ICANN position regarding IDNA2008 implementations
From IUCG - Internet Users Contributing Group
As far as IDNA2008 deployment and transition from IDNA2003, ICANN represents a potential of a few zone Management contracts (project FAST TRACK) over the billions of concerned existing and future DNS zone managers.
The work they achieve in their particuliar should be part of the IDNA2010 BCP on IDNA2008 deployment, transition and usage.
- The ICANN implementation guidelines reference page was last updated by a 2007 version which did not cover IDNA2008 issues.
- The ICANN IDNA technical considerations are based upon IDNA203 RFCs, RFC 4690 callng for its review. It does not quote the existence of the IETF WG/IDNABIS, not its Charter page, nor its deliverables, however they now are sent to the IESG.
On 15 Dec 2009, Cary Karp indicated : "The reason that text has been unchanged for so long is that the
authorship group has been waiting for the IDNA protocol revision to be
concluded so its details can be reflected in the next version of the
Guidelines."
"ICANN had been similarly holding off on finalizing the terms of the
ccTLD Fast Track <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/> to
ensure its conformity with the revised protocol. That goal was abandoned
a while back and a reference group was appointed to advise about key
pending implementation issues. The report produced by that group
<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-03dec09-en.htm>
will likely be folded into the Guidelines to render them more applicable
to the TLD space, without or without additional benefit of being able to
address the outcome of the protocol revision. The report considers the
matter of "character variant management" which should also be of
relevance to the IDNA-UPDATE discussion of bundling.
On 17 Dec 2009, Kary kindly gave the following indications:
- In this endeavor, I am one of a group of TLD administrators who meet as peers and have volunteered to be their scribe. (Only two of us regard ourselves as native Anglophones and the other guy keeps forgetting to bring a pencil.)
- The group has been active since IDNA2003 was finalized, and its mandated concern has been to provide a basis for the responsible implementation of that protocol in the SLD space. Beyond that, we make every endeavor to formulate the Guidelines in a manner that will have commonsense appeal to the operators of all zones on all levels of the DNS when formulating their own IDN policies. We also make every effort for the Guidelines to reflect the best wisdom about IDN generated in other fora.
- Our work has been in abeyance for an uncomfortably long time while waiting for IDNA2008, and my proposal was intended to hasten progress on both fronts. The transition between IDNA2203 and IDNA2008 is a glaringly obviously concern for the TLDs that have been accepting registration under the former. Since there are no IDN-labeled TLDs, those that will be established are unlikely to have legacy difficulties in this regard.
- The next version of the Guidelines will of necessity contain transition recommendations. It therefore seems rather obvious for them to reflect the massive amount of work done by the IETF WG and the organizations that have participated in it. If the IETF nonetheless opts to establish a separate instrument in which corresponding recommendations are expressed, the gTLDs -- which are contractually bound to implementing the ICANN Guidelines -- can easily end up in the awkward position of needing to reject anything proposed by the IETF (or in any other context) that is at odds with the ICANN Guidelines.
