESE ISSUES DURING THE COURSE OF THIS SESSION.
BUT, AGAIN, WE'VE GOT SOMETHING SET UP TO GET THE PROCESS ROLLING.
HOW MANY OF YOU IN THE AUDIENCE WERE PUZZLED BY SOME OF THE TERMINOLOGY THAT VINT USED IN HIS PRESENTATION OF THIS?
DO I NEED TO DO A BRIEF GLOSSARY OF IDN TERMINOLOGY TO MAKE WHAT'S ABOUT TO BE SAID UNDERSTANDABLE?
OKAY.
YES, THERE ARE HANDS GOING UP.
>>VINT CERF: I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT I SAID, EITHER.
(LAUGHTER.)
>>CARY KARP: OKAY.
YOU ARE LIKELY TO HEAR A NUMBER OF BUZZWORDS AND ACRONYMS USED DURING THE COURSE OF THESE PRESENTATIONS.
AND IN FACT THIS ENTIRE THING IS RATHER SIMPLE.
BUT UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S SIMPLE IS VERY DIFFICULT.
SO WE THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE REASONABLE FOR YOU TO SHOOT YOUR HANDS UP AT ANY POINT DURING ANY OF THE PRESENTATIONS IF SOMEONE SAYS SOMETHING THAT IS SIMPLY CONFUSING.
AND IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS MEANT, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING BEYOND THAT, JUST LET US KNOW.
SO YOU CAN RISE TO POINTS OF DEFINITION AT ANY TIME DURING THIS BUSINESS.
ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT IS GOING TO BE REPEATED, I WOULD BELIEVE, OVER AND OVER DURING THE COURSE OF THIS AFTERNOON IS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND SCRIPT.
I AM ADDRESSING YOU USING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
THE NOTES THAT I HAVE ON MY PAPER USE THE LATIN SCRIPT, THE LATIN ALPHABET TO NOTATE THAT.
AND A LARGE PART OF THE ANGUISH THAT ATTACHES TO I SUPPOSE THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM -- IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ITS INTERNATIONALIZATION -- RESULTS FROM THE FAILURE TO REALIZE THAT DOMAIN NAMES, ALTHOUGH THEY APPEAR TO BE WORDS AND PHRASES, WEREN'T REALLY INITIALLY INTENDED TO BE THAT.
THEY WERE THINGS THAT WERE INTENDED TO PROVIDE MNEMONIC CONVENIENCE WHEN ACCESSING RESOURCES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED BY NUMBERS RATHER THAN LETTERS, AND THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT HUMAN BEINGS HAVE AN EASIER TIME REMEMBERING PRONOUNCEABLE SEQUENCES OF LETTERS THAN THEY DO LONG SEQUENCES OF NUMBERS.
SO ONE OF THE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES IS GOING TO BE, WHAT IS IT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SAY IN A DOMAIN NAME THAT WE SIMPLY CANNOT SAY IN A DOMAIN NAME?
THE INITIAL ASCII ENVIRONMENT -- ASCII IS AMERICAN STANDARD FOR CHARACTER -- FOR -- FOR COMPUTER INFORMATICS --
>>VINT CERF: AMERICAN STANDARD CODE FOR INFORMATION INTERCHANGE.
>>CARY KARP: OKAY.
IT IS SIMPLY A WAY OF GIVING EVERY LETTER AND NUMBER AND A FEW PUNCTUATION MARKS AND OTHER SYMBOLS IN THE LATIN SCRIPT A NUMERICAL CODE, OKAY.
AND THIS HAS BEEN EXPANDED MASSIVELY. YOU WILL HERE THE TERM UNICODE USED DURING THE COURSE OF THE AFTERNOON, AND UNICODE IS SIMPLY THE SINGLE ENCODING SCHEME THAT EMBRACES ALL OF THE VARIOUS GRAPHIC DEVICES THAT ARE USED TO REPRESENT THE PHONETIC ELEMENTS OF LANGUAGE AND A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER STUFF AS WELL.
AND AGAIN, HOW THIS MAPS INTO SUCH A SEMANTICALLY IMPOVERISHED THING AS THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM GENERATES QUITE A BIT OF CONTROVERSY; RIGHT?
FOR THE BENEFIT OF YOU WHO MAY NOT BE SEEING WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE ROOM BUT HEARING THIS, THERE ARE GESTICULATING MEMBERS OF THIS PANEL.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE PARTICIPATING IN THIS THERE IS A JABBER ROOM OPEN AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS, AND THE SCRIBES HAVE THIS SO YOU WILL SEE IT ON THEIR SCREEN. IT IS IDN-ROOM, THAT IS THE NAME OF THE CHAT, AT CONFERENCE.ICANN.ORG.
AND WE WILL BE MONITORING ANYTHING THAT WILL BE CONTRIBUTED FROM THE NET SIDE OF THIS DISCUSSION, AND WE WILL SIMPLY PLACE NEW THE QUEUE WHEN THE MICROPHONE HAS BEEN OPEN FOR THE GENERAL DISCUSSION.
OKAY. SCRIPT AND LANGUAGE. SO LANGUAGE IS THE AUDITORY COMMUNICATIVE PROCESS. SCRIPT IS ITS GRAPHIC NOTATION. AND DOMAIN NAMES ARE ONE SMALLER SUBSET STILL OF WHAT IS CAPABLE OF SUCH GRAPHIC NOTATION.
UNICODE, THIS BROAD REPERTOIRE OF CHARACTERS, IS WHAT IDEALLY PEOPLE EXPECT TO SEE WHEN ADDRESSING COMPUTERS. AN INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES. IS ANYBODY ONLINE? DOES ANYBODY HAVE ACCESS TO THE VIDEO THING WHO HAS AN IDN IN ALL OF ITS BEAUTIFUL GLORY AVAILABLE TO SHOW?
YOU WILL SEE THIS IN A MOMENT.
THE UNICODE THAT YOU WILL SEE IN REGARD TO BE AN INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME IS, IN FACT, ENCODED BEFORE IT IS SENT ONTO THE WIRE INTO A QUITE UNINTELLIGIBLE SEQUENCE OF BASIC ASCII CHARACTERS. THE 26 LETTERS OF THE LATIN ALPHABET, THE DIGITS ZERO TO NINE, AND THE HYPHEN.
THAT IS ALL THAT IS ACTUALLY USED IN THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM, EVEN IN ITS INTERNATIONALIZED VERSION. SO THE UNICODE THING THAT USERS EXPECT TO SEE ARE ENCODED. AND THE NAME FOR THAT ENCODING FORMALISM IS REPRESENTED VARIOUSLY AS PUNYCODE, GET IT? UNICODE, PUNYCODE. WE SPEAK ALSO OF ASCII COMPATIBLE ENCODING. ANY REFERENCE YOU HEAR TO ENCODING SYSTEMS SIMPLY MEANS THE WAY A USER EXPECTS TO SEE IS TRANSLATED INTO THE LESS -- INTO THE FAR MORE CRYPTIC THING THAT IS COMFORTABLY -- YES, VINT. INTERRUPTION.
>>VINT CERF: I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU IN MID SENTENCE, CARY, BUT I THINK IT'S PROBABLY THE CASE THAT USERS DON'T WANT TO SEE EITHER THE ASCII CODES OR THE UNICODES. THEY WANT TO SEE THE GLYPHS INTO WHICH THOSE HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED FOR VIEWING PURPOSES. YOU DON'T EVER WANT TO SEE THE ACTUAL NUMERIC CODES.
>>CARY KARP: SORRY. THERE I AM BEING ABSOLUTELY UNCLEAR.
THE UNICODE THING IS THIS GRAND TABLE WITH SQUIGGLES IN ONE COLUMN AND NUMBERS IN THE OTHER COLUMN AND IT IS THE SQUIGGLES THAT PEOPLE EXPECT TO SEE. OKAY? FINE.
THE WAY IN WHICH THE ENCODING IS DONE, THE MEANS BY WHICH A NAME IS PREPARED FOR ACTUAL REGISTRATION IN THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM OR ANY OPERATION USING THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM, IS CALLED NAME PREP. THAT'S IT. THAT'S THE WHOLE BATTERY OF BUZZWORDS THAT NEED TO BE HEARD.
VINT DESCRIBED A NUMBER OF SITUATIONS THAT GENERATE NEED FOR THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE HAVING TODAY. I ACTUALLY WON'T REVIEW THEM. THAT WAS THE MAIN SUBSTANCE OF MY INTRODUCTORY PRESENTATION. BUT I WILL LEAVE IT AT THAT, AND WE WILL START NOW WITH THE FOUR PREPARED PRESENTATIONS THAT WE HAVE, AND I'LL LEAVE IT TO THE INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES.
THE FIRST PRESENTATION IS BY THE CHINESE DOMAIN NAME CONSORTIUM, AND ALL I HAVE NOTED IN FRONT OF ME IS THAT THERE IS A PRESENTATION TOPIC. SO I LOOK FORWARD, TOGETHER WITH YOU, TO FINDING OUT THE FURTHER DETAILS.
>>LI GUANGHAO: THANK YOU FOR THE CHAIR. I AM GUANGHAO LI FROM THE CNNIC. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. IT IS MY PLEASURE TO GIVE THE PRESENTATION ON THE CDNC'S PERSPECTIVES OF THE IDN TLDS.
CDNC IS SHORT FOR CHINESE DOMAIN NAME CONSORTIUM. ITS MISSION IS TO COORDINATE -- LET ME BRING THIS A LITTLE CLOSER.
IS TO COORDINATE IN COOPERATION OF CHINESE DOMAIN NAMES AND IT WAS ESTABLISHED IN MAY 2000. IT'S INDEPENDENT NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. MEMBERS INCLUDE CNNIC, HK NIC, MO NIC, TWNIC AND SG NIC.
THE PASSWORD OF CDNC, INCLUDING LIKE COMPOSE AND REGISTER, THE CHINESE LANGUAGE TABLE AND THE CNNIC, SIMPLIFIED CHINESE. AND TWNIC, THE TRADITIONAL CHINESE.
CDNC RECOGNIZES THE PAST EFFORTS AND INPUTS MADE BY ALL THE ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING IETF, THE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY, ICANN, AND REGISTRIES, LINGUISTICS, AND APPLICATION DEVELOPERS AND ET CETERA. AND WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT ICANN HAD POSTED IDN GUIDELINE 2.0 AND THE COMMITMENT TO FURTHER IMPROVE IT INTO A V3 OR A PCP.
WE HAVE SOME FACTS AND ANALYSIS ON WHY DO WE WANT IDN TLDS. REGISTRY DON'T USE THE IDN WORLD DUE TO THE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY PROVIDES QUESTION THAT KIND OF SAY.
BY THE YEAR 2005, THERE ARE OVER 820 MILLION INTERNET USERS ARE NON-NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS, AND IT REPRESENTS ABOUT 65% OF ALL INTERNET USERS IN THE WORLD.
AND EVEN IN THE U.S., WHICH START THE INTERNET, THERE ARE 45 MILLION RESIDENTS ARE NOT ENGLISH SPEAKERS. AND WE ESTIMATE 15 MILLION CAN'T SPEAK ENGLISH AT ALL AND 8.4 MILLION DON'T EVEN READ ENGLISH.
AND IT'S ESTIMATED THAT AT LEAST 27 MILLION AMERICANS DO NOT -- ONLY ACCESS THE INTERNET IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE RATHER THAN ENGLISH.
AND THERE'S SOME FACTS ACCORDING TO THE CDNC MEMBERS.
ACCORDING TO THE CNNIC'S STATISTICS, THERE ARE 103 MILLION INTERNET USERS. ALMOST ALL OF THEM ACCESS THE INTERNET IN CHINESE. AND OVER 70% OF THEM ARE CHINESE ONLY USERS, WHICH IS THEY DON'T ACCESS WEB SITES IN LANGUAGE OTHER THAN CHINESE AT ALL.
AND ACCORDING TO THE TWNIC'S STATISTICS, 75% OF THE WEB SITES ENCODED WAS IN THE TRADITIONAL CHINESE. AND FROM THE 2000 TO NOW, THE VOLUME OF TRADITIONAL CHINESE DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION TAKES ABOUT HALF OF THE NEW REGISTRATIONS.
AND WHY DO WE TALK ABOUT THE IDN TLDS? PAUSE THE CURRENT SYSTEM, WE CONSIDER IT'S A HANDICAPPED SYSTEM. IT ONLY SUPPORTS THE ASCII TLDS, AND IT DOES NOT SUPPORT IDN TLDS, WHICH MEANS USERS HAVE TO SWITCH BETWEEN LANGUAGES WHILE TYPING IN DOMAIN NAMES. IT IMPOSES MUCH OF THE TROUBLES AND COMPLICATIONS ONTO THE USER'S SHOULDER, WHAT THEY USE TO ACCESS THE INTERNET RESOURCE. AND THE OUTCOME IS THE POWER OF THE INTERNET BEING SHACKLED.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TRYING TO PUSH FORWARD THE IDN TLD, WE CONSIDER THE THINGS ALREADY. THERE ARE MANY OPPORTUNITIES WE HAVE TO CONSIDER, WHICH IS THE GLOBAL AWARENESS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERNET. MOST COUNTRIES AND ECONOMIES REALIZE THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT THAT THE INTERNET HAS ON THEIR SOCIETY, ECONOMY, AND THEIR CULTURE.
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS REALIZE IT'S AN IMPORTANT MEANS TO PRESERVE THE DIVERSITY, CULTURE OF THE WORLD.
AND THE MARKET DEMANDS ARE THE DEMAND GROWS STRONGER AND STRONGER. THE CCTLDS ARE GROWING STRONG, WHICH IS THE .EU ARE THE SECOND LARGEST REGISTERED DOMAIN IN THE WORLD, JUST RIGHT BEHIND THE .COM.
WE GET LOTS OF FEEDBACK FROM THE REGISTRANTS AND REGISTRARS. THEY ARE ASKING FOR THE FULLY INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME REGISTRIES.
THE TECHNOLOGY IS PROVEN AND THE TECHNICAL FORCES ARE READY. MANY COUNTRIES, REGIONS, AND THE TLD REGISTRIES HAVE SET UP TEST BEDS FOR IDN TLDS. AND THE RESULTS, WE CONSIDER IT OPTIMISTIC.
WE HAVE THE GUIDELINES, RFCS, WHICH ARE LIKE -- YOU ALL KNOW THE WORD, JUST PUBLISHED BY ICANN, THE IDN GUIDELINE 2.0, AND WE HAVE MANY TECHNICAL STANDARDS IN PLACE AND ARE WIDELY ADOPTED BY THE TLD MANAGERS.
IT'S APPROVED THAT IT WILL NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE CURRENT DNS SYSTEM.
EVEN ON THE LAST MEETING IN LUXEMBOURG, THE BOARD RESOLUTION SAID ICANN IS COMMITTED TO THE FURTHER STUDY OF THE IDNS IN THE TLD SPACE AND COMMITS TO FACILITATING VENUES IN WHICH IDN CAN BE DISCUSSED AND ENCOURAGE THE VENUES TO FURTHER ENCOURAGE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IDNS.
AND HERE, CDNC WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE SOME PRINCIPLES AND SUGGESTED STRATEGIES TO IMPLEMENT THE IDN TLD.
THE PRINCIPLES. THE FIRST ONE WILL BE SUPPORTED BY THE CORRESPONDING CCTLD LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR THE REGISTRIES OR AUTHORIZED AGENCIES SELECT THEIR OWN CHOICE OF WHAT MULTILINGUAL CHARACTER SET TO BE USED AS THE IDN CCTLD.
AND PRINCIPLE TWO IS TO CLEARLY STATE THE NECESSITY, PROS AND CONS FOR IMPLEMENTING INTERNATIONALIZED CCTLDS IN EACH PROPOSAL THAT'S SUBMITTED TO ICANN.
THIRD IS TO REGISTER AND OPERATE THE INTERNATIONALIZED CCTLDS IN THE ROOT DNS SERVER IN THE FORM OF IDNA PUNYCODE. WHICH IS THE CHAIR JUST MENTIONED. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON PUNYCODE?
AND THE STRATEGY TO IMPLEMENT. SET PRIORITIES TO INTERNATIONALIZE TLDS. WE CONSIDER TO SIMPLIFY THE WHOLE MATTER AND TO ENSURE THE STABILITY OF THE EXISTING NETWORK, WE RECOMMEND TO INTERNATIONALIZE THE TLDS IN THE CCTLD LEVEL FIRST, AND THEN WE CONSIDER THE GTLDS.
IT'S FOR THE CONVENIENT PURPOSE. WE SUGGEST THAT ONLY ONE FORM OF THE LANGUAGE CHARACTER VARIANTS OF INTERNATIONALIZED CCTLD IS ACCEPTED. WE CONSIDER THE USERS WITH ISSUES ON CHARACTER VARIANTS. ONLY ONE FORM OF THE CHARACTER SET SHALL BE CHOSEN FOR IDN USE BY EACH SPONSORED TLD REGISTRY.
WE ALSO SUGGEST THAT ICANN TO FORM AN EVALUATION COMMITTEE ON IDN TLD. THE COMMITTEE SHALL COMPOSE OF A REPRESENTATIVES FROM GNSO, WHICH IS FROM THE GTLD REGISTRY COMMITTEE, AND THE CCNSO. ALSO, IT SHOULD INCLUDE MEMBERS FROM DNS ENGINEERS, IF POSSIBLE, WE WOULD LIKE THE COMMITTEE INCLUDE SOME BOARD MEMBERS OF THE ICANN BOARD.
AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE EVALUATION PROCESS, IT'S TRANSPARENT, OPEN, AND OPEN FOR THE PUBLIC INPUTS.
WE CONSIDER MISSION OF THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE REVIEW THE APPLICANT'S QUALIFICATION, CONSULT AND REQUEST THE ENDORSEMENT WITH THE RELEVANT GOVERNMENT OR THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES. AND TO DRAFT THE TEST BED EVALUATION REPORT.
THE FIRST MISSION IS TO REVIEW THE APPLICANT'S QUALIFICATION. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PROPOSAL SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY THE CORRESPONDING CCTLD REGISTRY OR THE GOVERNMENT ACCREDITED INSTITUTE OR AGENCY WHICH MEETS THOSE CRITERIAS.
IT'S A CLEAR STATEMENT INDICATES THE DEMAND OF IDN TLD ON THAT SPECIFIC TLD -- CCTLD MARKET. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE INSTITUTE STAFFING WITH ADEQUATE TECHNICAL FORCES, HAVING BROAD SUPPORT FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR THE LOCAL INTERNET COMMUNITY.
AND POSSESSING SUFFICIENT FINANCIAL RESOURCE, EQUIPMENT, AND HAVE THE PROPER OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCES.
AND MISSION, TWO, IS TO CONSULT AND REQUEST THE ENDORSEMENT WITH THE RELEVANT GOVERNMENT OR THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY.
THE COMMITTEE SHOULD CONSULT IDN CCTLD PROPOSAL WITH ITS CORRESPONDING GOVERNMENT OR THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES.
AND ALSO, THE COMMITTEE SHOULD REQUEST THE SPONSOR TO PROVIDE APPROVAL DOCUMENTARIES ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT BEFORE ITS APPROVAL.
AND THIRD MISSION IS TO DRAFT THE TEST BED EVALUATION REPORTS. IT SHOULD SET THE STANDARDS AND CONDUCT FULL SCALE EVALUATION ON THE PROPOSED INTERNATIONALIZED CCTLD DURING ITS INITIAL OPERATION, THEN SUBMIT THE EVALUATION REPORT TO ICANN BOARD FOR ITS FINAL APPROVAL.
IT SHOULD ALSO, THE APPLICANT SHOULD ONLY OFFICIALLY LAUNCH THE REGISTRATION SERVICE AFTER GETTING APPROVAL FROM THE ICANN BOARD.
IF THE REPORT SHOWS THAT THE PERFORMANCE IS NOT ELIGIBLE, THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE SHOULD REJECT THE APPLICATION AND ASK THE APPLICANT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENT AND RESUBMIT THE PROPOSAL AFTERWARDS.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM WILL BECOME MORE FRIENDLY TO THE NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING USERS WHILE THE IDN TLD IS FULLY SUPPORTED IN VARIOUS INTERNET APPLICATIONS.
WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE IDN TLD SHOULD SUPPORT THE DAILY COMMUNICATION AND BOOST THE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ECONOMY.
AND FINALLY, WE BELIEVE THE IDN TLD WILL HELP TO PRESERVE THE CULTURE DIVERSENESS OF THE WORLD AND PROTECT SPECIAL INTERESTS OF PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT REGIONS.
AND THAT'S OUR PRESENTATION. AND ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
YES.
>>MATT HOOKER: I HAVE ONE COMMENT. IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR PROPOSAL CORRECTLY, THE INDIVIDUAL NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF EACH COUNTRY WHO SPECIFY THE CHARACTER CODE OR CHARACTERS USED WHICH WILL BE USED IN THE PUNYCODE TRANSLATION, (INAUDIBLE) WEB SITES THAT WILL BE ACCESSED --
>>VINT CERF: EXCUSE ME, CAN I INTERRUPT ONE MOMENT?
>>CARY KARP: I NEED TO INTERRUPT.
THESE ARE THE KEY ISSUES THAT WE WISH TO DISCUSS TODAY, AND WE WANT TO DEFER ANY DISCUSSION THAT WILL APPLY TO ALL THE PRESENTATIONS UNTIL THEY HAVE ALL BEEN MADE. SO IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU.
EXACTLY WHAT YOU ASKED WILL BE ANSWERED BY EXACTLY THE PERSON YOU EXPECT TO ANSWER IT A FEW MOMENTS FROM NOW.
>>VINT CERF: CARY, ONE OTHER OBSERVATION. IT WILL BE REALLY HELPFUL TO OUR SCRIBES IF YOU CAN COME AND USE THE MICROPHONE WHEN YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. THIS IS TO FACILITATE GETTING THE SCRIPTS AND THINGS.
>>CARY KARP: YET ANOTHER REASON TO DEFER ALL INPUT FROM THE FLOOR. WE HAVE HOURS AT OUR DISPOSAL. AND I HOPE IT WILL PROVE TO BE INSUFFICIENT. BUT THERE ARE THREE MORE PRESENTATIONS, AND THEN WE'LL START.
FOUR PRESENTATIONS.
>> ERIN CHEN: GOOD AFTERNOON, I AM ERIN CHEN FROM TWNIC.
THE CDNC PROPOSAL, THAT'S THE CONSENSUS OF THE MEMBERS OF CDNC. TWNIC IS ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF CDNC, SO TWNIC SUPPORTS THIS KIND OF CONSENSUS AND PROPOSAL.
ACCORDING TO TWNIC'S STATISTICS, MORE THAN -- THERE ARE MORE THAN 14 MILLION INTERNET USERS, AND MAJORITY OF THE TRAFFIC LANDS IN LOCAL WEB SITE. AND THE LOCAL WEB SITE ENCODING TRADITIONAL CHINESE IS FAR MORE THAN ENGLISH. THERE IS ABOUT 75% OF WEB SITES ENCODED IN TRADITIONAL CHINESE. TWNIC HAVE THE PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE ON SECOND LEVEL IDN. SO AS THE PROPOSAL OF CDNC, I THINK IF ICANN CAN HAVE AN ADMINISTRATION MECHANISM TO LET THE CURRENT CCTLD TO DO SOME TEST BED FOR THEIR IDN TLD, I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY HELP TO LET ICANN AND TO LET THE PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THE TECHNICAL ISSUES EVALUATION, AND TO UNDERSTAND THE USERS' EXPERIENCE. THAT'S ALL.
>>CARY KARP: THANK YOU. AND THEN WE WILL PROCEED WITH THE PRESENTATION ABOUT THE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES PILOT PROJECT.
>>ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
GOOD DAY, EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN. I AM THE DIRECTOR OF SAUDINIC, WHICH I LOOK AFTER THE .SA REGISTRATION, AND I AM ALSO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE OF THE ARABIC DOMAIN NAME PILOT PROJECT.
BEFORE I START I WOULD JUST LIKE TO THANK ICANN FOR ORGANIZING THIS IDN WORKSHOP, AND ALSO HAVING ME FOR THE SECOND TIME.
THE AGENDA FOR MY PRESENTATION WILL BE IN FIVE POINTS. I'LL START WITH INTRODUCTION, AND THEN SOME INFORMATION ABOUT ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, AND THEN I'LL HIGHLIGHT SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE PILOT PROJECT OF ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, AND THEN SOME COMMENTS ON THE ICANN GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING IDN, AND THEN WE'LL END UP WITH OUR CONCLUSIONS.
JUST TO LET YOU UNDERSTAND OUR COMMUNITY NEEDS, I'LL GIVE YOU TWO EXAMPLES. THIS IS JUST ONLY TWO EXAMPLES. WE HAVE A LOT OF EXAMPLES WHY WE REALLY NEED ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES. IN SCHOOLS, WHEN CHILDREN HAVE BEEN ASKED TO ACCESS ONE OF THE MOST WELL-KNOWN NEWSPAPER IN OUR REGIONS, IT WAS CALLED SHARQALAWSAT. THESE STUDENTS WOULD HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT TIME TO REALLY TYPE IT IN ASCII-BASED DOMAIN NAMES BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A NUMBER OF THINGS FOR THE SPELLING.
THE SAME THING, IN SAUDI ARABIA WE HAVE E-DEPOSIT PROGRAM CALLED, IN ARABIC, YASSER, WHICH MEANS MAKE IT EASY, BUT ACTUALLY IT'S NOT EASY TO TYPE THE DOMAIN NAMES ON LATIN CHARACTERS BECAUSE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF VARIATIONS TO TYPE IT. SO EVEN THE PROBLEM IS CALLED EASY, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT EASY TO WRITE IT DOWN. THAT'S REALLY STRANGE ENOUGH.
AND THIS IS BECAUSE THE DOMAIN NAMES, WHICH IS BASED IN ASCII CHARACTERS, IS INCAPABLE OF REPRESENTING THE ARABIC CHARACTERS. THIS IS BECAUSE WE HAVE PROBLEM FROM PRONUNCIATIONS AND SPELLINGS. SO THEREFORE, HAVING FULL DOMAIN NAMES IS GOING TO ENCOURAGE THE ARABIC USERS TO USE THE INTERNET.
HERE ARE SOME STATISTICS. SOME OF THEM, THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT OLD, BUT WILL GIVE YOU INDICATIONS.
THE PENETRATION OF INTERNET IN THE ARAB REGIONS IS VERY LOW. AND THIS IS DUE TO A NUMBER OF OBSTACLES, SOME OF THEM DUE TO THE LANGUAGE BARRIER. AND ONE OF THEM IS THE DOMAIN NAMES ITSELF. IT'S USED IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGE.
I'LL GIVE YOU SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. WE HAVE 28 CHARACTER IN THE LANGUAGE USED. WE WRITE FROM RIGHT TO LEFT RATHER THAN FROM LEFT TO RIGHT. WE USE DIACRITICS ON THE WORDS TO CHANGE THE MEANINGS AND PRONUNCIATION. TWO SETS OF NUMERALS ARE USED IN THE ARAB WORLDS CURRENTLY, AND ABBREVIATION IS NOT COMMON USED IN THE LANGUAGE ITSELF.
TO HAVE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, WE HAVE TO COVER FOUR AREAS. ONE OF THEM IS THE LINGUISTIC ISSUES SO WE COULD END UP WITH ACCEPTED CHARACTER SETS.
THE SECOND AREA IS HAVING THE STRUCTURE FOR DOMAIN NAMES OR FOR ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, SO CCTLDS OR THE GTLDS IN ARABIC LANGUAGE.
THE FOURTH ONE IS HAVING THE TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS WHICH WILL ALLOW USING THE ARABIC CHARACTERS ON DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM WHICH IS BASED ON ASCII, ASCII CHARACTERS.
AND THE FOURTH AREA IS TO SUPPORT THE LANGUAGE ON THE ROOT SERVERS. SO TO HAVE IDN ROOT SERVERS WHICH WILL SUPPORT THE ARABIC LANGUAGE.
WE USED SOME METHODOLOGIES TO BOOST OUR CONTRIBUTIONS IN THIS AREA. WE STARTED WITH IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEMS, AND THE AREA WE CAN CONTRIBUTE. WE CAN'T REALLY CONTRIBUTE IN ALL THESE AREAS, SO WE FIND THE AREA THAT IS REALLY SUITABLE FOR US TO CONTRIBUTE.
THEN WE PARTICIPATED AND INITIATED A NUMBER OF GROUPS, AND WE ARE CLOSELY COORDINATING WITH MINC AND A NUMBER OF TASK FORCES, THE LOCAL CCTLDS, FOR EXAMPLE, WE STARTED COOPERATING WITH GCC CCTLDS UNTIL WE NOW HAVE FULL COOPERATION WITH ALL THE CCTLDS OF THE ARAB COUNTRIES.
AND ALSO, WE DID SOME WEB SURVEYS WITH RESPECT TO USING THE ARABIC LANGUAGE TO GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE USERS. AND WE PUBLISHED A NUMBER OF REPORTS AND SCIENTIFIC PAPERS IN THIS AREA.
ALSO, WE MET SOME LINGUIST EXPERTS SO WE COULD KNOW REALLY WE ARE DOING THE RIGHT PATH WITH RESPECT TO THE LANGUAGE.
AND WE DID SOME TEST BEDS, AND I WILL DISCUSS THIS ONE IN MORE DETAIL LATER ON.
SO LOOKING INTO THESE FOUR AREAS, WE COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE FIRST AND SECOND ONE, WHICH IS THE LINGUISTIC ISSUE, BECAUSE THIS IS OUR LANGUAGE, IT'S EASY TO CONTRIBUTE IN IT. AND ALSO REQUEST RESPECT TO THE ARABIC TLDS.
WITH THIS ONE, AFTER WE CREATED A LINGUISTIC COMMITTEES AND MET THE LINGUISTS AND PUBLISHED PAPERS AND SO ON, WE END UP DRAFTING AN INTERNET DRAFT IN WHICH WE DEFINED THE ACCEPTED CHARACTER SET FOR THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. AT THE SAME TIME WE DEFINED THE ARABIC CCTLDS FOR THE 22 ARABIC COUNTRIES WHICH ARE A MEMBER OF THE ARABIC LEAGUE.
WITH RESPECT TO THE THIRD AREA, WHICH ARE THE TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, IT HAS BEEN COVERED PARTIALLY BY THE IETF RFCS, AND WHAT IS REMAINING ACTUALLY IS TO HAVE IDN ROOT SERVERS THAT SUPPORT THE ARABIC LANGUAGE, WHICH IS -- THAT'S WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR.
AND SINCE THIS AREA HAS NOT BEEN REALLY PROVIDED FOR US, WE HAVE STARTED TO DO SOME TEST BED SO WE COULD REALLY SHOW HOW SUPPORTING ARABIC LANGUAGE BEING DONE.
WE STARTED WITH THE FIRST LEVEL, WE STARTED THESE TESTS LIKE COUNTRY-BASED INDIVIDUALLY. EACH COUNTRY TRY TO TEST THE IDN, AND THAT WAS DONE BY LIKE AN ARABIC TO ENGLISH, INITIALLY. AND WE FOUND THAT VERY, VERY INCONVENIENCE FOR THE USERS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO SWITCH FROM RIGHT TO LEFT TO LEFT TO RIGHT TO TYPE THE DOMAIN NAMES, ARABIC NAMES ON DOT COM OR DOT NET OR DOT SA, SO IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE THOSE TWO LANGUAGES TOGETHER.
THE SECOND LEVELS OF TESTING IN MARCH 2004, DURING THE GCC CCTLD GROUP MEETINGS, WE AGREED TO HAVE THE BY PROJECT FOR THE ARABIC LANGUAGES AMONG THE CCTLDS, AND I DID A PRESENTATION ON THIS FOR THE LAST KUALA LUMPUR IDN WORKSHOP, AND WE DID THAT BY PROJECT IN THREE PHASES. WE TEST THE ARABIC DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM ITSELF BY BUILDING ALTERNATE ROOT SERVERS, AND ALSO WE DEVELOP SOME POLICIES AND REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, AND ALSO WE DID SOME PUBLIC AWARENESS.
AND BECAUSE OF THE SUCCESS OF THIS PROJECT, THIS MUCH HAS BEEN EXPANDED TO COVER NOW ALL THE 22 COUNTRIES WHICH ARE A MEMBER OF THE ARABIC LEAGUE.
SO IN MAY 2005, IN THE SECOND MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON ARAB DOMAIN NAMES IN CAIRO, WE AGREED TO EXPAND THE GCC PROJECTS TO COVER ALL THE ARAB LEAGUE MEMBERS AND RENAME IT TO BE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES PILOT PROJECT.
AND IT IS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE ARABIC LEAGUE.
THE MISSION OF THE PROJECT IS TO HAVE -- TO IMPLEMENT A TEST BED FOR ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES IN THE ARAB WORLD SO IT COULD GAIN THE EXPERIENCE AND DO SOME TESTING, FIND THE PROBLEMS, DEVELOPING SOME TOOLS AND SO ON.
CURRENTLY THE PARTICIPANTS ARE OPEN FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE ARAB LESION.
THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT IS OPEN.
SO UNTIL WE HAVE A WORLDWIDE, LIKE, AN IMPLEMENTATION OR RECOGNITION OF ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, THIS PILOT PROJECT WILL CONTINUE.
SO IT CAN BUILD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN THAT AREA.
WE HAVE TWO COMMITTEES ON THIS PROJECT, ONE IS THE STEERING COMMITTEE, WHICH SUPERVISES THE PROJECT AND MANAGE THE PROJECT.
AND THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE, WHICH PROVIDES THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR THE PARTICIPANTS.
THE DELIVERABLES, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF DELIVERABLES TO BE DONE.
MOST OF THEM, THEY HAVE BEEN FINISHED, AND SOME OF THEM, IT'S A CONTINUOUS WORK.
HERE ARE SOME OF THE PARTICIPANTS WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED.
NOW WE HAVE ABOUT SEVEN COUNTRIES PARTICIPATING ON THE PROJECT CURRENTLY.
WE HAVE TWO ALTERNATE ROOT SERVERS, ONE IN SAUDI ARABIA AND ONE IN UNITED ARAB EMIRATES.
WE DEVELOPED SOME POLICY DOCUMENTS RELATED TO ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, LIKE FOR ENTITIES TO PARTICIPATE, FOR HOW TO WRITE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES AND SO ON.
AND ALSO WE DEVELOPED SOME TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS.
SO FOR PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATE FOR ISPS, IF THEY WANT TO PARTICIPATE, FOR USERS THEMSELVES, HOW CAN THE USER ACCESS ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES.
ALSO, WE DEVELOPED A NUMBER OF TOOLS FOR CHECKING THE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, DNS CHECKER HOST, AND EVEN EDITORS FOR ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES.
