[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Comparison of hoffman-idn-reg and jseng-idn-admin

JFC, it is always a struggle for me to understand anything you
say.  Perhaps it's because I tend not to be familiar with the terms,
documents, organizations, abstractions, and metaphors that you refer to.
I think others may have the same problem understanding.  You might want
to try to speak more plainly and simply, with more concrete explanation
of your main points, and fewer digressions.

> virtual language zones
> managed outside of the DNS
> The day eventually ICANN understands the reality of the world, you
> will just transfer the registrants from your Arabic and from your
> Persian virtual zones into the DNS zones of your now permitted Arabic
> and Persian TLDs - example: ".cn--fre" for French registered DNs by

I don't see the purpose of the virtual French zone.  If someone wants
a name under .cn--fre, they're going to have to pay CNNIC; if someone
wants a name under .jp--fre, they're going to have to pay JPNIC.  There
is no reason to require that beaucoup.cn--fre and beaucoup.jp--fre
belong to the same person.  We don't need a common virtual French zone
to prevent the reuse of "beaucoup" under distinct French TLDs.

I suppose that registrations in the virtual French zone could be tagged
with an intended TLD, but in that case the virtual French zone is
nothing more than a bunch of pre-registrations for French TLDs (like
.cn--fre and .jp--fre) before those TLDs are actually created.  But I
don't see why CNNIC and JPNIC should accept those pre-registrations,
since the registrants have not paid CNNIC or JPNIC.

I could imagine CNNIC or JPNIC voluntarily contracting out the registry
operations of .cn--fre or .jp--fre to an operator that specializes in
French zones.  Those two zones might use the same operator, or competing
operators.  Either way, there still wouldn't be any virtual French zone.

I question the introduction of new TLDs of the form .cn--fre and
.jp--fre.  If we're going to use the Latin country code, and the TLD is
going to belong to the same entities as .cn and .jp, then we might as
well just let CNNIC and JPNIC create subdomains, like franšais.cn and
franšais.jp (or abbreviated forms if they prefer).  On the other hand,
if new TLDs are going to be created, then they might as well be more
friendly to the intended French audience, like .chine and .japon.  The
friendly-TLDs approach would be more compelling in the other direction,
when creating new TLDs owned by France to contain Chinese names, because
"fr" might be completely unhelpful to typical Chinese speakers (whereas
"cn" is still intuitive to French speakers).

Of course, the introduction of new single-language zones is not the only
possibility.  It avoids the difficulties of combining variant tables for
multiple languages, but another approach is to face those difficulties
and solve them.  Different registries could choose to take different
approaches.  Or a middle approach: Create separate zones for groups of
related languages.