1. ccTLD IDN TF Report ccTLD Meeting, Rio de Janero Mar. 25, 2003 Young-Eum Lee(yesunny@knou.ac.kr) Chair, ccTLD IDN TF

2. IDN Management Technical Standard –IETF Individual Efforts (ccTLDs, Commercial) –CNNIC, JPNIC, KRNIC, TWNIC, Verisign, i-DNS Regional and Language Groups –CDNC, INFITT, CLINC, EUROLINC, Arabic International Efforts –ICANN, MINC ccTLD –Individual, Regional, Language, International

3. IDN Status 1 Some gTLDs and ccTLDs registering since 2000 Language Groups being formed Actual deployment mainly in Asia IETF Standard Approved, prefix determined, RFCs announced

4. IETF Standard IETF idn Working Group Nov. 1999 BoF, formed in Jan. 2000 PUNYCODE accepted as standard, 2002 Prefix determined, RFC in March, 2003

5. RFCs on IDN 3490 Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA). P. Faltstrom, P. Hoffman, A. Costello. March 2003. 3491 Nameprep: A Stringprep Profile for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN). P. Hoffman, M. Blanchet. March 2003. 3492 Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA). A. Costello. March 2003.

6. Individual Efforts CNNIC JPNIC TWNIC KRNIC Verisign i-DNS

7. Regional and Language Efforts JET: IDN Connect(JDNA) CDNC INFITT Arabic Language Group EUROLINC CLINC

8. International Efforts ICANN IDN Committee –Formed in Sept. 2001(March, 2001) –Key Issues: Idn.idn keywords Permissible code points Non ASCII TLDs Registrar Selection Process UDRP Review –IDN Implementation committee MINC –Since 2000 –Language groups, deployment

9. ccTLD IDN TF Since Oct. 2002 Meetings –January, 2003 –February, 2003: Workshop –March, 2003 –June, 2003: Workshop Participants –ccTLDs –Language Groups –Regional Groups –Global Efforts

10. ccTLD IDN TF workshop February 25, 2003, Taipai (Apricot) Individual Development Efforts Regional and Language Group Efforts International Efforts http://www.wwtld.org/meetings/IDN_Taipe i/agenda.htm

11. Issues Identified Information exchange about experiments and the experience on services is needed.(e.g., CJK model) In respect for the IETF standards, xn-- needs to be blocked universally at all levels of domain names under the jurisdiction of TLDs. Registration Policies should be determined by the respective TLDs

12. User requirements should be addressed, not only in registration but also in resolution. Sensitivity to the multilingual and multicultural community's requirements is needed. Interoperable implementation of IDNs need to be coordinated globally by test coordinators. Formation and deployment of variant tables in respective languages need to be consulted amongst all of its users.(e.g., CJK Mapping) DRP issue needs further discussion.

13. IDN Status More than 6000 languages About 80 macrolanguages,(+10 million speakers) 12 megalanguages(English, Chinese, Hindi, Urdu, Spanish, Portugese, Russian, Bengali, Arabic, Malay, Indonesian, Japanese, German, French) Internet Users: English(58%), Spanish (8.7%), German (8.6%), Japanese (7.9%) and French (3.7%). Web Pages: English(81%), German (4%), Japanese, French and the Scandinavian languages (2% each) and Spanish (1%). Other languages(8%)

14. IDN Issues Technical –Language, Scripts, Codes –Case Folding (Matching) –1:n, n:1, n:1 Policy –Registration –DRP –IP

15. Technical International standard: IETF Adoption: International and Local Internet Community Development: individual, regional Coordination

16. Policy Same Character? Same Script? DRP: international/local Intellectual Property Who decides in cases of conflict? How to decide in cases of conflict?

17. ICANN IDN Requirement Document March 13, 2003: “Standards for ICANN Authorization of Internationalized Domain Name Registrations in Registries with Agreements” http://www.icann.org/riodejaneiro/idn- topic.htm

18. 1. Top-level domain registries that implement internationalized domain name capabilities must do so only in strict compliance with all applicable technical standards.

19. 2. In implementing IDNA, top-level domain registries must employ an "inclusion-based" approach for identifying permissible code points from among the full Unicode repertoire, and, at the very least, must not include (a) line symbol- drawing characters, (b) symbols and icons that are neither alphabetic nor ideographic language characters, such as typographical and pictographic dingbats, (c) punctuation characters, and (d) spacing characters.

20. 3. In implementing IDNA, top-level domain registries must (a) associate each registered domain name with one or more languages, (b) employ language-specific registration and administration rules that are documented and publicly available, such as the reservation of all domain names with equivalent character variants in the languages associated with the registered domain name, and, (c) where the registration and administration rules depend on a character variants table, allow registrations in a particular language only when a character variants table for that language is available.

21. 4. Registries must commit to working collaboratively through the IDN Registry Implementation Committee to develop character variants tables and language- specific registration policies, with the objective of achieving consistent approaches to IDN implementation for the benefit of DNS users worldwide.

22. 5. In implementing IDNA, top-level domain registries should, at least initially, limit any given domain label (such as a second-level domain name) to the characters associated with one language only. 6. Top-level domain registries (and registrars) should provide customer service capabilities in all languages for which they offer internationalized domain name registrations.

23. Action Plan: Agora & Outreach Global focus Regional, Language, and individual input needed Identify major issues –Issue list –Archive documents –Best practices Outreach Coordination – Interoperability testing, Language group coordination Acknowledge, Encourage, Coordinate Bottom-up, industry led approach.

24. Mailing List: Idn-discuss@wwtld.org Inquiries to: yesunny@knou.ac.kr