NOW, USERS IN THESE PARTICIPANT COUNTRIES CAN EASILY TYPE THE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES IN ARABIC, AS YOU CAN SEE.
AND IF SOMEONE HERE SPEAKS ARABIC, THEY WILL REALLY APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ARABIC NAMES WHICH IS WRITTEN IN ARABIC CHARACTERS AND THE ONE WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO THOSE WHICH IS WRITTEN IN ENGLISH.
THIS SITE THAT I AM SHOWING, THIS IS ONE OF THE POPULAR SITES IN SAUDI ARABIA.
THIS IS FOR THE STOCK MARKET IN SAUDI ARABIA.
AND IT'S CALLED IN ENGLISH TADAWUL.
WE WILL HAVE VERY DIFFICULT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S VERY POPULAR, VERY DIFFICULT TO TYPE IT DOWN BECAUSE OF THE SPELLING.
SO HAVING IT IN ARABIC, IT BECOMES VERY EASY FOR USERS TO REALLY ACCESS IT.
SOME OF THE OBSTACLES THAT WE ARE FACING NOW WITH THESE PROJECTS, ONE, WE FEEL THAT INTERNATIONAL BODIES DO NOT REALLY TRULY UNDERSTAND OUR NEEDS.
AND THIS WILL BE EXPLAINED IN THE NEXT SLIDE.
BECAUSE CURRENTLY, WITH THE IDN GUIDELINES OF ICANN, THEY PROVIDE US WITH 50% SOLUTION.
THEY GIVE US ARABIC DOT ENGLISH.
AND THIS IS NOT REALLY WHAT WE NEED.
SO THAT'S WHY WE SAID TRULY NOT UNDERSTAND OUR NEEDS.
AND NOT HAVING THE IDN ROOT SERVERS IS REALLY A BIG OBSTACLE FOR US.
BECAUSE THE ARABIC LANGUAGE IS NOT ONLY USED BY THE USER IN THE ARAB COUNTRIES, BUT IT IS USED BY MANY PEOPLES AROUND THE WORLD.
SO WE CAN'T REALLY REACH THESE PEOPLE, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE IDN ROOT SERVERS.
ALSO, LIKE BROWSER VENDORS WHO HAVE NOT IMPLEMENTED THE IDNS, WE HAVE PROBLEM WITH THEM.
IN OUR REGION, MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER IS VERY POPULAR.
MOST OF THE USERS ARE USING MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER.
AND SINCE IT DOES NOT SUPPORT IDN CURRENTLY, THEIR VERSION 6, THIS IS LIKE AN OBSTACLE FOR US TO EXPAND IT TO THE USERS.
ALSO COORDINATING WITH THE LOCAL ISPS TO SUPPORT OR TO WORK ON THE PROJECT ALSO IS A PROBLEM, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO MODIFY THEIR DNS SERVERS TO BE PART OF THE PROJECT.
>>TINA DAM: YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO GO.
>>ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN: WITH RESPECT TO THE ICANN GUIDELINES, WE FEEL THAT THEY ARE STILL WORKING WITH SOLUTIONS WHICH IS IDN.ENGLISH, THAT IS, FOR OUR PURPOSES DOES NOT, LIKE -- YOU KNOW, IS NOT SUITABLE FOR OUR LANGUAGE, WHICH IS REALLY WRITTEN FROM RIGHT TO LEFT.
AND WE FIND THIS SOLUTION IS ONLY 50% SATISFACTION TO US.
ALSO, LIKE FOCUSING ON IDN.ENGLISH INTRODUCES A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH USING MULTIPLE LANGUAGES ON THE SAME LABELS.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE INTRODUCING NEW TERMINOLOGY.
ONE IS CALLED POLY-IDN, AND ONE IS CALLED MONO-IDN.
POLY-IDN MEANS REPRESENT AN INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME IN WHICH EACH LABEL AND THE DOMAIN NAME CAN BE EXPRESSED USING DIFFERENT LANGUAGES.
THIS IS LIKE IDN.ENGLISH.
THAT'S WHERE ICANN IS TRYING TO IMPLEMENT, LIKE HAVING, YOU KNOW, LIKE ARABIC TO CHINESE OR CHINESE TO ARABIC OR IDN TO ENGLISH, WHATEVER.
THE OTHER TECHNOLOGY IS MONO-IDN, WHICH REPRESENTS INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAMES IN WHICH ALL LABELS IN THE DOMAIN NAMES ARE EXPRESSED USING THE SAME LANGUAGE CHARACTER SET, WHICH, LIKE, ARABIC.ARABIC, OR CHINESE.CHINESE.
THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT WE WANT.
IF I WANT DOMAIN NAMES FOR MY USERS, IT'S HARDLY THAT I WANT TO MIX LANGUAGES.
IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT WILL BE LIKE IN ONE LANGUAGE.
AND THIS IS REALLY WHAT WE WANT.
IN CONCLUSION, THAT MONO-IDNS SHOULD BE SUPPORTED IN THE CCTLDS SO THAT THE CCTLD MANAGER SHOULD BE ENABLED TO GIVE THE ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT MONO-IDN AND DEVELOP THEIR LANGUAGE GUIDELINES AND SHARE THEM WITH ICANN.
ICANN MAY CONTINUE IN THEIR EFFORTS TO SUPPORT POLY-IDN AND SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS.
AND HITTING THE PROPOSAL FROM THE CHINESE DOMAIN NAME CONSORTIUM, WE SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL, PARTICULARLY THE FOUR POINTS.
I DO NOT WANT TO REPEAT IT BECAUSE OF TIME.
WE FULLY SUPPORT THESE POINTS.
IN THE END, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PLEASE, LET US HELP US TO BE PART OF THE INTERNET.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>CARY KARP: OKAY.
WE WILL CONTINUE.
PRESENTATION IDNS.NET.
>>S. SUBBIAH: CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME?
SURE.
MY NAME IS SUBBIAH, SINCE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO INTRODUCE OURSELVES.
I AM ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF IDNS.NET.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF MY TALK, IT'S WORTH KNOWING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MY BACKGROUND, BECAUSE MY TALK IS GOING TO TALK MOSTLY ABOUT SORT OF A LONG-TERM PERSPECTIVE OF WHERE IDN HAS GONE.
APART FROM BEING ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO CO-INVENTED THE NOTION OF SORT OF MODERN IDN IN 1997/'98, BEING A PROFESSOR AT TWO UNIVERSITIES, AND SO ON, AND ALSO BEING THE PERSON PROBABLY WHO COINED THE TERM "IDN" IN THE FIRST PLACE IN 1997/'98, I -- IN '97/'98, WE -- I APPROACHED PERSONALLY ICANN CEO, ICANN CHAIRMAN, AT THAT TIME VARIOUS PEOPLE, AND WAS POLITELY TOLD TO GO AWAY.
SAID, EVERYBODY SHOULD LEARN ENGLISH.
THAT WAS THE KIND OF FEEDBACK WE GOT IN '97, '98, '99.
AND WE'VE COME A VERY, VERY, VERY LONG WAY WHEN VINT IN HIS TALK FINALLY SAYS, YOU KNOW, LOOK, MAYBE IT'S TIME TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THIS.
AND I THINK IT'S TAKEN TIME, BUT I THINK WE ARE GETTING THERE.
AND MY TALK IS GOING TO SHOW IN THE FIRST FEW YEARS, IN '99, IN 2000, IN -- AROUND TOWARDS THE END OF 2000, THOSE FIRST COUPLE OF YEARS, BECAUSE THERE WAS REALLY NO INTEREST FROM ICANN AT THE TIME, AND ALSO INITIALLY THERE WAS NO INTEREST FROM IETF AS WELL.
THEY STARTED WORKING WITH US AND EVENTUALLY THERE WERE WORKSHOPS THAT BECAME THE STANDARD MANY YEARS LATER.
BUT DURING THAT PERIOD, SINCE THERE WAS NO INPUT FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD, OUT IN ASIA, WHERE THIS THING REALLY GOT STARTED, A NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS STARTED.
ONE WAS AN ASIAN TEST BED THAT WENT ON FOR A YEAR.
A NUMBER OF THE NICS PARTICIPATED, CHINESE, JAPANESE, KOREAN. SO THAT'S WHY THEY GOT A HEAD START.
IT WAS A YEAR-LONG THING THAT WAS REALLY SUCCESSFUL.
AND THAT LED TO INTEREST -- IN ORDER TO COORDINATE THIS GROUP AT THAT TIME THERE WAS A GROUP CALLED MINC THAT SORT OF SORT OF FORMED, A NONPROFIT GROUP. AND FATTAL IS THERE, AND SEVERAL MINC BOARD MEMBERS ARE HERE.
PRESENTLY, I'M A MINC BOARD MEMBER AS WELL.
TO FOSTER IDN WHEN NOBODY ELSE HAS, SORT OF A NONPROFIT ANGLE.
IN FACT, A NUMBER OF THE MINC PEOPLE, MINC BOARD MEMBERS WENT ON TO BECOME ICANN BOARD MEMBERS AND PUT IN INPUT.
THAT'S THE BACKGROUND.
SO THERE WAS A PERIOD OVER A COUPLE OF YEARS BEFORE ICANN ITSELF GOT SERIOUSLY INVOLVED IN IDN, THERE WAS A PERIOD WHERE FULL IDN TLDS WERE LAUNCHED ALL OVER THE WORLD, PARTLY THROUGH THE SORT OF TEST BEDS WE WERE INVOLVED IN WITH VARIOUS COUNTRIES AND PARTLY THROUGH OUR OWN COMPANY, IDNS.NET THAT WAS FORMED OUT OF THIS, OUT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE, AND ALSO OTHER COMPANIES THAT STARTED UP THAT MAY NO LONGER EXIST, SO HAVE MERGED SINCE THEN, ALSO LAUNCHED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE VARIOUS COUNTRIES FULL IDNS.
SO FULL IDNS WERE ACTUALLY LAUNCHED.
THE VERY FIRST THINGS THAT WERE LAUNCHED WERE FULL IDNS AS EARLY AS LATE '99 IN CHINESE AND SEVERAL OTHER LANGUAGES IN 2000, BEFORE THE SORT OF HYBRID TWO DIFFERENT LANGUAGE, POLY GOT STARTED.
SO LATE 2000 WITH VERISIGN AND SORT OF UNDER THE ICANN STEWARDSHIP AS A TEST BED.
SO I JUST WANTED TO REVISIT THAT AND POINT OUT WHAT IS THE STATUS.
I AM TAKING A VERY GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE HERE, I AM THINKING IN TERMS OF '97, '98, A COUPLE OF MY FRIENDS, ONE OF THE REAL INVENTORS OF THIS, WE LOOKED AT -- ONE OF THE PROPOSAL'S NOTIONS OF IDN, WHERE ARE WE SINCE THEN TO NOW, THAT'S THE PERSPECTIVE I WANT TO SHOW IN THIS, JUST HISTORICAL FACTS.
AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF SUCCESS.
IT HAS A LONG WAY TO GO, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF SUCCESS.
AND, FRANKLY, WE'RE IN A PLACE WHERE, UNLESS WE ALL COOPERATE AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT -- AND I'M GOING TO BE VERY FRANK, HOPEFULLY, IN THE PANEL DISCUSSION AS WELL -- THEN THIS IS THE JUNCTURE TO DO IT.
WE'VE REACHED THIS POINT WHERE GROUPS HAVE STARTED DOING THEIR OWN THINGS AND SOME HAVE EVOLVED TO A POINT WHERE WE NEED COMMON COORDINATION IF NOTHING ELSE.
IF WE DON'T DO THAT NOW, I THINK UP TILL NOW IT WAS OKAY TO LET THINGS GO IN DIFFERENT WAYS.
BUT I THINK WE HAVE REACHED A POINT WHERE WE WILL HAVE TO START DOING SOMETHING IN A CONCERTED WAY TOGETHER.
OTHERWISE, I THINK WE'LL GO THROUGH A PERIOD OF SOME DIFFICULTY POSSIBLY.
THAT'S -- NOW I'D LIKE TO START WITH MY FIRST SLIDE.
AND, AGAIN, I THINK THIS WAS ALREADY DESCRIBED MANY TIMES.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, ONE IS A HYBRID IDN.
IDN.ASCII, IF YOU WILL, OR POLY, IF YOU MIX UP LANGUAGE.
HISTORICALLY, THE REAL REASON WHY WE HAD MULTILINGUAL.ENGLISH, ENGLISH WAS SPECIAL AT THE END BECAUSE THEY ALREADY ISSUED TLDS.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT POLY, ARABIC.CHINESE, THAT MAY HAPPEN, WHO KNOWS.
HISTORICALLY, ENGLISH WAS THERE BECAUSE THEY ISSUED TLDS.
THEN THERE'S THE FULL IDN, WHICH IS IDN.IDN.
IN FACT, PEOPLE ALSO CALL IT ML.ML, MULTILINGUAL.MULTILINGUAL.
AND THEN FULL INTERNATIONALIZED E-MAIL ADDRESSES.
IN FACT, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME LAUNCHES OF SORT OF IDN E-MAILS, FULL AND HYBRID, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL.
IN 2000 AND 2001, LIMITED ONES.
I THINK E-MAIL WILL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE DOMAIN NAMES SITUATIONS GETS TOTALLY RESOLVED.
FROM A PURELY GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE, NOT WORRIED ABOUT POLICIES, BUT WHAT IS POSSIBLE, IF YOU'RE PREPARED TO TAKE THE ENGINEERING RISKS AT EVERY LEVEL, THEN, ACTUALLY, THERE ARE THREE METHODS.
ONE IS, YOU KNOW, ICANN ITSELF, YOU KNOW, DEALS WITH THE ROOT ITSELF, AND INTRODUCES AN IDN TLD OR, IN THE CASE OF HYBRID THINGS, YOU KNOW, ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN, WHICH HAS ALREADY HAPPENED IN THE HYBRID IDN.ENGLISH.
BUT BARRING THAT, THERE ARE REALLY ONLY TWO RESOLUTION METHODS, MAYBE SOMEONE CAN DREAM UP SOMETHING MORE, BUT THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE HAVE CONSIDERED.
ONE IS THE PLUG-IN ROOT, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN DOING WITH THE MULTILINGUAL.ASCII SO FAR, DISTRIBUTE PLUG-INS, EITHER ENABLE BROWSERS LIKE EVENTUALLY FIREFOX, I THINK, HAS DONE IT, BUT EITHER WITH A PLUG-IN OR BUILT IN.
OR THE OTHER ONE IS RESOLVING AT THE ISP LEVEL, WHOEVER IS PROVIDING THE DNS SERVICE TO THE END USER WOULD SO-CALLED PATCH IN DIFFERENT WAYS OF DOING IT.
BUT THE IDEA IS TO GET THE ISPS INVOLVED, PERHAPS GLOBALLY OR JUST THOSE THAT INVOLVE, SAY IN ARABIA, THE ARABIC ISPS, THOSE WHO ARE REALLY COMMITTED TO IT.
NOW, THE -- IN TERMS OF NONCOMMERCIAL DEPLOYMENT SINCE THAT TIME, SO THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT RESOLUTION MECHANISMS, AND WHAT'S THE STATUS OF SORT OF NONPROFIT, NONCOMMERCIAL MEANING TEST BEDS IN THE EARLY DAYS.
FROM MARCH TO JULY '98, THIS WAS DONE IN THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE, THIS WAS A REAL TEST BED, THERE WERE CONFERENCES IN ASIA, A NUMBER OF CONFERENCES ORIGINALLY IN TAIWAN, AND ALSO THE CHINESE FOLKS.
WE MET A NUMBER OF TIMES IN '99/2000 -- '99, THROUGHOUT '99S AND TESTED THESE THINGS.
THIS WAS ALL DONE IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC NETWORKING GROUP WHICH IS THE ORGANIZATION THAT FOR MANY YEARS HAS BEEN AROUND, INTERNET AGENCIES THAT TALK TO EACH OTHER IN ASIA, QUITE A LARGE GROUP.
SINCE, YOU KNOW, THEN IN -- AFTER -- TOWARDS LATE '99, WHEN THERE WAS SORT OF COMMERCIAL LAUNCHES STARTED, THERE WERE -- THE EARLY LAUNCHES IN ASIA EVEN RESULTED IN TESTING RESULTED IN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF NAMES IN TERMS OF NONCOMMERCIAL TESTING.
AND AGAIN THERE ARE ALSO NONCOMMERCIAL TESTING OF VARIOUS FORMS OF INTERNATIONALIZED E-MAIL ADDRESSES.
AGAIN, IN JULY '98 TO SEPTEMBER '98 WAS THE FIRST SORT OF -- AT LEAST FROM THE END USER POINT OF VIEW, VISUAL KOREAN E-MAIL ADDRESS WAS USED AND MAILED AROUND TO EACH OTHER AROUND ASIAN NICS AND SO ON.
LATER, THERE WAS MORE TESTING IN '98 AND '99 AND HUNDREDS MORE NAMES REGISTERED.
WE'RE LOOKING AT ZERO MULTILINGUAL TO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS AT THIS POINT.
I JUST HAVE A LIST -- A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST TWO OF OR THREE SLIDES, EXTENDED SLIDE.
IT SHOWS YOU DATES FROM THAT POINT ON WHERE WE WENT FROM HUNDREDS OF NAMES TO THOUSANDS AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS AND PERHAPS REACHING ON THE ORDER OF A MILLION OR TWO NOW, IN TERMS OF NAMES OF ANY KIND OF IDN THAT WERE LAUNCHED BY WHICH COUNTRY AND I'M SAYING LANGUAGE, BUT REALLY WHAT I MEAN THERE IN THAT COLUMN IS CLEARLY SCRIPT.
