[governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other Latin ccTLDs?
Imran Ahmed Shah
ias_pk at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 7 16:21:25 EST 2011
Tina and All,
Thanks for your fair comments and sharing information and deep suggestions.
Please find my comments here under:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On
> Behalf Of Tina Dam
> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 11:36 PM
> To: Imran Ahmed Shah
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other
> Latin ccTLDs?
>
> Imran, all,
> I really would like to be as helpful as possible, but nothing is non-official :)
> and it really must be clear I cannot and am not speaking on behalf of ICANN.
>
> I hope the following might help instead. I am not arguing that this is a solution
> of any kind for the specific case at hand, but just providing some options and
> some information.
>
> First, please recall that the Fast Track Process is limited in it's scope, and that
> ICANN staff simply is following that process and cannot make any deviations
> from it. One of the limitations unde the Fast TRack Process has to do with
> confusable strings.
>
> Confusability between strings is and has been a highly debated subject when
> it comes to the introductions of IDNs. And rightfully so. We have seen the
> issues early on (early 2000) in the second-level IDN implementations, where
> no barrier or protection was in place against confusable strings. The result
> was phishing attacks and browser developers that were reluctant to
> implement IDNs.
>
> On a first implementation of IDNs at the top-level I think, with that
> experience, it is entirely appropriate to have restrictions in place to avoid
> issues - that is, avoid issues for the end-users (primarily registrants and
> people that use the addresses by accessing the sites, but also registrars,
> registries and application developers).
>
> As it was said alot among groups of these back in the early IDN days:
> One day some somebody is going to make a lawsuit against a phishing attack.
> Who will they sue: the registrant of the phishing domain name, the registrar,
> the registry, or the browser that send them to a place they did not intent to
> go to, or someone else? The answer is not straightforward, but we definitely
> saw application developers not wanting to be liable for that. Hence reluctant
> to implement IDNs and if that is the case we are nowhere because IDNs are
> not usable.
>
> See more here: http://blog.icann.org/2008/11/compliance-with-idn-
> technical-requirements/
[IAS:] I do not agree with the following problem (which is given as example in the article):
".....One specific example of this is paypal.com, where the “a”‘s are Cyrillic characters and the rest are Latin letters. This address is visually the same as paypal.com (all in Latin letters), but physically, to the computer, these are two different addresses. This is damaging the uniqueness principle of the DNS – probably the most important principle of the DNS and what makes it work in a stable manner."
[IAS:] Because this example state a mix IDN+ASCI(Latin) letters, used with in word. This is neither a DNS Poisoning nor DNS Stability issue. Because the if a visual reader of any of its state, will use only ASCI (Latin) letters to type the domain name, even some one is able to register, host or advertise this mix-languages word. There is common reason to use. However, as visual confusability or similarity for phishing attacks is an email system breakdown or failure and that is a separate issue, which is still open, and beyond the Fast Track Implementation process.
>
> I can say that I fully agree with an initial, careful approach, that then can be
> expanded later on if it turns out it was too restrictive.
> See more below on future developments.
>
> However, and unfortunately the limitations means that not all countries can
> (i) participate in the process, e.g. countries where the official languages are
> based on Latin, and/or (ii) get their first choice or preferred string as an
> Internationalized ccTLD.
>
> But, it was agreed in the community that it was better to allow a limited set
> of Internationalized ccTLDs to move forward and be delegated, than force
> those where no questions or issues remained to wait until a solution was
> available for all.
>
> Of options looking forward I see several. Again, I would not claim that either
> are applicable or desired by any country, but simply listing them for your
> reference.
>
> 1) If the preferred string, or first choice was not available for delegation
> through Fast Track, then select the second choice instead.
> I would probably make that a strong recommendation because a) it results in
> a quick delivery of an Internationalized ccTLD, and b) it avoid any conflicts or
> contentions against new gTLDs down the road.
>
> A country could for example decide to get the entire country name as
> Internationalized ccTLD. Some countries have already done so.
