Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List

From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:29:59 -0700

Kim Davies wrote:
> On 9/06/08 11:56 AM, "David Conrad" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>   
>> On Jun 9, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>>     
>>>> I'm curious: have you consulted with the various TLD-related
>>>> organizations (e.g., ccNSO, gNSO, CENTR, APTLD, AfTLD, LACTLD,
>>>> etc.) on
>>>> how to solve this problem?
>>>>         
>>> No. What do you think they'd say that hasn't been said in this thread
>>> already?
>>>       
>> You're talking about essentially creating a registry of their registry
>> policies and distributing it statically via your product.  I would
>> imagine they might be interested and might even have some useful input
>> to provide.  Some might even think it rude (even Microsoftian :-)) not
>> to ask.  But perhaps I've been at layer 9 too long.
>>     
>
> This thread sounds remarkably like deja vu. Indeed, the TLD community was
> rather upset a few years ago by Mozilla taking unilateral action to
> introduce a hard-coded white-list of acceptable IDN TLDs without prior
> consultation. It is not unreasonable to think that doing so for a second
> time, with the benefit of hindsight, would be received negatively.
>
> I'd also speculate much of the pros and cons to this discussion are equally
> applicable to the IDN whitelist. (
> http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/tld-idn-policy-list.html)
>
> kim
>   
Putting on a different hat, browser vendors have no duty to market 
Verisign's product, in the original wrapping or the new and improved 
flavor, nor the Unicode Consortium's product. They do have the means to 
discover the native operating system's supported encodings, existing 
i18n/l10n add-ons, fonts and so on. They may have a view supported by 
user adoption that is not identical to the view adopted by namespace 
vendors.

In the fleeting moments when I personally enjoyed (or suffered) some TLD 
layer 9 and below responsibilities, I (and my peers concerned by the 
inherent problems and errors common to the ASCII-encoded-Unicode, also 
at L9 and below, for some other, profoundly concerned TLDs) was rather 
pleased by, not upset by, other stakeholders responsibly acting to limit 
the amount of damage done by the introduction of homographs.

In a nutshell, with whom should a browser vendor "consult", and, if 
browser vendors implement something proximal to the needs and desires of 
end-users, exactly where do they fit in the current "stakeholder", or 
reformed "contractual or non-contractual" model, for ICANN as an 
example? I've been "doing" ICANN for ages, and there's not much room at 
the table for browser vendors, or really anyone not a registrar, a 
registry, or an intellectual property lobbyist. So what part of "reform" 
or "stakeholder" is that 501(c)(3) supposed to avail itself to?

Rather than clutter up the lists with an additional message, to 
Stephane, whom I'll see soon anyway, the IE 5.5 beta semantic (drop all 
3rd-party cookies) was tightly held, at least initially.

Eric

---

From: Gervase Markham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:10:22 +0100

Kim Davies wrote:
> consultation. 

That's unfortunate; but I must say this upset was not communicated to me.

That policy of ours should have no effect whatsoever on TLDs with a
responsible attitude to homographs. Our registration requirements are
not onerous.

Gerv

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:23:03 -0700

>responsible attitude to homographs. Our registration requirements are

For your IDN display technology, Mozilla decides which TLDs have a 
"responsible attitude". Mozilla enforces these rules as a "powerful 
incentive" for TLDs to do as Mozilla wishes. In doing so, Mozilla 
degrades the user experience of TLDs that don't go along with the 
Mozilla rules, such as .com/.net and ccTLDs throughout the world. The 
Mozilla "public suffix list" may prove to be similar.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Gervase Markham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:10:35 +0100

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> incentive" for TLDs to do as Mozilla wishes. 

As are Microsoft's rules - which, sadly, are both different and IMO much
more likely to retard the growth of IDN. But that's another discussion.

> In doing so, Mozilla

The difference is that the public suffix list is an (attempt at an)
expression of fact, not policy. If you are concerned that we will
withhold changes or issue known-incorrect lists in order to conduct some
sort of vendetta against a particular TLD, all I can say is "why on
earth would we do that?"

Gerv