AND SO THERE'S A DATE, A COUNTRY, A LANGUAGE, THERE'S THE TYPE, WHICH IS WHERE THERE'S IDN.IDN OR IDN HYBRID.
IN FACT, INITIALLY, WHEN WE WERE INVOLVED IN INVENTING THIS, WE NEVER EVEN THOUGHT OF THE HYBRID.
WE THOUGHT OF IT AS, YOU KNOW, MULTILINGUAL PEOPLE SAYING IN OUR OWN LANGUAGE IDN.IDN.
THE PROPOSAL CAME TO US LATER THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO HYBRIDS.
ANYWAY, IN THE VARIOUS ORGANIZATION, EARLY ON, BECAUSE IDN WAS THE ONLY COMING DOING IT AT THAT TIME, IT WAS I-DNS.NET.
MANY OF THESE LAUNCHES WERE IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE THEN-MINISTERS IN THOSE COUNTRIES OR ISPS OR SO ON AND SO FORTH.
MY OWN LANGUAGE IS TAMIL, AND THAT WAS LAUNCHED IN MARCH, IT WAS A SECOND LANGUAGE.
IT WAS LAUNCHED IN A FULL IDN.IDN BACK WITH THE CHIEF MINISTER (INAUDIBLE) 70 MILLION PEOPLE.
IT WAS DONE.
THERE WERE VERY FEW USERS AT THE TIME.
AND THERE WERE THOUSANDS OF NAMES ISSUED AT THAT TIME.
AND IT'S STILL FUNCTIONAL.
THEN WE ALSO LAUNCHED CHINESE.CHINESE AT SOME POINT.
AND THEN LATER ON, THE -- WITHIN -- THAT WAS A SORT OF IN THE TAIWAN MARKET.
BUT LATER ON, THE CHINESE MARKET, ALSO CNNIC AND ON SO LAUNCHED CHINESE.CHINESE AS WELL, WHICH SHOULD BE IN THE NEXT SLIDE.
THEN THE HYBRID NAMES STARTED COMING UP WITH VERY SIGNED LAUNCHING, THE MULTILINGUAL.COM. AND THIS IS -- AND THEN ONCE ICANN GOT INVOLVED IN THIS AND MULTILINGUAL.ASCII BECAME POPULAR, -- EXCUSE ME, BEFORE THAT, THIS NOTION OF LAUNCHING IN MULTILINGUAL.MULTILINGUAL CONTINUED IN SEVERAL OTHER COUNTRIES.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE RUSSIA, KOREA, AND ISRAEL.
OTHER COMPETITORS GOT IN AND LAUNCHED IN SOME OF THESE CASES.
AND THEN, EVENTUALLY, ICANN BLESSED THE NOTION BEYOND TEST BED OF DOING IDN.ASCII.
AND AT THAT POINT, AROUND ABOUT 2003, THE -- THERE WAS A LOT MORE OF THESE HYBRID DOMAIN NAMES, MULTILINGUAL DOMAIN NAMES GOING OUT, YOU KNOW, IDN.CN, IDN.KR, SO ON.
RECENTLY, '03, '04, '05, WE'VE DONE LOTS MORE ON DOT INFO, DOT CE, AND SO ON.
THAT'S IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE SEEING SINCE 1999 TO NOW.
SINGAPORE JUST LAUNCHED AND HUNGARY, CHILE, THIS IS ALL IDN -- THE HYBRIDS.
IN MY LAST COUPLE OF SLIDES NOW.
SO WHAT'S THE SORT OF SUMMARY OF THE GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ON ALL OF THIS?
IF YOU SAY HOW MANY DOMAIN NAMES OF ALL TYPES -- I'M TALKING ABOUT THE EARLY IDN.IDNS, SOME OF THEM ARE STILL FUNCTIONAL IN COUNTRIES, YOU KNOW, IN CHINA AND SO ON.
AND THE -- THERE'S OVER TWO MILLION HAVE BEEN MENTIONED, MY ESTIMATE, INCLUDING THE SORT OF VERISIGN IDN.COMS THAT WERE SOLD EARLY ON AND ALL OF THAT.
NOT ALL OF THEM MAY HAVE BEEN RENEWED, BUT ABOUT 2 MILLION IS MY GUESS.
ALL THESE NUMBERS ARE MY ESTIMATES.
TOTAL, LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING.
POSSIBLY OVER 50 LANGUAGES, BUT MOST OF -- CONCENTRATED ON A HANDFUL.
AND 90% OF IT MIGHT JUST HAVE BEEN IN CJK, CHINESE, JAPANESE, KOREAN, THEY KIND OF USE OVERLAP SCRIPTS AND SO ON.
AND ABOUT A MILLION OF THEM MAY HAVE BEEN OVER THE TEST BEDS OVER THIS TIME.
AND AFTER SOME TIME, BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTIES, I THINK THE REGISTRATION NUMBERS DROPPED --
>>TINA DAM: THREE MINUTES TO GO.
>>S. SUBBIAH: SINCE THEN THEY'VE PICKED UP.
RECENTLY, A LOT OF IDN.JP, TW, THOSE HYBRID THINGS.
THOSE HAVE PICKED UP MOSTLY IN ASIAN NICS.
OF THE IDN.IDN ONES, YOU KNOW, EARLY ON, CHINESE.CHINESE WAS ONE OF THE NUMBERS THAT REGISTERED A LOT EARLY ON.
AND THEY TAPERED OFF OVER TIME.
BUT RECENTLY THEY'VE BEEN GROWING AGAIN.
GOING BACK TO A SMALL BASE -- I WOULD SAY -- I'LL COME TO THAT IN A MINUTE.
OTHER LANGUAGE, IDN.IDNS ARE VERY -- IN THE TENS OF THOUSANDS.
BUT THEY'VE OSCILLATED AROUND THAT POINT.
NOW, IN TERMS OF RESOLUTION, WHERE ARE WE?
I WOULD SAY THAT RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE ABOUT 70 MILLION USERS WHO WILL PROBABLY HAVE ACCESS TO BROWSER-BASED -- THIS MAY NOT BE COMMON KNOWLEDGE, I WOULD SAY -- WHO HAVE A BROWSER-BASED RESOLUTION.
I WOULD SAY IN THE CATEGORY OF LESS THAN ONE MILLION IS SAFARI AND OPERA AND SO ON.
IN THE ONE TO 10 MILLION RANGE -- I MAY BE GETTING IT SLIGHTLY WRONG, THERE ALREADY IS A BUNDLE.
BUT IN THE CATEGORY OF OVER 50 MILLION, IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO, THERE'S BEEN QUITE A LOT OF PLUG-INS DISTRIBUTED WITHIN MAINLAND CHINA THAT HANDLE IDN.IDN.
AND I WOULD SAY IT'S SOME NUMBER LIKE 50 MILLION OR IN EXCESS OF THAT.
OKAY.
THE -- IN TERMS OF ISP SERVER-BASED RESOLUTION, WELL, MY ESTIMATE IS ABOUT 85 MILLION USERS TODAY.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, ELSEWHERE, ALL THE COUNTRIES, ABOUT 5 MILLION, BUT IN KOREA THERE MAY BE ABOUT 10 MILLION, PARTLY THROUGH MY COMPANY AND SO ON.
AND IN CHINA, MY ESTIMATE IS THAT BECAUSE OF THERE THE CHINESE.CHINESE TEST BED OUT THERE, THERE'S POTENTIALLY ABOUT 70 MILLION OR MAYBE AROUND THAT NUMBER, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S -- MANY OF THEM -- THE KEY ISPS HAVE ALREADY DONE IT.
SO MY TOTAL GLOBAL RESOLUTION ESTIMATE IS ABOUT 115 MILLION USERS TODAY, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW -- AND THE BULK OF IT BEING CHINA THAT HANDLES BOTH HYBRID AND FULL, FULL.
AND THEN IN KOREA, AGAIN, THAT IS BOTH HYBRID AND THE FULL, YOU KNOW.
AND ELSEWHERE, IT'S ABOUT MAYBE 15 MILLION TOTAL, AND IT'S THE OVERLAP OF THE VARIOUS PLUG-INS ESSENTIALLY, I WOULD SAY THE HYBRID -- LARGELY INTENDED FOR THE HYBRIDS, BUT SOME FOR THE FULL.
NOW, THE FINAL SUMMARY SLIDE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, IDN FROM -- AS A SORT OF AN IDEA IN THE MODERN SENSE, PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE, BUT IN TERMS OF ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION AND THE FOLLOWING UNICODE IN A BIG WAY, THAT SERIOUSLY STARTED IN '97/'98 IN SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY WITH ME BEING INVOLVED.
BUT SINCE -- THERE ARE ABOUT 2 MILLION CUMULATIVE PAID IDN REGISTRATIONS.
SOME PEOPLE DIDN'T RENEW.
THAT NUMBER IS NOT TOO FAR DIFFERENT FROM WHEN ICANN WAS ESTABLISHED, THE SAME TIME FRAME, 98/99, THAT TYPE OF TIME FRAME.
AT THE TIME, THERE WERE ONLY SEVERAL MILLION, FOUR OR FIVE MILLION NAMES OR SOMETHING.
THERE IS REAL INTEREST.
WE'VE COME FROM ZERO TO 2 MILLION REGISTRATIONS.
>>TINA DAM: 15 SECONDS.
>>S. SUBBIAH: WHEN VIEWED THIS WAY, IDN I DON'T THINK IS IN ITS INFANCY, IT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG WHILE.
BUT EXCEPT FOR THE SORT OF DEPLOYMENT OF FULL IDNS AS TESTED WITHIN CHINA, I'D SAY THAT EVERYWHERE ELSE, THERE'S BEEN A WIDESPREAD LACK OF RESOLUTIONS.
IT'S NOT THE DEMAND; IT'S NOT THE INTEREST.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY.
THANK YOU.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>CARY KARP: AND THEN TO WRAP UP THIS SEGMENT OF THE WORKSHOP, VERISIGN.
>>PAT KANE: THANK YOU, CARY.
MY NAME IS PAT KANE, I AM THE DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND POLICY IN VERISIGN'S NAMING SERVICES BUSINESS UNIT.
UNTIL RECENTLY, I WAS THE PRODUCT MANAGER OF COM AND NET AND HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN INVOLVED IN THE IDN TEST BED AND THE IDN PRODUCT AT VERISIGN SINCE THE LAUNCH IN NOVEMBER OF 2000.
TODAY I AM GOING TO PRESENT TO YOU THE DNAME WHITE PAPER THAT VERISIGN HAS PUT TOGETHER.
BEFORE I DO THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE TWO OF MY COLLEAGUES, BOTH MATT LARSON AND CHUCK GOMES, WHO WERE KEY CONTRIBUTORS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS WHITE PAPER.
CLEARLY, THERE IS MUCH DEMAND FOR IDNS AND, IN GENERAL, THE ABILITY FOR END USERS TO EXPERIENCE THE INTERNET IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE, IN THEIR OWN CHARACTERS, SCRIPTS, ET CETERA.
IN A SINGLE ROOT, THERE'S ONLY REALLY TWO WAYS THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THAT.
ONE IS TO CREATE NEW NAME SPACE, THAT IS, TO PUT AN IDN REPRESENTATION OR A PUNYCODE REPRESENTATION INTO THE ROOT ZONE, OR MAP THAT NAME SPACE, MAP THE ASCII WORLD USING THE TLDS THAT WE HAVE TODAY INTO REPRESENTATIONS THAT ARE OTHER CHARACTERS AS WELL.
THIS PROPOSAL, THE DNAME PROPOSAL, IS ABOUT THE MAPPING PROCESS, MAPPING THE ASCII TLDS TO A REPRESENTATION THAT WOULD BE IN LANGUAGE OR IN CHARACTER SETS FOR COMMUNITIES AROUND THE WORLD.
IT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT PREVENT THE ISSUANCE OR THE CREATION OF A TLD THAT HAS A SOLE PURPOSE OF ADDRESSING A COMMUNITY THAT DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH A LATIN-BASED SCRIPT OR LANGUAGE.
SO DNAME IS A RESOURCE RECORD THAT WAS -- THAT HAS BEEN DEFINED RFC 2672 AND BEEN AROUND SINCE AUGUST OF 1999, SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN THROUGHOUT FOR A WHILE.
IT'S GONE THROUGH A LOT OF PROCESS WITH THE IETF.
IT IS A STANDARDS TRACK PROTOCOL.
THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONFUSION AROUND WHETHER IT IS CONSIDERED EXPERIMENTAL.
THERE IS A CASE AROUND IPV6 TO WHERE USE OF DNAME HAS BEEN CONSIDERED EXPERIMENTAL.
BUT THAT REALLY DOESN'T APPLY TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IN TERMS OF MAPPING TLDS.
WHAT DOES DNAME DO, ACTUALLY MAPS ONE DOMAIN TO ANOTHER.
IN THE EXAMPLE THAT WE'RE USING HERE WITH THE SPRINT AND NEXTEL MERGER.
ANYTHING THAT COMES IN AS SPRINT, IT'S REALLY NEXTEL WE WOULD RESOLVE IT AND MAP IT THAT WAY.
IT IS DIFFERENT THAN A CNAME WHERE A CNAME ACTUALLY ALIASES ONE SINGLE DOMAIN TO ANOTHER.
SO IT DOESN'T DO AN ENTIRE NODE; IT DOES A SINGLE DOMAIN.
DNAME SUPPORT IS REQUIRED ONLY IN A ZONE'S AUTHORITATIVE SERVER.
SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO PERMIT THE MAPPING TO OCCUR WITHIN A SPECIFIC ZONE, YOU ONLY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DO DNAMES WITHIN THAT AUTHORITATIVE NAME SERVER.
WHAT THE DNAME RFC CALLS FOR IS THE SYNTHESIS OF A CNAME RECORD IF THE RESOLVER DOES NOT RECOGNIZE DNAMES, SO THAT IT WOULD GO BACK TO THE RESOLVER WITH A CNAME AND THEN IT WOULD ALLOW IT TO RESOLVE FOR THE END USER.
SO THE PROPOSAL IS TO USE THE DNAME TO ENABLE INTERNATIONALIZED TLDS, MAP THE PUNYCODE STRINGS FOR THE REPRESENTATION OF WHETHER IT BE .DE OR DOT COM OR .CN TO THE ACTUAL ASCII IN THE ZONE FILE.
SO THE EXAMPLE HERE IS A COM EQUIVALENT IN HANGUL.
THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IN THE ROOT ZONE. THIS WOULD END UP MAPPING EVERYTHING THAT COMES IN WITH THIS XN DASH DASH, ET CETERA, TO END IN DOT COM.
THERE'S NO LIMIT TO THE NUMBER OF DNAMES THAT YOU COULD USE.
THIS IS AN ILLUSTRATED EXAMPLE OF HOW IT WOULD LOOK.
SO IF YOU CAME IN AS A HANGUL REPRESENTATION OR A CHINESE REPRESENTATION OR AN ARABIC REPRESENTATION OF DOT COM, WHATEVER THAT WOULD BE DEFINED AS, IT WOULD MAP IT TO COM AND THAT WOULD RESOLVE JUST AS IT DOES IN DOT COM TODAY.
SO WHAT ARE THE TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED IN THE USE OF A DNAME?
WELL, THE ROOT NAME SERVERS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE CAPABLE OF RUNNING DNAME.
TODAY, NOT ALL ROOT SERVERS ARE CAPABLE OF HANDLING A DNAME.
WITHIN SIX TO 12 MONTHS, THERE WILL BE A DNSSEC DEPLOYMENT TO ALL THE ROOT SERVERS.
WHEN THAT HAPPENS, ALL OF THE ROOT SERVERS THAT WILL BE -- ALL THE ROOT SERVER OPERATORS THEN WILL BE DNAME -- WILL BE DNAME CAPABLE AS BIND 9 AND NSD WILL ALREADY HAVE THE ABILITY TO HANDLE DNAMES.
A BIG CONCERN IS HOW MUCH TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE GENERATED BY THE USE OF DNAMES.
SO WHEN YOU SYNTHESIZE A CNAME AT THE DNAME -- AT THE ROOT LEVEL, THERE'S GOING TO CREATE MORE LOAD AND MORE TRAFFIC AT THE ROOT SERVER.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT ANYTIME WE TALK ABOUT ADDING ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC TO THE ROOT SERVERS, WE HAVE TO STUDY IT VERY, VERY CAREFULLY.
NOW, WITH THE ANYCAST DEPLOYMENT THAT'S GOING ON, I THINK THERE'S ABOUT 100 ANYCAST ROOT SERVERS OUT THERE TODAY, I THINK THAT WE MAY HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DO THAT.
BUT, AGAIN, WE CERTAINLY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TEST IT.
I KNOW THAT WITHIN J ROOT, WE HAVE 20 ANYCAST INSTANCES OF J ROOT TODAY AND WE SEE A HANDFUL OF QUERIES AND WE THINK THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HANDLE SOME OF THE TRAFFIC THAT WE WOULD SEE FROM A CNAME.
BUT, OF COURSE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE TESTED.
THERE'S A QUESTION AROUND RECURSIVE NAME SERVER MEMORY UTILIZATION TO CACHE THE SYNTHESIZED CNAMES.
BUT SINCE CNAMES HAVE A TTL OF ZERO, THERE SHOULD BE NO MEMORY ISSUES AT ALL.
THIS IS A DIAGRAM.
I'M NOT GOING TO WALK THROUGH THE DIAGRAM.
IT'S IN THE WHITE PAPER.