[IAS:] This decision is right in some cases where the meaningful abbreviation is not possible, Bulgaria has two options two letters (.bg) “.Бг” to three letters (.bgr) “.Блг”:
===============================
Ref: [http://www.idnnews.com/?p=9809], http://www.circleid.com/posts/scene_behind_the_screen_of_idn_cctlds/
PROS: Egypt (Misr مصر), UAE (Emarat امارات) and Al-Saudiah السعودية did not have shorter meaningful abbreviations in their Native Languages (Arabic), so, they got benefit to obtain meaningful abbreviations for IDN ccTLD.
CONS: However, in my own country, in Pakistan, Public (community) may lose the sharp and smart choice of appropriate IDN ccTLD i.e. “پاک.” (PAK). Instead of getting benefit of the option of removal of two characters limitation, Pakistan will be in huge loss by applying for a longer and full name script “پاکستان.” (PAKISTAN) in Urdu Language. Every user of this new mechanism will have to type 4 extra letters to browse پاکستان.IDN-URL” or to send email onto user at IDN.IDN (such as عمران۔شاہ@اردو۔پاکستان). "
==============================
>
> 2) Working with the ccNSO on their policy development process for the
> "long-term policy for Internationalized ccTLDs". This is the policy that is
> intended to be implemented as a replacement or update of the Fast Track
> Process. One obvious area would be to review the existing restrictions to see
> if any of these were too restrictive and could be eased. (note: I am not saying
> that they are or they should, it would require an analysis).
[IAS:] We say welcome to any long-term policy for IDN ccTLDs but we all should review the policies, and if we think that there is something wrong or something missing in it our responsibility to indicate and propose right solution, being a Technical community and Internet Governance supporters. And there should be always a margin for modification and long-term policy should keep updating, otherwise, long-term policy will become an old policy after one or two years like Fast Track Policy.
>
> I hope that is helpful and I am happy to answer any questions I can.
[IAS:]
We have discussed three option up to now:
A. Convince Applicant to revise application for three letters (.bgr) “.Блг” or full name (.Bulgaria) .Блгария
B. To draft a letter from IGC members to ICANN Board + ALAC + ccNSO/GNSO with IGC recommendations to re-evaluate “.Бг” issue, and to formulize the options for appeal and/or flexibility in Fast Track Program.
C. Applicant should write to the Ombudsman (or IGC may also draft letter to Ombudsman, if consumes is developed)
D. Applicant may seek the same string as gTLD program as there are wider provisioning about the IDN facility.
The answer to option A. is no from Bulgarian public and as well as their government (the applicant) since last one year and till yesterday.
Option C is also available with the applicant but he did not exercised this option yet.
Option D is a costly solution and has many additional formalities to fulfill e.g. IPV6, DNSSEC etc. And again if all pre-requisites + Costs are managed, what are the probabilities that next DNS Panel would not take this string same as before
So, what do you and other members say about to proceed on option B or A+C both as a collective efforts.
Thanking you and Best Regards
Imran Ahmed Shah
>
> Tina
>
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >>As I am sure you understand I cannot speak on behalf of ICANN. So you
> > really need to ask ICANN staff.
> >
> > Yes, I understand. But you had been with ICANN, so, I think that you would
> know and may share with us un officially.
> > And you may also guide us if it is documented at any early discussion or
> ultimate document.
> >
> >>I can say that my opinion is that the IDN development is for the
> >>benefit of its users. It will also be the users that decide if they
> > want to use it or not.
> >
> > Yes, user* will have to decide to which option they adopt and not,
> however, at their-turn*.
> >
> > In order to discuss about the rights of a consumer, it is first step to define
> the consumer first.
> > The consumer or prospective consumer are the 1. Registry Operators, 2.
> The Users / Users Community.
