[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comparison of hoffman-idn-reg and jseng-idn-admin
On 15:16 14/04/03, Roozbeh Pournader said:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> This is why language working groups and cross-zone Managers are
> necessary (every "cn" zones across all the TLDs).
What is a "cn" zone BTW?
Sorry, typo. I meant "chn" (Chinook jargon). The same as further I quoted
"mus" (Creek), etc.
I wanted to underline that there will be a reduced number of competence
centers on many languages legally entitled to be delivered local DNs. Cost
and competences are far beyond the technical, staff and financial capacity
of many registries. Also users are entitled a consistent support throughout
the namespace: of which the consistency will most probably be subject to
WTO/WIPP considerations. This will de facto create cross TLD language zones.
Also, I wanted to underline in using Creek, Chinook, etc. as examples, that
the situation of the USA themselves may serve as an implementation example.
There are several languages legally in use in the USA, that are, or are
not, fully supported by ASCII. Their TMs are entitled to the same
commercial support when exported abroad through their domain name, as any
other purely ASCII TM (just to take the TM example).
If you refer yourself to the "kid.us" legislation by the US Congress and
the way ".us" is geographically organized; there is a good probabilty that
a legislation will support a "chn", a "mus", an "apa", a "spa", a "fre", a
"chi" etc. language zone under ".us".
This is certainly what a siginificant portion of the interested users wants