IF YOU WANT TO DOWNLOAD THE WHITE PAPER, IT IS AVAILABLE ON THE ICANN WEB SITE.
THE TECHNICAL ISSUES, I THINK, ARE PROBABLY FAIRLY EASY TO OVERCOME.
THE ISSUES ARE REALLY GOING TO BE AROUND THE POLICY AREAS.
THIS IS WHERE THE GNSO AND THE CCNSO CAN PLAY A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN HELPING INTERNATIONALIZED TLDS ROLL OUT.
SOME OF THE AREAS THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED AS CONCERNS ARE, WHAT IS THE SELECTION AND APPROVAL PROCESS FOR DNAME ENTRIES.
SHOULD A REGISTRY BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN EQUIVALENTS?
IS IT A COMMUNITY THAT HAS TO DO THAT?
WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF IRELAND TO THE CHINESE REPRESENTATION OF IRELAND IF THEY WANT TO HAVE A CHINESE IDN WITHIN IRELAND?
OR DOES CHINA HAVE THE RIGHTS TO THE CHINESE VERSION OF IRELAND, ET CETERA?
ARE THE EQUIVALENTS BASED UPON SYNONYMS, ARE THEY TRANSLATIONS, OR ARE THEY TRANSLITERATIONS?
AND ANY POLICY THAT IS PUT TOGETHER SHOULD ADDRESS TLD EQUIVALENT CONFLICT.
ONE TLD MAY WANT TO USE THE SAME REPRESENTATION IN A SCRIPT OR A LANGUAGE THAT ANOTHER TLD MAY WANT TO.
SO HOW DO WE PROCEED WITH HANDLING THOSE KINDS OF CONFLICTS?
ANOTHER AREA TO TALK ABOUT IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. I THINK THE DNAME MAY ACTUALLY REDUCE IP CONCERNS IN TERMS OF REPRESENTATION WITHIN A TLD. SINCE IT'S MAPPED, IT'S NOT A NEW DOMAIN SPACE, BUT WE CERTAINLY HAVE TO INVOLVE THE IP COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS COMMUNITIES EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION, THERE SHOULD BE NO ADDITIONAL ISSUES AROUND CYBERSQUATTING WITH THE USE OF DNAME, AGAIN SINCE IT MAPS.
BUT WE MAY NEED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE WITHIN THE EXAMPLE WHERE ALTERNATE ROOTS END UP USING THE SAME TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN REPRESENTATION IN SCRIPT THAT THE TLDS IN THE SINGLE ROOT WOULD LIKE TO USE AS WELL. SO THERE MAY BE A PROCESS WE HAVE TO ADDRESS FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION THERE. AND ALSO THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS, WOULD THEY WANT TO INFLUENCE THE SELECTION OF DNAME EQUIVALENTS? I THINK YES, SO HOW DO WE INVOLVE A GOVERNMENT AS WELL.
SO WHAT ARE THE DNAME BENEFITS? ENSURES DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXISTING TLDS AND LOCAL LANGUAGE REPRESENTATIONS. AGAIN, THAT DOESN'T PREVENT US FROM INTRODUCING NEW DOMAIN SPACE FOR NON-ASCII OR NON-LATIN BASED REPRESENTATIONS. IT ALSO HELPS US REDUCE END USER CONFUSION. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COULD OCCUR THAT I THINK ABOUT WITHIN THE .COM SPACE IS IF THERE IS A .COM REPRESENTATION THAT'S A TRANSLITERATION IN A MARKET THAT IS NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING THAT THE .COM COULD BE CONFUSING TO AN END USER WHEN THEY TYPE SOMETHING IN, AND THEY COULD ACTUALLY GO SOMEPLACE ELSE.
SO DNAME ACTUALLY LESSENS THAT BECAUSE IT MAPS IT INTO THE SAME .COM OR .DE OR .INFO SPACE.
WE ARE ABLE TO LEVERAGE EXISTING RESOURCES TODAY. THIS RFC IS PUBLISHED, IT'S OUT THERE, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON IT.
AND IT UNIFIES TLD EQUIVALENTS. SO BASICALLY THERE IS A MAPPING THAT SAYS THESE ARE THE WAYS THAT A TLD IS REPRESENTED IN LANGUAGE ACROSS MANY LANGUAGES OR SCRIPTS.
A QUESTION THAT CAME UP YESTERDAY IN THE PRE-MEETING WAS DOES THE MAPPING HAVE TO TAKE PLACE ON THE SERVER SIDE? DOES IT HAVE TO TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE DNS? AND THERE ARE PROPOSALS OUT THERE THAT SAY NO, THAT IT SHOULD TAKE OR COULD TAKE AND IT SHOULD TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE CLIENT.
THERE ARE ADVANTAGES TO THAT. I MEAN IT CERTAINLY ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR MAKING ANY MODIFICATIONS TO DNS. WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT LOADING THE ROOT SERVERS. BUT WHAT IT DOES DO IS IT REQUIRES ACTION FROM THE APPLICATION DEVELOPERS, AND I KNOW THAT MICHEL IS UP HERE ON THE BOARD AND WE CAN ASK HIM ABOUT THIS WHEN WHENEVER I HAVE TAKEN MICHEL TO IDN WORKSHOPS AROUND THE GLOBE HE BECOMES THE PINATA FOR WHY DOESN'T IE HAVE THIS CAPABILITY. SO I'M SURE -- I'M SPEAKING FOR YOU, MICHEL -- THAT HE WOULD SAY NO, LET'S NOT DO THAT. BUT IT ALSO MAY LIMIT THE FLEXIBILITY IN THE INTRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL MAPPINGS. THERE MAYBE THINGS WE WANT TO ACT UPON QUICKLY THAT I DON'T THINK WE WOULDN'T WANT TO MAKE THE APPLICATION DEVELOPERS RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING THAT AND CREATE NEW REVS OF SOFTWARE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
(APPLAUSE.).
>>CARY KARP: I THINK THAT THE FULL SPECTRUM OF APPROACHES TO THE BASIC PROBLEM HAS BEEN ILLUSTRATED HERE, AND JUST IN CASE THE TERM DNAME AS WAS USED IN THE LATTER PRESENTATION HAS CAUSED ANY CONFUSION, DNAME IS SOMETHING THAT WAS CONCEIVED, AND NOW I NEED TO HAVE THIS CONFIRMED, DNAME WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS CONCEIVED TO PROVIDE A MIGRATION PATH FOR AN ELABORATE SUBDOMAIN STRUCTURE MIGRATING AND ONE DOMAIN TO ANOTHER. AND IT'S AN APPLICABILITY TO ENABLE AN ENTIRE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN TO MAP INTO ANOTHER IS SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES TESTING. SO AS WE DISCUSS WAYS TO PROCEED, ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO CONSIDER IS WHETHER DNAME IN FACT WILL SERVE THE PURPOSE THAT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED IN THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION. OTHERS HAVE CLEARLY ARTICULATED THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE AND THAT'S SIMPLY THE ENTRY OF A PUNYCODE, TO USE THAT TERM, STRING INTO THE ROOT OF THE DNS.
SO WE ARE LOOKING AT TWO ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER AS -- IN COMPARISONS TO EACH OTHER AND INDIVIDUALLY. AND THE ONE WOULD PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR THE CREATION OF A NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN THAT MIGHT BE PROPOSED BY SOMEBODY WHO DOES NOT ALREADY OPERATE A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN; HOWEVER, IT IS A UNICODE STRING THAT IS THE DESIRED LABEL.
THE OTHER WOULD BE A SITUATION WHERE THE OPERATOR OF A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN WISHES TO MAP THAT DOMAIN INTO SOME OTHER SCRIPT EQUIVALENT, BE IT SYNONYMOUS OR TRANSLITERATED OR WHATEVER, OF THE OPERATOR'S ORIGINAL LABEL, AND IT'S ALSO CONCEIVABLE THAT AN OPERATOR OF A TLD MIGHT WISH TO HAVE AN IDN REPRESENTATION OF THAT LABEL BUT MAINTAIN TWO ENTIRELY SEPARATE ZONES FOR TWO ENTIRELY SEPARATE CLIENT BASES.
SO IF THERE'S ANYBODY ON THE PANEL WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT BRIEFLY ON THAT. PERHAPS IT MIGHT ALSO BE IN ORDER FOR US TO INTRODUCE THOSE OF THE PANELISTS WHO ARE NOT -- WHO HAVEN'T HELD PRESENTATIONS.
I SUPPOSE YOU KNOW WHO I AM. TO MY RIGHT IS -- OKAY. MICHAEL EVERSON, WHO IS -- HE CALLS HIMSELF THE TOKEN LINGUIST. I REGARD HIM AS THE LINGUIST SUPREME. HE, IN ANY CASE, IS THE ONE WHO IS PERPETUALLY NUDGING US INTO THE DIRECTION OF LINGUISTIC REALITY.
RAM HAS A MICROPHONE THERE. TELL THEM WHO YOU ARE.
>>RAM MOHAN: RAM MOHAN, THE CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER FOR AFILIAS, AND VERY INTERESTED AND INVOLVED IN THE IDN AREA FOR A WHILE.
>>CARY KARP: AND MICHEL.
>>MICHEL SUIGNARD: MY NAME IS MICHEL SUIGNARD. I WORK AS A SENIOR PROGRAM MANAGER AT MICROSOFT, ALSO THE ISO 10606 PROJECT EDITOR. AND ISO10606 IS BASICALLY THE ISO SIDE OF UNICODE, SO WE GET INVOLVED IN THAT. AS WELL, I AM A UNICODE CONSORTIUM TECHNICAL DIRECTOR SO I CAN TALK ON BEHALF OF UNICODE, IF NEEDS BE.
>>CARY KARP: OKAY. NOW, IF -- AGAIN, THE APPROACHES THAT HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED IN THE VARIOUS PRESENTATIONS CAN ALSO BE SEEN AS BEING STANDARDS BASED. THERE IS A RIGOROUS FORMALISM THAT LEADS TO HAVING A STRING ENTERED INTO THE ROOT OF THE DNS. THE CREATION, IF YOU WILL, OF A NEW TLD. AND THERE ARE ANY NUMBER OF REASONS FOR WISHING THAT PROCESS TO BE EXPEDITED AT A GREATER RATE, A FASTER RATE THAN IT IN FACT CAN BE.
AND THERE ARE ALTERNATE APPROACHES. THERE ARE NONSTANDARDS BASED ALTERNATIVES TO ENTERING A NEW STRING IN THE -- I HESITATE TO USE THE TERM, BUT THE ESTABLISHED SINGLE ROOT SERVERS.
AND ONE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF ADOPTING A LOCAL APPROACH IS THAT IT TENDS TO ISOLATE THE COMMUNITY THAT'S BEING VERY WELL SERVED AS A SEPARATE COMMUNITY FROM THE BROADER GLOBAL COMMUNITY. AND THERE ARE PROBABLY AN INFINITE NUMBER OF THINGS TO BE SAID ABOUT THE RELATIVE MERITS OF BEING A MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY OR BETTER SERVING A LOCAL CONSTITUENCY. AND I THINK THAT ALSO HAS TO BE DISCUSSED RATHER THOROUGHLY BEFORE WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHERE TO GO NEXT, WHAT TO DO NEXT.
OKAY.
>>RAM MOHAN: I HAD A COUPLE OF CLARIFICATIONS THAT I WANTED TO BRING ACROSS HERE BEFORE WE GOT INTO ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS.
I HEARD -- IN SOME OF THE PRESENTATIONS I HEARD CERTAIN TERMS BEING USED, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ALL UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY MEAN.
ONE OF THE PRESENTERS SAID THAT RESOLUTION OF IDNS CAN BE DONE ONE OF TWO WAYS, EITHER IN A PLUG-IN OR IN A BROWSER.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, RESOLUTION IS DONE AT THE NETWORK LAYER. IT'S A DNS ISSUE. AND IT TYPICALLY MEANS HERE IS A NAME, GIVE ME AN IP BACK FOR IT.
AND THAT'S NOT WHAT A PLUG-IN OR A BROWSER ACTUALLY DOES.
SO I WANT TO KEEP THAT -- LET'S TRY AND NOT USE THE WORD "RESOLUTION" WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TRANSLATION OFF A PARTICULAR REPRESENTATION. HOW IT LOOKS ON YOUR SCREEN, TRANSLATING THAT INTO SOMETHING THAT CAN BE SENT ACROSS ON THE DNS.
OKAY? SO THAT'S THE FIRST THING.
THE SECOND THING THAT I'M VERY CONFUSED ABOUT IS I HEARD VARIOUS FOLKS TALKING ABOUT MONO IDNS, POLY IDNS, HYBRID IDNS, FULL IDNS. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IDN TLD. THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG THINGS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. AND WHETHER -- I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY WE NEED TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN MULTIPLE LABELS, WHETHER THE LABELS ARE IN ASCII OR IN IDN, BECAUSE THE REAL FOCUS HERE, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IS ON IDN AT THE TLD LEVEL.
SO IT'S .IDN, RATHER THAN ASCII.IDN OR IDN.IDN.
>>CARY KARP: ANY OTHER OF THE PANELISTS WANT TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO SET UP MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE WITH THE HOUSE?
>>S. SUBBIAH: I CAN RESPOND TO THAT. IT WAS MY TALK THAT RAM WAS POINTING OUT. IT IS TRUE, THE RESOLUTION IS NOT ACTUALLY HAPPENING AT THE (INAUDIBLE) LEVEL IN THIS CASE. BUT WHAT I MEANT TO SAY IS ACTUALLY SOFTWARE HAS TO BE INTRODUCED, AND EITHER IT'S GOING TO BE AT THE PLUG-IN LEVEL OR AT THE ISP LEVEL. AND THOSE ARE THE TWO CHOICES GOING FORWARD. IT'S LOOSE LANGUAGE. THAT'S ONE.
SECONDLY, THE REASON WHY, I THINK, PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT HYBRID AND FULL AND SO ON, I THINK IT'S PARTLY BECAUSE WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE IDNS TLD AT THE END, AND WE ARE GRATEFUL TO BE HERE TO TALK ABOUT IT, BUT WE'LL BE POINTING OUT AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, AND PERHAPS ALSO AL-ZOMAN, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE HISTORY OF WHAT HAPPENED SO FAR. SO IN THAT CONTEXT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE HYBRID AND THE FULL. AND IN TERMS OF POLY, WHICH I THINK IS REALLY, IN MY MIND IS GOING BEYOND ENGLISH, DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF IT, DIFFERENT LANGUAGES ALTOGETHER, THAT'S UP FOR DEBATE.
PERSONALLY, FOR MYSELF, I THINK RIGHT FROM DAY ONE WHEN WE CONCEIVED ABOUT THIS OR THOUGHT ABOUT THIS IN '97 OR '98 AND SO ON, WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT THAT EVERY DOMAIN NAME SHOULD REALLY BE IN ONE LANGUAGE, BOTH THE TLD SIDE, IF YOU CHOSE RUSSIAN, THEN, WELL, DOT CYRILLIC, AND IN FRONT OF IT WILL ALSO BE CYRILLIC. THAT MEANS IT WILL ALL BE COHESIVELY THE SAME IN LANGUAGE. IT WAS NEVER THOUGHT IN ANY OTHER REAL DIRECTION. I THINK IT WILL BE PREFERABLE FOR LANGUAGE COMMUNITIES. AND I THINK IT'S TRUE. AND IT ALSO LESSENS THE HOMOGRAPHIC ISSUE A LOT CONSIDERABLY WHEN YOU STICK TO JUST THE SAME LANGUAGE ON BOTH SIDES, AND THE SPOOFING ISSUE BECOMES A LOT LESS.
>>CARY KARP: VINT.
>>VINT CERF: FIRST OF ALL, I FOUND THESE PRESENTATIONS VERY HELPFUL, SO I WANT TO THANK THE PRESENTERS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO PREPARE THEM AND TO DELIVER THEM.
IT OCCURS TO ME THAT WE COULD EASILY LIMIT OUR THINKING ACCIDENTALLY GIVEN THE VARIOUS EXAMPLES THAT WERE PUT UP ON THE SCREEN BEFORE US AND NOT RECOGNIZE THAT THINGS ARE MORE COMPLICATED THAN THEY SEEM.
I HOPE YOU DON'T MISUNDERSTAND THE SUDDEN REEMERGENCE OF THE SKEPTIC, BUT WHAT I AM GOING TO SUGGEST TO YOU IS THAT EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF DOMAIN NAMES THAT ARE DRAWN STRICTLY FROM A SINGLE SCRIPT, THAT THE WAY IN WHICH WE USE DOMAIN NAMES CAN EASILY PLUNGE US INTO A POLY IDN KIND OF ENVIRONMENT. I'M NOT SURE I'M USING THAT WORD CORRECTLY.
WHAT I MEAN IS A SERIES OF DIFFERENT DOMAIN NAMES, EACH OF WHICH MIGHT BE DRAWN FROM A DISTINCT SCRIPT. IT CAN HAPPEN IF WE'RE HAVING MULTI-LINGUAL INTERACTIONS IN E-MAIL WHERE THE DISTRIBUTION LISTS ARE DRAWN FROM E-MAIL ADDRESSES THAT HAVE -- THAT ARE MADE UP OF SCRIPTS FROM DIFFERENT LANGUAGES.