> > If we can define the user(s) (single/plural) in terms of ICANN's IDN ccTLD
> Fast Track Program, we will be in a better position to understand their rights
> and to advocate their case very well.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Imran Ahmed Shah
> >
> >
> >
> >>On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 05:45 PKT Tina Dam wrote:>As I am sure you
> >>understand I cannot speak on behalf of ICANN. So you>really need to
> >>ask ICANN staff.>>I can say that my opinion is that the IDN
> >>development is for the>benefit of its users. It will also be the users
> >>that decide if they>want to use it or not.>>>On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at
> >>2:33 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:>> Dear Tina,>>
> I
> >>am glad to seen you on the IGC CS.>> I was really thinking today, to
> >>invite you to join IGC.>>>> Thank you for offering your support. Yes,
> >>we will need your support, and there are many queries that you may
> >>answer.>>>> First and important question is that what was the ICANN's
> >>Vision and scope of utilization of an (any) IDN ccTLD allocation?>>>>
> >>It is obvious that many countries will be able to apply for ccTLD in
> >>non latin characters, but my question is about the usage, scope of the
> >>usage.>> Who will get benefit out of it after the allocation and
> >>enabling a IDN
> > ccTLD?>>>> Thanks>>>> Imran Ahmed Shah>>>>>>>On Sun, 06 No >As I
> am
> > sure you understand I cannot speak on behalf of ICANN. So you really need
> to ask ICANN staff..
> >
> >
> > v 2011 01:41 PKT Tina Dam wrote:>Hi everybody, just letting you know
> > that I signed up to your list and>look forward to constructive
> > dialogue.>>On the Bulgarian IDN ccTLD I likely will not be able to
> > support a>letter, but I am happy to answer any questions or anything
> > else I can>do to be helpful.>>Tina>>>On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:53 AM,
> > Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:>>>> To the extent possible, a
> > statement regarding "mutual mistake of fact" is>> usually grounds to
> > get out of a contract or deal or understanding, and into>> a new
> > process or negotiation. It also allows both parties to save face,
> > in>> that both have made a mistake. I am not familiar enough with the
> > details of>> the communications and its history to know if this would
> > possibly apply or>> not, but if there is some basis for it, I'd
> > advocate serious consideration>> of making mutual mistake an element
> > of a letter urging reconsideration of>> this (non)decision.>>>> Paul>>
> > Lehto,
> > J.D.>>>> 2011/11/5 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>>>>>>> Hi,>>>>>> I think
> > this is a good idea. If we can create an IGC consensus letter>>>
> > that>>>>>> a. discusses this issue>>> b. asks for a transparent review
> > of the issue>>> c. asks for a general process by which any ICANN Staff
> > decision on string>>> confusability have a method for transparent
> > review and appeal.>>>>>> I do not think we need to recommend a
> > solution, but we might recommend>>> policy considerations consistent
> > with the Affirmation of Commitments that>>> would govern such a review
> > and apeal.>>>>>> We might also want to copy the leadership of ALAC
> > when the letter is sent>>> asking for their support of such an appeal
> > mechanism.>>>>>> avri>>>>>> On 5 Nov 2011, at 00:07, Ian Peter
> > wrote:>>>>>> > Avri wrote:>>> >>>> >> Well there is a new Board now,
> > with a new chair.>>> >> All they need to do is recognize the mistake
> > and tell the staff to fix>>> >> it.>>> >> Takes a little courage, but
> > a lot>> of
> > people on that Board have courage.>>> >>>> > Perhaps a carefully
> > drafted letter from this Caucus would be useful in>>> > this>>> >
> > regard?>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> From: Avri Doria
> <avri at psg.com>>>>
> > >> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>>>>
> > >> Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 21:58:57 -0400>>> >> To: IGC
> > <governance at lists.cpsr.org>>>> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Is really
> > Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg)>>> >> similar to>>> >> other Latin
> > ccTLDs?>>> >>>>> >> Well there is a new Board now, with a new
> > chair.>>> >> All they need to do is recognize the mistake and tell the
> > staff to fix>>> >> it.>>> >> Takes a little courage, but a lot of
> > people on that Board have courage.>>> >>>>> >> avri>>> >>>>> >> On 4
> > Nov 2011, at 03:16, Daniel Kalchev wrote:>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>
> > On 03.11.11 18:31, Paul Lehto wrote:>>> >>>> It would seem that there
> > either is, or should be, a process to "call>>> >>>> the>>> >>>>
> > question" as they say in>>
> > parliamentary procedure. If not, a motion>>> >>>> can be>>> >>>>
> > made for a decision, or a letter sent citing undue delay and
> > calling>>> >>>> for a>>> >>>> decision (with or without additional
> > clarifying expertise appended to>>> >>>> it). A>>> >>>> person
> > familiar with whatever exists in terms of procedure can>>> >>>>
> > recommend the>>> >>>> best format or vehicle for forcing a
> > decision.>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> There is no formal process to question
> > the outcome of the IDN Fast>>> >>> Track>>> >>> applications. By
> > definition, the only possible communication is>>> >>> between ICANN>>>
> > >>> "staff" (whatever that means) and the original applicant.
