Re: [idn] Document Status?

["Adam M. Costello" <idn.amc+0@nicemice.net.RemoveThisWord>]

"JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote:

> This problem concerns permitted names.  From a decision not from a
> technical specification. it calls for a mechanism to enforce such
> permissions as part of the name preparation

The primary purpose of Nameprep is to allow names to be compared and
reproduced in a sane manner.  Nameprep prohibits a few characters, not
for policy reasons, but merely because they would make names very hard
to compare and reproduce.  Nameprep is technical, not policy.

If registries want to impose policies about which names they will
and will not register, that's fine, but please don't call it name
preparation.  Nameprep is something that every IDNA-conformant
application must be able to do.  The policies used by a particular
registry to restrict the names appearing in that registry do not need
to be known by every IDNA-conformant application, they only need to be
known by that registry and its registrants.

> Forbiding natural names using four letter words sequenecs in their
> international version is more complex. This will make U+0CD3 U+0CD8
> (what ever it may mean?) an interesting string... and a case for UDRP.

It took me a couple minutes to figure out what this was talking about.
For those still wondering:  The Punycode encoding of U+0CD3 U+0CD8 is
"fuck".  (In this particular case, those code points are unassigned, so
IESG--fuck is not in fact an ACE label at all.  But IESG--i-fuckyou is a
valid ACE label.)

If registries want to forbid certain words in both ACE forms and non-ACE
forms, they are welcome to do so.  Occasionally an innocent non-ACE
form will be forbidden because it's ACE form coincidentally contains a
forbidden word.

Whether an ACE form can infringe a trademark is something for the courts
to decide, not us.

> Will registries forbid registrations in international format? ie
> iesg--xxxxxx. (if anyone think my wording is not correct, let him
> phrase that simple basic question accurately in the proposed document
> wording: I was unable to do it, sorry).

I'm not sure what you're asking.  Let's take the IESG--world example.
That is an ACE label.  It is equivalent to U+53DF U+53E0 U+53D9.  A
registry could allow both, or forbid both, but it can't allow one and
forbid the other, because they are equivalent.  No matter which one you
register, you get both, and an IDNA-conformant application will display
them both the same way, as U+53DF U+53E0 U+53D9.

If you're worried about someone registering a label that an
IDNA-conformant application would display as "IESG--world", and you're
thinking that maybe registries ought to forbid such things, you can
stop worrying, because no such thing exists, so there's nothing for
registries to forbid.  IDNA-conformant applications display the output
of ToUnicode, and it's simply impossible for ToUnicode to output
"IESG--world".

AMC