AND IF I'M DESTROYING THE TERMINOLOGY HERE, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
BUT WE KNOW TODAY THAT WE INTERACT WITH PARTIES FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD. SO IT'S EASY TO IMAGINE A SITUATION WHERE WE NEED TO INTERACT WITH PARTIES WHOSE DOMAIN NAMES WE NEED TO KNOW. AND WHAT I -- I THINK WE NEED TO REMIND OURSELVES OF WHEN WE DO THE CASE ANALYSIS IS THAT EVEN IF WE SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF GETTING THE DOMAIN NAME TO WORK WHEN IT'S ALL ARABIC OR ALL RUSSIAN OR ALL URDU OR ALL TAMIL, IS THAT WE MAY STILL FIND -- OUR SOFTWARE MAY STILL BE CONFRONTED WITH AN INSTANCE WHERE E-MAIL COMES FROM MULTIPLE PARTIES AND THEY EACH REPRESENTED THEIR E-MAIL ADDRESSES IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES.
SO YOU COULD SAY, WELL, LET'S RULE THAT OUT, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SCENARIO OF USE THAT WE TEST OUR SOLUTION AGAINST IS REALISTIC.
THE SECOND OBSERVATION I'D MAKE IS THAT WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL NOT TO IMAGINE THAT THE SOLUTION -- SORRY, THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE DOMAIN NAME, EVEN IF IT'S ALL FROM ONE UNIFORM SCRIPT, IS SOLELY TO REFER TO A DOMAIN NAME IN A WEB ENVIRONMENT.
SO SOME OF THE EXAMPLES THAT PEOPLE THINK OF WHEN THEY LISTEN TO IDN PRESENTATIONS IS, OH, YEAH, I'M CLICKING ON A URL, AND IT ALL MAKES SENSE BECAUSE I CAN SEE IT IN THIS ONE SCRIPT.
THAT'S NOT THE ONLY APPLICATION IN WHICH DOMAIN NAMES MAY SHOW UP.
SO ONE OF THE TESTS THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO APPLY IN ANALYZING THE VARIOUS CHOICES THAT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED IS TO ASK FOR WHICH SCENARIOS WILL THESE SOLUTIONS WORK WELL AND COMFORTABLY, AND FOR WHICH SCENARIOS WILL THEY NOT? THAT MIGHT HELP GUIDE US AS TO WHICH ONES WE IMPLEMENT FIRST, WHICH ONES WE DO THE MOST, PROVIDE THE MOST BENEFIT. BUT I THINK WE ALSO WILL HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES AND WHAT KINDS OF SURPRISES WILL USERS ENCOUNTER WHEN SOME OF THESE THINGS APPEAR UNEXPECTEDLY IN SCENARIOS THAT WERE NOT GUIDING THE INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION.
THIS IS NOT ARGUING THAT WE SHOULDN'T DO ANYTHING. IT'S JUST IF WE DO SOMETHING, WE SHOULD BE AS AWARE AS POSSIBLE OF WHAT THE VARIOUS SIDE EFFECTS COULD BE.
>>CARY KARP: MICHAEL.
>>MICHAEL EVERSON: YEAH, I'M -- I'M NOT SURE. I WAS THINKING THAT -- I WAS WONDERING IF EVERYONE HERE UNDERSTOOD THE JUSTIFICATION FOR HAVING FULL IDN IN AN ENTIRE URL OR ENTIRE LOCATOR.
IDN IN A SINGLE SCRIPT.
I WAS SORT OF -- I WAS SORT OF PUT OFF BY YOUR -- THE TWO OF YOU HAD DISTINCTIONS, ONE CALLED A POLY IDN AND MONO IDN AND THE OTHER WAS IDN.ASCII AND THEN IDN.IDN.
AND I THINK WE'RE PAST THAT NOW. I THINK ICANN, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND, ESPECIALLY FROM THE PRE-WORKSHOP MEETING WE HAD YESTERDAY, WE ALL REALLY DO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THAT WE HAVE IDN THROUGH THE WHOLE THING. SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY USEFUL TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN POLY IDN AND MONO IDN, I MEAN TO USE THESE TERMS.
I THINK IN MY OWN OPINION THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RIGHT-TO-LEFT SCRIPTS, WHICH WOULD BE ARABIC, HEBREW, A WEST AFRICAN SCRIPT, CHIEFLY FOR MODERN USES IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL BECAUSE IF YOU, AS I HAVE, IF YOU ACTUALLY TRY TO TYPE THESE THINGS IN, IT GOES IN ALL SORTS OF DIRECTIONS AND IT'S JUST A NIGHTMARE AND IT MUST BE REALLY, REALLY HARD FOR THE USERS.
BUT I THINK THAT WE HAVE COME TO -- THIS IS MY SECOND OF THESE MEETINGS WHERE WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IDN. I WAS IN LUXEMBOURG AS WELL. AND I HAVE SEEN A VERY DEFINITE MOVEMENT OF THIS ORGANIZATION TOWARD THE DIRECTION THAT WE NEED TO GET TO, AND I THINK THAT THINGS ARE WELL IN HAND.
I JUST WANTED TO SORT OF SAY THAT.
>>ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN: YEAH. JUST BECAUSE -- WHY WE INTRODUCE THESE TWO TERMS. JUST BECAUSE WE PROVIDED OR PARTICIPATED IN THE WORKSHOP IN KUALA LUMPUR ABOUT ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES, AND WE WERE FOLLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT OF IDN IN ICANN, AND WE SEE THE VERSION 2 OF IDN GUIDELINES, AND STILL THEY ARE ONLY PUSHING FOR IDN DOT ENGLISH, IF YOU WISH. AND THAT'S WHY WE WANTED TO CLARIFY, THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE WANT IS IDN.IDN. AND TO NOT LET PEOPLE BE CONFUSED, WHEN I SAY IDN.IDN, IT COULD BE LIKE ANY LANGUAGES.
WHAT WE WANT ACTUALLY IS ONE LANGUAGE TO ONE LANGUAGE. LIKE ARABIC.ARABIC, THE SAME THING. THAT'S WHAT WE WANT.
>>CARY KARP: VINT'S HAND WAS UP FIRST BUT MICHAEL WANTS TO EXCHANGE. OKAY.
>>MICHAEL EVERSON: THE BIG DEAL ABOUT THE 2.0 REVISION WAS THAT IT, FOR THE FIRST TIME, INTRODUCED THE CONCEPT OF SCRIPT INTO THE WHOLE THING. WITHOUT HAVING DONE THAT, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO MOVE ON TO TLD TO IDN. SO I MEAN THAT'S WHY IT WAS -- WE ARE ALL AWARE THAT IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO GET TO WHERE WE NEED TO GET, BUT IT IS THE STEP WE NEEDED TO BE IN ORDER TO GET THERE.
>>CARY KARP: AND THERE, IN FACT, IS EXPLICIT REFERENCE IN THAT DOCUMENT FOR THE NEED TO DO EXACTLY THIS. SO THERE ARE NO GUIDELINES ABOUT HOW TO DO IT, BUT THE NEED IS, I THINK -- OR AT LEAST IT WAS OUR INTENTION, CLEARLY, TO INDICATE THAT.
VINT.
>>VINT CERF: SO LET ME ALSO SAY THAT I AM VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT IF I AM USING A PARTICULAR LANGUAGE AND I WANT TO CONTINUE USING THAT IN MY INTERACTIONS WITH THE NET THAT IT'S QUITE UNDERSTANDABLE THAT I WOULD WANT THAT SAME -- LET ME SAY SCRIPT INSTEAD OF LANGUAGE FOR JUST A MOMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO USE THE SAME SCRIPT ESSENTIALLY THROUGHOUT MY INTERACTION, INCLUDING ALL THE PARTS, ALL THE LABELS OF A DOMAIN NAME, INCLUDING THE TOP LEVEL.
PART OF THE REASON THAT YOU ENDED UP WITH THAT ODD HYBRID WHERE THERE WAS LIMITED ASCII AT THE TOP LEVEL HAD TO DO WITH THE OTHER SIDE EFFECT OF PUTTING IN A FULL IDN ELEMENT AT THE TOP LEVEL, AND THAT WAS THE POTENTIAL CREATION OF ANOTHER TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN.
WHAT WE ALL KNOW IS THE CREATION OF DOMAINS IS TURNING OUT TO BE HARDER THAN I CERTAINLY THOUGHT. THERE'S A LOT OF ELEMENT OF ANALYSIS AND SOMETIMES CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH CREATING NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.
THE DNAME IDEA MIGHT ESCAPE SOME OF THAT DIFFICULTY, BUT IN THE LONG RUN I ANTICIPATE THAT THE CREATION OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS WILL STILL REQUIRE THE EXERCISE OF A FAIR AMOUNT OF MACHINERY.
I THINK LOOKING BACK ON IT, THE IDEA THAT WE COULD USE EVEN A SINGLE SERIES OF -- SINGLE SCRIPT UP TO BUT NOT INCLUDING THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN WAS A VERY WEAK DIRECTION TO GO IN FROM THE STANDPOINT OF USER INTERFACE AND SIMPLICITY.
SO ALTHOUGH THAT WAS DICTATED BY A CONCERN OVER THE POLICY FOR THE CREATION OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, I THINK WE HAVE GOTTEN PAST THAT. I HAVE ANYWAY.
I HAVEN'T GOT PAST FIGURING OUT WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES TO CREATE NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. AND I THINK IT'S VERY HELPFUL TO LOOK AT THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES THAT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED TO FIND LIMITS TO THE INSTANTANEOUS CREATION OF LARGE NUMBERS OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. TO BE UTTERLY TRIVIAL AND SILLY ABOUT IT IF WE TOOK ALL 250 OF THE EXISTING TLDS AND WE HAD TO CREATE IN 20 DIFFERENT LANGUAGES REPLICAS OF ALL OF THEM, WE WOULD BE CREATING A THOUSAND TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS MINUS THE ONES THAT ALREADY EXIST.
THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE -- OH, I'M SORRY. IT'S EVEN WORSE THAN THAT. IT WOULD BE 5,000 OF THEM.
THAT WOULD BE A HUGE POTENTIAL WORKLOAD AND MANAGEMENT PROBLEM FOR ICANN.
NO ONE IS PROPOSING THAT. AND I AM USING THIS AS AN EXTREME EXAMPLE OF WHERE WE DON'T WANT TO END UP BY ACCIDENT.
SO THE POLICY MECHANISM FOR CREATING NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS IS ONE OF THE PROBLEM CHILD, PROBLEM AREAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS THAT USE IDNS.
AND WE NEED TO WORK ON THAT PROBLEM AS WELL.
THAT LEADS TO ME SUGGEST THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN A PATH OF INVENTING TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS IN IDN FORMATS THAT WE SHOULD DO SO IN A REASONABLY LIMITED FASHION INITIALLY, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE STILL NOT SURE WHAT ALL THE DETAILS ARE OF GENERAL CREATION OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. MAYBE WE CAN HAVE THE RULE THAT ALLOWS US TO DO SOME OF THEM AS PART OF A CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT.
>>CARY KARP: I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP FOR THE FLOOR IN A MOMENT BUT I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, VINT, ACTUALLY.
THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO THINGS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED. THE ONE IS ACTION THAT WILL REQUIRE THE CREATION OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, HOWEVER THAT MECHANISM MIGHT BE INVOKED. AND THE OTHER IS DOING THINGS THAT MAKE IT SEEM AS THOUGH A NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN HAS BEEN CREATED.
AND WHERE ON THE SCALE OF SINFULNESS IS DOING THAT? IS ART IN SOLVING THE PROBLEM A LEGITIMATE APPROACH?
>>VINT CERF: ARE YOU ASKING THE INTERNET EVANGELIST TO RULE ON THE QUESTION OF SIN?
(LAUGHTER.)
>>CARY KARP: YES.
>>VINT CERF: I SEE. I DON'T HAVE MY ECCLESIASTICAL ROBES ON SO I'M NOT SURE I CAN RESPOND.
IF WE AVOID THE LITERAL CREATION OF A NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN, THEN IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU AVOID WHATEVER ALL THE POLICIES AND MECHANICS AND EVERYTHING ELSE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
WHAT I DON'T KNOW IS WHETHER THE SOLUTIONS SUGGESTED FOR THAT PURPOSE, LIKE THE DNAME CASE, INTRODUCE OTHER PROBLEMS THAT I DON'T -- IT'S THE FIRST TIME I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR WAY OF USING DNAME. SO I HAVEN'T THOUGHT THROUGH, IN MY OWN HEAD, THE VARIOUS SCENARIOS IN WHICH THESE OBJECTS MAY APPEAR AND THEN WE INTERACT WITH THEM.
BUT IF WE AVOID THE PROBLEM OF CREATING NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS LITERALLY, THAT IS TO SAY PUTTING NEW THINGS IN THE ROOM, THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY MAKE THINGS EASIER. I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO BE MISUNDERSTOOD AS ARGUING THEREFORE, WE SHOULDN'T TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE OTHER SOLUTIONS, BUT IT MIGHT MAKE THINGS EASIER TO DO AS AN INITIAL STEP.
>>CARY KARP: ARE THERE ANY SPECIFIC COMMENTS FROM THE PANEL ON ANY OF THIS OR IS IT TIME NOW TO OPEN THE MIKE?
OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE. I MIGHT AS WELL DO A SPEAKER LIST. RAM WANTS TO MAKE A FINAL REMARK. ANYBODY ELSE?
OKAY, RAM.
>>RAM MOHAN: I GUESS ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE IS I DON'T READ CHINESE BUT WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD IS THAT .COM AND .NET IS AVAILABLE IN THE CHINESE REPRESENTATION AND IT'S AVAILABLE NOT ONLY IN A TEST BED BUT IS AVAILABLE FOR SALE.
AND SO I'M NOT SO SURE THAT THERE ISN'T ACTUALLY AN IMPLIED UNDERLYING THING HERE FOR IDN TLD. YOU KNOW, TLD MULTIPLIED BY NUMBER OF SCRIPTS THAT WE WANT IT REPRESENTED IN. BECAUSE WHAT SEEMS TO BE HAPPENING IS SOME PROCESS BY WHICH SOME TLDS ARE ALREADY BEING OFFERED IN VARIOUS SCRIPTS AND LANGUAGES AROUND THE WORLD TODAY.
SO I'M NOT SO SURE THAT I -- THE PREMISE THAT THERE IS NOT A PROPOSAL FOR IDN TLD IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES IS NOT ALREADY HERE, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION IS ALREADY MOVING THAT DIRECTION.
>>CARY KARP: ALL RIGHT.
YOU, INDEED, DO HAVE FIRST DIBS AT THE MICROPHONE.
STEP UP TO IT, PLEASE.
FOR THE TRANSCRIPTION, PLEASE ALSO STATE YOUR NAME, AND JUST QUEUE UP BEHIND THE MICROPHONE.
THERE IS NO SPEAKERS' LIST OTHER THAN IS IMPLICIT IN THE ORDER IN WHICH YOU FIGHT FOR TERRITORY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE AISLE HERE.
BILL MANNING.
>>PAT KANE: IF I CAN JUST SAY ONE THING QUICKLY.
COM AND NET DOES REGISTER SIMPLIFIED CHINESE NAMES TODAY AND WE'RE NO LONGER IN A TEST BED.
>>RAM MOHAN: I'M SORRY.
I WAS TALKING ABOUT DOT COM AND DOT NET, NOT IDN.COM AND IDN.NET, BUT DOT COM AS IT'S AVAILABLE TODAY IN A CHINESE REPRESENTATION.
>>PAT KANE: OKAY.
>>MATT HOOKER: HI, I'M MATT HOOKER.
AND I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE.
IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE THAT CERTAIN NATIONS OR COUNTRIES MAY ACTUALLY CONSIDER STARTING THEIR OWN INTERNET UNLESS WE INTRODUCE A FULL RANGE OF THE UNICODE CHARACTER SET INTO THE ROOT SYSTEM, IN MY OPINION.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FACING.
AND THAT WOULD BE DISASTROUS, I THINK.
THE PROMISE OF THE INTERNET IS THAT EVERY PERSON, EVERY INDIVIDUAL ON THE PLANET CAN COMMUNICATE WITH EVERY OTHER INDIVIDUAL ON THE PLANET EFFORTLESSLY, QUICKLY, AND FREE OR AS CLOSE TO FREE AS POSSIBLE.
AND IT'S A BEAUTIFUL THING THAT COULD BRING THE ENTIRE PLANET TOGETHER.
SO I WOULD URGE THE BOARD OF ICANN TO CONTINUE AND, IN FACT, INCREASE THE RAPIDITY WITH WHICH IT WILL INTRODUCE A PUNYCODE OR UNICODE CHARACTER SET INTO THE ROOT SERVERS.
I THINK THAT'S THE PROPER SOLUTION.
AND, OF COURSE, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME HOMOGRAPHIC ATTACKS AND THAT KIND OF THING.
BUT THESE ARE RELATIVELY WELL MORE OR LESS KNOWN AND WE CAN FOCUS EFFORTS ON DIMINISHING THEIR IMPACT OR ON KNOWING WHERE THESE KINDS OF ATTACKS MAY HAPPEN.
AND I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST SOMETHING THAT HAS GREATER RELEVANCE WHICH I HAVE BEEN SUGGESTING TO THE ICANN COMMUNITY AND BOARD SINCE 1998 OR '99.
AND THAT IS TO CONSIDER -- I THINK JON POSTEL HAD IT RIGHT.
THERE SHOULD BE EITHER DOT NOTHING, YOU KNOW, NO DIFFERENTIATIONS, OR AN INFINITE NUMBER.
