DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[nc-idn] Re: [council] Draft Names Council motion on IDN

(bis: sorry for typo in To: line)


First, in the gTLD contracts with ICANN it is 
explicated that introduction of NEW SERVICES need explicit 
consent of ICANN, therefore ICANN have authority on 
International Domain Names services.

Second, a distinction should be possible between domain 
resolution services for ASCII names in the DNS and testbed 
transliterations of iDNS into ASCII characters. At this time 
when User confidence in the Domain Name System is the 
focus of so attention, allowing names that do not have full 
functionality (don't work !) is inappropriate at this time. 
It is our Domain Names SO duty to sustain and maintain 
consumer confidence in the whole gTLD space. 
The success of new gTLD relies upon consumer confidence.

Third, VeriSign is a sole source "monopoly" supplier, 
consequently the competition argument is inappropriate. 
Until such time as the standard is developed the competition 
at the application level will not occur as proprietarily 
solutions will fragment the Internet.


> From Mueller@syr.edu Wed Oct 24 16:28 MET 2001
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:27:47 -0400
> From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
> To: <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>, <council@dnso.org>
> Cc: <nc-idn@dnso.org>
> Subject: Re: [council] Draft Names Council motion on IDN
> Elisabeth and other Councillors:
> I cannot support this resolution.
> It is asking private industry to wait for
> a standards-making process to complete 
> its work before offering services. 
> Superficially, that seems reasonable.
> In reality, it is impractical and
> dangerous, for three reasons:
> First, we are not fooling anyone - ICANN has
> no governmental authority to prevent 
> businesses from offering services that are legal
> under domestic and international laws. Even
> less does it have the authority to tell national
> governments that operate ccTLDs, such as
> China, when and how to introduce IDNs.
> Second, it should be up to consumers and suppliers,
> interacting in a marketplace, to decide whether
> to wait or not. Obviously, there are tremendous
> advantages to following a universally agreed-upon
> standard. Suppliers know this, many consumers 
> know it. The market value of an unstandardized
> IDN is very low. So everyone has an incentive
> to cooperate. If universal cooperation proves to
> be not feasible in a reasonable period of time,
> then it should be ok to move ahead.
> Third, the consensus required to establish and 
> adopt a standard is not something that can be
> created by decree. Standards happen when the
> industry is ready to agree on a standard. Attempts
> to suppress alternatives and impose standards by
> fiat simply don't work, and threaten competition
> and innovation in the affected industry.
> The situation is quite analogous to the existence
> of competing standards in mobile communications.
> You can say to the wireless equipment and service
> suppliers: wait until there is a common global
> standard for 3rd generation wireless systems
> before developing any new services or 
> equipment. But if the standardization process
> bogs down, or if some suppliers come up with
> innovations that give them a competitive advantage,
> the market will evolve independently. It doesn't
> matter what the ITU says.
> The tension between standardization and 
> innovation/ competition is a complex problem.
> This resolution shows no appreciation of 
> those complexities. It is yet another
> example of ICANN's amateurism as an
> aspiring economic regulator.
> --Milton Mueller

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>