> > Ironically,>>> >>> even>>> >>> that country's Government does not have
> > formal way to communicate with>>> >>> ICANN>>> >>> on the
> matter.>>>
> > >>>>>> >>> Nevertheless, we are exploring every available possibility
> > for some 18>>> >>> months>>> >>> now, to understand why this situation
> > continues to persist. ICANN>>> >>>>>
> > staff are>>> >>> very wary of any such discussions and I perfectly
> > understand their>>> >>> position.>>> >>> More so, that the principal
> > that handled this case, Tina Dam, is no>>> >>> longer>>> >>> with
> > ICANN.>>> >>> My understanding is that ICANN now recognizes they
> made
> > a mistake. But>>> >>> they>>> >>> not only made the mistake to accept
> > blindli this "expert opinion".>>> >>> They also>>> >>> made the
> > mistake to make several statements already to the effect that>>> >>>
> > "this>>> >>> is it, accept it or go away". Therefore, the problem at
> > the moment is>>> >>> how>>> >>> ICANN admits their mistake and how
> > they go out of the rising political>>> >>> problem.>>> >>> I have made
> > many proposals on how to address this, but this has been>>> >>>
> > slow>>> >>> process.. Nobody has given up anyway and it now seems
> > inevitable>>> >>> things will>>> >>> go on a more global and more
> > politicized forums.>>> >>>>>> >>> Daniel>>> >>>>>
> > _________________________________________________________
> ___>>> >>>
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>> >>>
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org>>> >>> To be removed from the list,
> > visit:>>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>> >>>>>> >>>
> > For all other list information and functions, see:>>> >>>
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>>> >>> To edit your
> > profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>>> >>>
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/>>> >>>>>> >>> Translate this email:
> > http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> __>>> >> You
> > received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>> >>
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org>>> >> To be removed from the list, visit:>>>
> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>> >>>>> >> For all other
> > list information and functions, see:>>> >>
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>>> >> To edit your profile
> > and to find
> > the>> IGC's charter, see:>>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>
> > >>>>> >> Translate this email:
> > http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> __>>> > You
> > received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>> >
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:>>>
> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>> >>>> > For all other
> > list information and functions, see:>>> >
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>>> > To edit your profile
> > and to find the IGC's charter, see:>>> >
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/>>> >>>> > Translate this email:
> > http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>> >>>> >>>>>>>
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> __>>> You
> > received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>>
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org>>> To be removed from the list, visit:>>>
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>> For all other list
> > information>> and functions, see:>>>
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>>> To edit your profile
> > and to find the IGC's charter, see:>>>
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>> Translate this email:
> > http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>> -->> Paul R Lehto,
> > J.D.>> P.O. Box 1>> Ishpeming, MI 49849>> lehto.paul at gmail.com>>
> > 906-204-4026 (cell)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> __>> You
> > received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org>> To be removed from the list, visit:>>
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>> For all other list
> > information and functions, see:>>
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>> To edit your profile and
> > to find the IGC's charter, see:>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>
> > Translate this email:
> >
> http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>_____________________
> ___
> > ____________________________________>You received this message
> as
> > a subscriber on>> the list:> governance at lists.cpsr.org>To be
> > removed from the list, visit:>
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>For all other list information
> > and functions, see:>
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>To edit your profile and
> > to find the IGC's charter, see:>
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/>>Translate this email:
> > http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> __
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list