AND I'M, OF COURSE, IN FAVOR OF THE HAVING NO DOT COM, DOT NET.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO BACK AND ERASE THESE THINGS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THE FULL INTERNATIONAL UNICODE CHARACTER SET OF EVERY LANGUAGE, EVERY WRITTEN LANGUAGE, WE CAN'T DEAL WITH SPOKEN LANGUAGES, JUST WRITTEN LANGUAGES, THEN WE COULD JUST HAVE THE CHARACTER STRING IN WHATEVER LANGUAGE IT IS BE THE DOMAIN ITSELF, WITHOUT A DOT ANYTHING.
AND THAT WOULD RESOLVE A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU'RE NOW SUGGESTING.
IF YOU REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT IT -- I KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF RESISTANCE TO THIS, AS THERE ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
BUT THAT'S THE POINT I WISH TO MAKE.
AND EVEN IF THAT -- THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE YEARS TO FIGURE OUT THAT ONE.
I UNDERSTAND.
BUT REGARDLESS OF THAT ISSUE, LET'S PLEASE GET THE INTERNATIONAL CHARACTER -- UNICODE CHARACTER SET IN THE ROOT SYSTEM.
I THINK SO THAT PEOPLE IN CHINA, IN JAPAN, IN THE COUNTRIES WHERE THEY SPEAK ARABIC, THEY DO NOT SEPARATE AND START THEIR OWN LITTLE INTERNETS, WHICH IS BEING THREATENED, I BELIEVE.
THANK YOU.
>>CARY KARP: BEFORE YOU LEAVE THE MICROPHONE, TO CLARIFY THIS, DO YOU REALLY MEAN THE ENTIRE UNICODE CHARACTER SET OR DO YOU MEAN THAT SEGMENT OF THE CHARACTER SET THAT IS NECESSARY TO REPRESENT WRITTEN LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD?
>>MATT HOOKER: THAT SEGMENT OF THE CHARACTER SET WHICH IS NECESSARY TO REPRESENT THE WRITTEN LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD.
AND OF COURSE IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE FROM AN EIGHT-BIT SYSTEM TO A 32-BIT OR 64-BIT SYSTEM.
AND, YOU KNOW, THIS MAY TAKE YEARS TO DO.
BUT WE HAVE TO GET GOING ON IT.
>>CARY KARP: OKAY.
DO ANY OF THE PANELISTS WANT TO RESPOND BRIEFLY TO THIS?
>>PAT KANE: ANOTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO SUGGEST IS THAT WE DID A FOCUS STUDY GROUP KOREA.
AND THE CONTEMPORANEOUS, WE GAVE THEM SOME OPTIONS AROUND HANGUL.HANGUL DOMAIN NAMES AND WE WERE COMPLETELY LAUGHED OUT OF THE STUDY GROUP FOR THAT PARTICULAR REASON.
THEY SAID WE DON'T NEED A DOT HANGUL.
IN KOREAN THERE IS A PRODUCT CALLED DOT HANGUL DOMAIN NAMES THAT THEY HAVE DONE A VERY GOOD WAY OF MARKETING.
AND THE END USERS BELIEVE IT IS A KEY WORD SYSTEM BUT IT'S JUST THAT WAY THIS THEY EXPERIENCED IN JUST THE NAME.
AND SO IT WAS VERY -- IT'S FUNNY THAT YOU SUGGEST THAT, BECAUSE WE DID GET LAUGHED OUT OF THE ROOM.
>>MATT HOOKER: I MIGHT NOT HAVE MADE MYSELF CLEAR.
I'M SUGGESTING THE UNICODE THAT REPRESENTS THE WRITTEN LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD BEFORE THE DOT, NOT AFTER THE DOT.
AND THEN I'M FURTHER SUGGESTING THAT WE COME UP WITH A NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN WHICH IS NO TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN AT ALL.
AND THAT REQUIRES A LOT OF CONSIDERATION.
BUT THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME.
>>CARY KARP: YOU ALWAYS GET PRIORITY.
OKAY.
>>VINT CERF: I'M SORRY.
I SHOULD NOT.
I'LL YIELD --
>>CARY KARP: INDEED, INDEED.
>>VINT CERF: I JUST WANT TO OBSERVE THAT I THINK THAT SUGGESTION IS THE MORAL EQUIVALENT OF AN ENTIRELY FLAT DOMAIN NAME SPACE, WRITTEN ENTIRELY IN UNICODE.
I THINK WE'D HAVE TO DO SOME SERIOUS HOMEWORK TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO IMPLEMENT SUCH A SYSTEM.
>>S. SUBBIAH: I WOULD -- I WAS GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT TO THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER'S COMMENTS, NOT ABOUT THE TECHNICAL ASPECT OF THE SOLUTION, BUT SORT OF THE GLOBAL STATEMENT THAT HE MADE ABOUT THE WORLD SHOULD BE A BEAUTIFUL PLACE.
NOW, WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT IT WAS VERY, VERY CLEAR -- AND I'LL BE VERY FRANK.
BACK IN '98, '99, WHEN WE THOUGHT OF THIS, HOW TO DO THIS, WE NEEDED MONEY.
WE WENT TO VCS, SAID WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS IN ASIA.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO TELL A VENTURE CAPITALIST THAT YOU WANT X MILLION DOLLARS TO DO THAT.
BUT YOU WANT TO CREATE THIS, YOU WANT THE UNITED NATIONS, PEOPLE WANT THEIR LANGUAGES, BUT HAS THERE BEEN PROGRESS.
WHEN WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT FIRST, WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT, BALKANIZATION OF THE INTERNET.
THAT MIGHT HAPPEN, BECAUSE DIFFERENT GROUPS, THERE WAS NO CLEAR ORGANIZATION, IT WAS VERY CLEAR IN '97/'98, THAT WAS ONE REASON NOT TO RAISE MONEY, JUST LET THE WORLD DO IT WHENEVER THEY FELT LIKE IT.
WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT VERY CLEARLY AND SAID, OKAY, BUT LET'S SEE WHAT'S HAPPENED SINCE THEN, SEVEN, EIGHT YEARS, AND PEOPLE -- THE REASON I ENDED UP FOCUSING ON HYBRID IDNS INSTEAD OF FULL IDNS IS BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT'S HAPPENED.
DURING THIS PERIOD -- WE CAN TALK ABOUT ALL THE NEGATIVE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TRY AND DO THINGS IN THE FUTURE AND ALL THAT. BUT THERE HAVE BEEN POSITIVE THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED.
THE WORLD HAS BECOME A MORE IMPORTANT PLACE.
I REMEMBER WHEN MINC GOT STARTED, AND SOON AFTER THAT WE HAD CDNC -- I BELIEVE THERE WERE INSTANCE WHEN THE CHINESE AND THE TAIWANESE COULDN'T WORK.
BUT NOW THEY GOT TOGETHER AND TODAY THEY'RE PRESENTING.
AFTER THAT WAS CJK, THAT WAS THE MODEL FOR IDN, CHINESE, JAPANESE, KOREAN.
AND THAT THEY WERE VERY -- THAT HAS WORKED OUT NOW.
THEY HAVE WORKED OUT A DEAL BETWEEN THEMSELVES.
SO GROUPS ARE WORKING OUT.
IT'S NOT TOTALLY ABOUT THIS -- GROUPS GETTING TOGETHER.
THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY.
>>CARY KARP: RAM.
>>RAM MOHAN: MICHAEL AND I WERE JUST CHATTING.
I THINK IT'S A REAL FOLLY TO SUGGEST THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERY WRITTEN LANGUAGE IN THE WORLD HAS TO BE THERE.
YOU KNOW, I AM NOT SO SURE THAT WE WANT TO NECESSARILY REPRESENT HIEROGLYPHICS WITH ALL THE SPECIAL CHARACTERS THAT ARE THERE.
SO IT'S JUST A BAD IDEA.
>>BILL MANNING: THREE OR FOUR POINTS.
>>CARY KARP: YOUR NAME.
>>BILL MANNING: OH, MY NAME -- IN WHICH LANGUAGE?
(LAUGHTER.)
>>BILL MANNING: BILL MANNING.
I'M NOT ALWAYS SURE SOMETIMES.
FIRST OF ALL, PAT, I'D LIKE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DNAME THING.
I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT VERISIGN PUT THE WHITE PAPER TOGETHER.
A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ABOUT DNAME.
IT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED FOR EASILY RENUMBERING AN IPV6 SPACE SO YOU COULD HAVE, ESSENTIALLY, THE LOWER PART OF YOUR SPACE BE THE SAME AND YOU JUST RENUMBER YOUR PROVIDER.
WE'VE USED IT IN RENUMBERING FROM ONE IPV6 SPACE TO ANOTHER, IPV6.INT, DOT ARPA.
THAT'S BEEN ONGOING FOR SEVERAL YEARS.
AND IN 2001, IN AT LEAST ONE OF THE TEST BEDS I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH, WE DID THE DNAME EXPERIMENT WITH THE JAPANESE.
AND THAT -- SO IT'S BEEN KNOWN TO WORK AND THERE HAVE BEEN FAIRLY LONGSTANDING TESTS RUNNING WITH DNAME.
SO IT WORKS WELL.
TWO, AS SOON AS YOU START ENCODING OR ALLOWING MULTIPLE ENCODINGS, THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT -- THERE ARE NO DNS POLICE THAT ARE GOING TO COME STOP ME FROM DOING PER-LABEL ENCODING.
THIS IS WHAT SOME PEOPLE CALL POLY WHATEVER IT IS, POLYMULTILINGUAL.
SO I CAN HAVE ONE PART OF MY LABEL BE ASCII, I CAN HAVE ONE PART OF MY LABEL BE BIG5, I COULD HAVE ANOTHER PART OF MY LABEL BE UNICODE WITH A 16-BIT AND ANOTHER ONE BE UNICODE 32.
AND IF I START MIXING THOSE AND I EXPECT ONE TO BE CHINESE, ONE TO BE ARABIC, ANOTHER ONE TO BE ROMAN, YOU CAN'T STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING ONCE YOU START -- ONCE YOU OPEN IT UP.
BECAUSE THERE ARE NO POLICE TO PREVENT THAT.
HANG ON A SECOND.
NUMBER THREE HERE IS THAT THERE WAS A GOOFY IDEA THAT I BLAME CHUCK FOR, WHO WILL SPEAK SHORTLY AFTER THIS.
AND ONE OF THE AIDS TO SORT OF UNIVERSAL UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE IS A COMMON BASE, A SIMPLE, COMMON BASE, AND FOR MANY YEARS, ASCII WAS IT.
SINCE THERE ARE SOME PROBLEMS WITH THIS, PERHAPS WE SHOULD JUST PUT ALL OF THE DOMAIN NAMES OR THE DOMAIN LABELS AS HEX CHARACTERS AND FORCE EVERYONE TO LEARN HEX.
LANGUAGES EVOLVE.
AND SO ONCE YOU -- AND, RAM, THIS TALKS TO YOUR POINT THAT YOU AND MICHAEL WERE TALKING ABOUT, IS THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO START RESTRICTING WHAT IS ALLOWED, THEN YOU HAVE A BODY THAT DETERMINES WHAT IS A LEGITIMATE LANGUAGE AND YOU WILL HAVE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE DISENFRANCHISED AND WILL GO CREATE THEIR OWN.
SO THOSE ARE MY THREE POINTS.
THANK YOU.
OH, MICHAEL, YOU WANTED TO THROW DARTS.
>>MICHAEL EVERSON: YEAH.
I MEAN, UTF-8 AND 16 ARE ENCODING FORMS OF UNICODE AND THEY ARE ENTIRELY EQUIVALENT.
SO IT SHOULDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER.
AS LONG AS YOUR PARSER IS UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS UTF TEXT AND THAT IT CAN DETERMINE WHAT THE ENCODING FORM IS, THEY ARE EQUIVALENT AND THERE IS NO DISTINCTION.
>>BILL MANNING: FOR MOST THINGS, THAT'S TRUE.
BUT FOR SOME PART OF THAT, I THINK THAT'S NOT TRUE.
ANYONE ELSE?
>>MICHEL SUIGNARD: I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE POINT ABOUT ENCODING ON THE DNS SPACE.
THE ONLY THING WE CAN DO IS WE SEE 7 BIT.
THE ONLY REPRESENTATION YOU CAN DO TO REPRESENT BEYOND 7 BIT IS IDN.
AND IDN USES IN PUNYCODE, AND IT'S DIRECT TRANSFORMATION FROM THE UNICODE REPERTOIRE.
THERE'S NO WAY TO HAVE BIG5 OR -- YOU CAN ONLY DO UNICODE AS A REPERTOIRE AS THE ENCODING GOES FROM WHATEVER YOUR APPLICATION IS ENCODING AND WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO THE DNS NAME SPACE, IF YOU WANT, YOU WENT FROM PUNYCODE AND THEN YOU HAVE JUST SEVEN BITS.
THERE'S NO DISCUSSION ABOUT DIFFERENT ENCODING SYSTEM.
THE ONLY THING YOU CAN PLAY WITH IS, OBVIOUSLY, HAVING DIFFERENT CHARACTER SETS, IF YOU HAVE A SET OF CHARACTERS IN EACH OF THE LABEL, IT'S PERFECTLY TRUE THAT TODAY YOU CAN PUT, YOU KNOW, CHINESE IN ONE LABEL, CYRILLIC IN ANOTHER LABEL, (INAUDIBLE) ON ANOTHER ONE.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT PREVENTS YOU TO DO THAT.
BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ENCODING FORMS.
>>BILL MANNING: OKAY.
I WAS -- I SPEAK FROM PROBABLY MORE OF A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE AS SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY GOES AND MANIPULATES ZONE FILES.
AND I SEE WHAT PEOPLE TYPE IN OR HOW THOSE LABELS ARE ENCODED.
AND SO TECHNICALLY, IT'S POSSIBLE TO DO ALL KINDS OF BIZARRE THINGS IN THE DNS.
AND HOW THOSE ARE EXTRACTED AND REPRESENTED TO APPLICATIONS I THINK IS PART OF THE IDN ISSUE.
SO, ANYWAY.
BUT THERE IS A BIG LINE.
>>CHUCK GOMES: MY NAME IS CHUCK GOMES FROM VERISIGN.
I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS AND SOME COROLLARY QUESTIONS WITH THOSE TO HELP CLARIFY THEM.
AND THE FIRST ONE REALLY RELATES TO THE IDN GUIDELINES THAT HAVE JUST BEEN REVISED AND WILL BE REVISED AGAIN.
BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WITH, I THINK, THE TWO MAIN IDEAS THAT WERE PUT ON THE TABLE TODAY, THE PUNYCODE IN THE ROOT TLD, AS WELL AS THE DNAME APPROACH, IT SOUNDS TO ME, BECAUSE THOSE ARE BOTH BASED ON STANDARDS, THAT IF WE WERE TO DO EITHER ONE TODAY, THE GUIDELINES AS THEY EXIST TODAY AND AS THEY MAY BE REVISED WOULD PROBABLY STILL APPLY.
THERE MAY BE SOME NEED FOR NEW GUIDELINES RELATING TO EITHER SOLUTION.
BUT IS THAT A CORRECT ASSUMPTION?
I KNOW SEVERAL OF YOU ARE ON THAT COMMITTEE.
>>CARY KARP: ACTUALLY, THE SECOND SESSION DURING THIS WORKSHOP IS GOING TO BE FOCUSING SPECIFICALLY ON THIS STUFF.
SO IF WE CAN DEFER THAT QUESTION UNTIL FURTHER DISCUSSION.
>>CHUCK GOMES: THAT'S GOOD.
MY SECOND QUESTION IN THE EXCELLENT PRESENTATION DONE BY MR. AL-ZOMAN, THE TERM WAS USED AS AN IDN ROOT SERVER.
WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY THAT?
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT JUST PUTTING IDNS IN THE ROOT?
OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A SEPARATE ROOT SERVER?
I WASN'T CLEAR IN TERMS OF THAT.
AND MAYBE OTHERS CAN RESPOND TO THAT, TOO.
>>ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN: WHAT I MEANT IS THE CURRENT IDN -- THE CURRENT ROOT SERVERS SUPPORT IDN.
THAT'S WHAT I MEANT.
>>CHUCK GOMES: OKAY.
SO YOU WEREN'T REALLY TALKING ABOUT A SEPARATE ROOT SERVER, BUT, RATHER, UP -- INSERTING IN THE ROOT WHAT'S NEEDED TO SUPPORT THEM.
THANK YOU.
>>MARK DAVIS: I'M MARK DAVIS.
THE -- I FIRMLY AGREE WITH WHAT PAT SAID.
I THINK THE CHIEF ISSUE THAT'S GOING TO BE FACED HERE IS GOING TO BE A POLICY ISSUE MORE THAN A TECHNICAL ISSUE.
AND GETTING AT WHAT VINT ALLUDED TO IS, IF THERE IS A RESTRICTION OF THESE INTERNATIONAL TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN DOMAIN NAMES TO BEING SYNONYMS IN SOME SENSE TO WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS, THEN IT DOES DELINEATE -- I MEAN, IT DOES NARROW THE SCOPE OF THE POLICY ISSUE QUITE SUBSTANTIALLY.
BUT THERE IS STILL A POLICY ISSUE.
THE POLICY ISSUE IS, WHO GETS KOREA?
WHO GETS CONGO?
ET CETERA.
SO THAT THERE WILL BE SOME POLICY ISSUES THAT DO NEED TO BE DECIDED.
AND THE -- IT DOES NARROW IT SOMEWHAT.
BUT IT -- IT STILL LEAVES A POLICY ISSUE.
I DO SUGGEST THAT IT'S PROBABLY A GOOD FIRST STEP IF WE'RE LOOKING TOWARDS HAVING A NARROWER FOCUS AT THE BEGINNING TO KEEP FROM RUNNING INTO PROBLEMS IF THAT IS TAKEN, IF THE GOAL IS INITIALLY TO LIMIT TO SIMPLY SYNONYMS OF EXISTING TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.
BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT REALLY DOES OPEN UP A VERY, VERY LARGE PANDORA'S BOX.
>>CARY KARP: ERIN.
>>ERIN CHEN: ABOUT THIS POLICY ISSUE, WHO GETS MAYBE ARABIC, WHO GETS MAYBE KOREA, I THINK IN THE PROPOSAL OF CDNC, WE PROPOSED THE CCTLD SET A PRIORITY, BECAUSE WE THINK THE CCTLD -- CURRENT CCTLD CAN SET THE PRIORITY TO HAVE IDN TLD, THAT'S A CLEAR RULE IN THE CURRENT STANDARD ISO 3166.
SO THAT'S THE POINT THAT WHY WE PROPOSED PRIORITY FOR CCTLD.
SO I THINK THIS IS OUR PROPOSAL WHICH IS JUST A KIND OF POINT, A KIND OF VIEW.
MAYBE OTHERS HAVE OTHER KIND OF VIEWS.
SO I JUST CLARIFY ABOUT THIS.
>>MARK DAVIS: PERHAPS I CAN RESPOND TO THAT.
THE ISSUE IS BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN OWNERS, OKAY?
IT'S NOT -- IF YOU -- IT IS, AFTER ALL, STILL ONE NAME SPACE.
AND SOMEBODY IS GOING TO GET A PARTICULAR STRING THAT'S GOING TO GO WITH ONE -- ONE OF TWO OR THREE OR FOUR PEOPLE.
IT'S STILL A SINGLE NAME SPACE AND IT'S STILL -- THERE WILL BE CONFLICTS THAT ARISE.
AND THERE NEEDS TO BE A DISPUTE MECHANISM TO ALLOW THAT TO BE DONE, EVEN IF IT'S LIMITED TO SYNONYMS.
>>VINT CERF: SO THIS IS WHERE WE GET INTO ONE OF THESE HORRIBLE MULTIPLICATION PROBLEMS.
LET ME IMAGINE FOR JUST A MOMENT -- I'M TRYING TO DO ONE OF THESE GADONKIN EXPERIMENTS.
-- I AM -- I AM A GERMAN SPEAKER, I AM HERE IN VANCOUVER, AND I WANT TO MAKE REFERENCE TO SOMETHING IN DOT COM, BUT I'M IN CANADA, AND I -- OH, I'M SORRY, LET'S -- THAT'S A GTLD.
LET'S TRY THE OTHER CASE, WHERE IT'S A CCTLD.
SO I'M IN CANADA, AND I'M EXPECTING DOT CA FOR A LOT OF REFERENCES.
BUT WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT WE MAKE REFERENCE NO MATTER WHERE WE ARE IN THE WORLD, WE MAKE REFERENCE TO MANY, MANY DIFFERENT TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.
OUR INTERACTIONS, WHETHER THEY'RE E-MAIL OR WITH THE WEB, TAKE US TO VIRTUALLY EVERY TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN.
SO EVEN IF I WOULD PREFER TO INTERACT WITH THE NETWORK IN GERMAN, FOR EXAMPLE, OR TO MAKE IT HARDER, LET ME PICK ANOTHER LANGUAGE WITH A DIFFERENT SCRIPT, SITTING HERE IN CANADA, IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT I WOULD HAVE THE CONVENIENCE OF MAKING REFERENCE IN CYRILLIC TO A DOMAIN NAME WHICH IS ACTUALLY IN CHINA SOMEWHERE, BECAUSE THE CCTLD.CN, OR THE OPERATOR OF DOT CN, CNNIC, MAY HAVE ONLY REPRESENTED OTHER TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS IN CHINESE AS WELL AS THE ASCII, BUT NOT IN CYRILLIC.
SO WHAT I'M PROBABLY NOT DOING A VERY GOOD JOB OF THIS, BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO SUGGEST TO YOU IS THAT FOR THE VARIOUS CASES WHERE A PARTICULAR LANGUAGE SPEAKER IS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD AND WANTS TO INTERACT SOLELY IN THAT LANGUAGE WITH THE NETWORK, IT ISN'T CLEAR TO ME THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THAT VISION IF WE CHOOSE TO DO THE RESTRICTION THAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING.
THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE RESTRICTION.
IT IS ONLY AN ARGUMENT THAT SAYS DON'T GET YOUR -- DON'T SET YOUR EXPECTATIONS TO BE INCOMMENSURATE WITH WHAT A REASONABLE SET OF RESTRICTIONS MIGHT PROVIDE.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>>MARK DAVIS: THAT'S NOT EXACTLY QUITE WHAT I WAS SAYING.
>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
>>MARK DAVIS: WHAT I WAS SAYING --
>>VINT CERF: I WASN'T ACCUSING YOU OF ANYTHING.
SO, ANYWAY, GO AHEAD.
>>MARK DAVIS: I THINK WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY WAS THAT THERE ARE TWO SEPARABLE ISSUES.
ONE IS ARE THERE RESTRICTIONS IN TERMS OF THE NAME SPACE, IN TERMS OF WHAT IS ALLOCATED.
THERE'S REALLY A VERY SEPARATE ISSUES AS TO WHETHER THOSE ARE ALIASES OR NOT.
>>VINT CERF: OH, ABSOLUTELY.
>>MARK DAVIS: AND IF THEY'RE ALIASES, THEN YOU CAN SAY WHATEVER YOU HAVE, IF YOU HAVE DE, HOWEVER YOU HAVE A SET OF ALIASES TO THAT, YOU COULD ALWAYS CONCEIVABLY HAVE ASCII AS -- I MEAN, DE, IF IT'S A TRUE ALIAS, DE WOULD ALWAYS WORK, AND, ESSENTIALLY, EVERY KEYBOARD HANDLES ASCII.
YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO TYPE THE REST OF THE URL, THOUGH, THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET TO.
SO IT MAY BE ONLY A PALLIATIVE MEASURE.
BUT THERE REALLY ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.
AND WHETHER IT'S ONLY SYNONYMS, WHICH IS A KIND OF A POLICY ISSUE, AND THEN WHETHER THEY'RE ALIASES, WHICH IS BOTH POLICY AND TECHNICAL AND DEFINITELY HAS AN IMPACT ON THE WAY IN WHICH PEOPLE CAN USE THESE.
OKAY.
>>CARY KARP: ACTUALLY, I'D LIKE TO COMMENT JUST BRIEFLY ON WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE, VINT.
AND I CAN READILY ENVISION A SITUATION WHERE A FOREIGN OFFICE IN A COUNTRY ADVISES TRAVELING -- CITIZENS TRAVELING ABROAD ABOUT WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO BE ABLE TO VISIT THE HOME SPACE.
AND I CAN ALSO EASILY ENVISION A SITUATION WHERE ANYONE TRULY WISHING TO EXPLORE THE FURTHER REACHES OF THE INTERNATIONALIZED NAME SPACE WILL NEED TO KNOW HOW TO TRANSCEND THE PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY A KEYBOARD.
SO THERE'S LOTS OF EXCITING WAYS TO MEET THE NEW CHALLENGES.
>>LI GUANGHAO: I HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON THAT.
TO MY POINT, IT'S LIKE TALKING ABOUT INTERNATIONAL -- THE IDNS, INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES, WHICH WOULD MOST OF THE TIME BE MULTILINGUISTIC DOMAIN NAMES, LOCALIZED INSTEAD OF INTERNATIONALIZED.
AND I THOUGHT THERE'S A -- THERE'S A BIG NEED, BIG COMMAND, LIKE WHEN PEOPLE GO IN NOW AND TRY TO COME BACK AND VISIT THAT -- USING THE IDN, VISIT THAT DOMAIN NAME OR THE URLS.
AND THERE'S ANY DEMANDS ON THAT, WE BELIEVE, LIKE, ANY IDN SOLUTIONS HAS TO BE SUPPORT FROM THE BROWSER, AT THE BROWSER SIDE, EVEN RIGHT NOW THE IDN.ASCII TLDS, THERE HAS TO BE SOME SUPPORT FROM THE BROWSER SIDE.
AND WE DO SEE THERE ARE SOME SOLUTIONS OUT THERE, LIKE THE MOZILLA.
AND WE DO SEE MICROSOFT SUPPORTING THE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE INPUT METHOD.
SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PROBLEM, LIKE, EVEN I'M CHINESE, THEN I COME OUT TO CANADA AND TRYING TO TYPE A CHINESE DOMAIN NAME AND WORRY ABOUT IT'S NOT GOING THROUGH; RIGHT?
BECAUSE I HAVE THE INPUT METHOD THAT I CAN CHOOSE FROM FROM WINDOWS BUILT IN, AND I CAN HAVE, LIKE, THE BROWSER THAT SUPPORTS THE IDNS.
SO I DON'T HAVE ANY WORRIES TO LOG ON TRYING TO ACCESS AN IDN URL.
AND THAT'S MY POINT, YEAH.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: HI.
MY NAME'S BRUCE TONKIN, FROM MELBOURNE I.T.
I ALSO AGREE WITH THE LAST SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR, THAT I THINK WE DO NEED TO VERY CLEARLY SEPARATE THE POLICY DECISION FROM THE DIFFERENT IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS FOR THAT POLICY.
ONE QUESTION -- ONE THING I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT AS WE INTRODUCE THESE THINGS INTO THE IDNS IS REALLY GET THE BENEFIT OF THE EXPERIENCE OF THE CCTLDS AND OTHERS THAT HAVE DONE SOME TRIALS.
AND I AGREE ALSO WITH VINT THAT WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT IT FROM A USER PERSPECTIVE.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION WHICH IS A POLICY QUESTION, AND I'LL JUST -- I'M JUST INTERESTED IN THE ANSWERS FROM THE ARABIC AND CHINA AND KOREA.
BUT IF I'M THE USER -- AND WE'LL TAKE THE ARABIC ONE FIRST -- IF I AM A USER AND I HAVE AN ARABIC SCRIPT, YASSER IN ARABIC AND IT'S .SA CURRENTLY.
IS YOUR EXPECTATION TO THE USER THAT IF YOU INTRODUCED A DOT ARABIC IN THE ROOT ZONE, IF I TYPE YASSER.SA AND SOMEONE ELSE TYPES YASSER-- THIS IS YASSER IN ARABIC -- DOT ARABIC, DO THEY GO TO THE SAME PLACE OR CAN THEY BE DIFFERENT PLACES?
>>ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN: WE FIRST IMPLEMENTED THE ARABIC.SA, BUT IT WASN'T ACCEPTED BY THE USERS.
BECAUSE WE HAVE DIFFICULTY OF WRITING LEFT TO WRITE.
SO WE ARE -- WENT BACK ON THAT ONE, WE DIDN'T CONTINUE THAT.
SO WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS ARABIC TO ARABIC.
AND CURRENTLY, CURRENTLY, WE ATTACH THAT DOMAIN NAME TO THE ACTUAL WEB SITE WHICH IS POINTED BY THE ASCII DOMAIN NAMES.
BUT THEY COULD HAVE THE DIFFERENT WEB SITES FOR THE ARABIC DOMAIN NAMES AND THE ENGLISH DOMAIN NAMES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: RIGHT.
SO THE DNS RECORDS ARE THEN COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT.
>>ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND YOU MIGHT CHOOSE TO POINT THEM TO THE SAME PLACE, BUT THEY ARE INDEPENDENT.
AND IS THAT THE WAY YOU THINK IT SHOULD WORK?
>>ABDULAZIZ AL-ZOMAN: I THINK YES.
I THINK YES.
BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE SOME NEEDS FOR THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO HAVE THEIR WEB SITE, WHICH IS NOT REPRESENTED ON THE ASCII SPACE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
AND CHINA, IN THE CNNIC, WHAT'S ENVISAGED THERE?
IN THE CHINESE ENVIRONMENT.
SO IF I HAVE A CHINESE WORD DOT, SAY, CN, AND THEN I HAVE A CHINESE WORD DOT CHINESE IN THE ROOT, SHOULD THAT GO TO THE SAME PLACE OR NOT?
>>LI GUANGHAO: I'M NOT QUITE FOLLOWING YOUR QUESTION.
YOU MEAN THE SAME NAMING SPACE OR --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: NO.
IF YOU THINK OF THE DOT, WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THE DOT IS THE SAME.
AND WHAT'S AFTER THE DOT IS EITHER DOT CN OR IT'S DOT CHINESE CHARACTERS.
SO I'M SAYING IF I TYPE IN SOMETHING BEFORE THE DOT IN A CHINESE STRING AND THEN I -- AND I PUT .CN, AND SOMEONE ELSE IN THE ROOM PUTS WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THE DOT EXACTLY THE SAME, SO WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THE DOT'S EXACTLY THE SAME, BUT WHAT'S AFTER THE DOT IS THE SORT OF CHINESE IDN EQUIVALENT, DO THEY GO TO THE SAME PLACE?
>>LI GUANGHAO: OKAY.
THAT DEPENDS ON WHAT MECHANISM YOU ARE USING TO IDN THE TLD.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT THE MECHANISM.
I'M SAYING WHAT SHOULD THE ANSWER BE?
>>LI GUANGHAO: TO ME, IT SHOULD BE DIFFERENT, THOUGH.
I MEAN, IF YOU ARE USING THE DNAME MAPPING, IT WOULD BE THE SAME; RIGHT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S RIGHT.
BECAUSE IT'S A TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF A POLICY AND YOU'RE MAKING A POLICY DECISION FIRST.
SO I'M ASKING ABOUT WHAT'S THE POLICY DECISION.
SHOULD IT GO TO THE SAME PLACE OR SHOULD THE RECORDS BE INDEPENDENT?
SO THE ANSWER EARLIER WAS THAT IT SHOULD BE INDEPENDENT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A CONSENSUS -- I'M TRYING TO SEE EITHER CONSENSUS IN THE WAY PEOPLE ARE DOING THINGS OR THEY'RE VERY DIFFERENT VIEWS.
>>LI GUANGHAO: USE A DIFFERENT MECHANISM TO INTERNATIONALIZE THE TLD, WE HAVE DIFFERENT POLICY ISSUES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR FOR THE USER.
THAT'S WHAT CONCERNS ME.
BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE TO SORT OF IDENTIFY SOME POLICIES THAT GIVE SOME CONSISTENT BEFORE FROM THE USER.
I'M NOT SAYING WHICH WAY THE DECISION SHOULD BE.
I'M REALLY ASKING THE QUESTION WHAT DECISIONS YOU'VE ALREADY MADE.
SO --
>>LI GUANGHAO: WE HAVEN'T MADE ANY DECISIONS, I MEAN --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I WON'T CARRY ON TOO MUCH FURTHER.
BUT I'LL JUST GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF A POLICY DEBATE.
>>VINT CERF: THIS IS -- THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO INTERJECT HERE.
I THINK THAT INDEPENDENCE WILL BENEFIT EVERYONE, BECAUSE IT'S SIMPLICITY IN TERMS OF THE MANAGEMENT.
WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE A PAIR OF DISTINCT TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS WHOSE SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, AND FIFTY FIFTH-LEVEL DOMAINS ARE SOMEHOW TANGLED TOGETHER.
BECAUSE THAT'S HARD TO MAINTAIN.
AND IF WE HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, FOR EXAMPLE, OR DIFFERENT SCRIPTS, ALL OF WHICH ARE TRYING TO BIND A SET OF SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH-LEVEL DOMAINS TO BE THE SAME, YOU CREATE A VERY HARD PROBLEM TO SOLVE.
IT ISN'T NECESSARY TO DO THAT.
THAT'S WHY I LIKE THE ANSWER WITH REGARD TO THE ARABIC CASE.
THESE ARE INDEPENDENT REGISTRATIONS.
WE CAN MAKE THEM GO TO THE SAME PLACE IF WE DECIDE THAT'S USEFUL BY HAVING THEM GO TO THE SAME INTERNET ADDRESS.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO FORCE THAT TO BE THE CASE.
AND I WOULD ADVOCATE STRONGLY THAT THE SIMPLICITY WILL PROBABLY BE BENEFICIAL TO US.
>> EXACTLY, YEAH.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S THE KIND OF QUESTION I'M ASKING.
THANKS, VINT.
>> HONG XUE, MEMBER OF INTERIM AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND ALSO A MEMBER OF PRESIDENT'S IDN ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
OH, THAT'S ENOUGH.
THANKS.
AND, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A VERY BRIEF RESPONSE TO BRUCE'S QUESTION.
ON THE BASIS OF MY VERY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE ON CN REGISTRATION WITH CHINESE DOMAIN NAME.
AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE IS A TENTATIVE REGISTRATION POLICY WHICH IS PROVIDING COMBINED REGISTRATION.
SO IN THE CASE THAT'S RAISED BY BRUCE, THE TWO DOMAIN NAMES WILL BE RESOLVED TO THE SAME PLACE.
SO IT'S NOT A PROBLEM AT THE MOMENT.
BUT THE POLICY IS TENTATIVE.
IT COULD BE CHANGED IN THE FUTURE.
SO LET'S GO BACK TO MY PRESENTATION.
IT'S REALLY INSPIRING TO KNOW THAT THOSE ICANN AND THE VARIOUS CONSTITUENCIES FROM ICANN ARE NOW EMPHASIZING THESE USERS' EXPERIENCES WITH RESPECT TO IDN.
WE'VE HEARD A LOT FROM BUSINESSES AND TECHNICIANS.
BUT THINK OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUNYCODE AND UNICODE AND CANNOT AFFORD TO TRAVEL ALL THE WAY TO