Re: Emoji domains

From: Erwin Denissen <>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:11:20 +0100

As far as I can tell is a correct *non-idn* domain name. You
could have registered such domain name even before IDNA was invented.

Erwin Denissen
On 2/28/2012 1:30 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> But the ICANN normally has a signed contract with the registry that it
> wil operate for the general benefit of the communities, using *fair*
> commercial practice. The same contract then assumes that this will be
> observed by registrars who should also operate fairly.
> If a registrar sells a name that is not functional, according to any
> approved protocol, that sale is not fair, the purchaser pays for a
> name that will not be functional with most applications for most users
> of these applications. May be the buyer does not care and just wants
> to harvest a security hole found in some softwares that fails to also
> check the validity of such domain name (in that case it is very likley
> that the buyer violated the rules on purpose just to create problems
> to others).
> Otherwise, this was just an error from the buyer, that will be very
> dissatisfied when he will see that the domain he just bought had an
> error that the registry should have detected. So the registrar just
> stole the money by negligence... Will the buyer get the right to renew
> its application for a domain name, or be refunded ?
> In all cases, those registrations are just pollution of the worldwide
> DNS and will cause unnecessary traffic and disputes. ICANN should
> really investigate how the RFC's are enforced by registries at least,
> so that no registrar can't pollute them by bad names.
> If later there's any desire to moentize some new sets of possible
> names (in domain names or in other protocol field names), this will
> require first a serious investigation about compatibility issues (at
> least) and the applicable naming rules, as well as the condition of
> sales (who can sell them, who fixes the prices due to the registry,
> how much will go to ICANN or ISOC or IETF or others, including the
> Unicode consortium if it applies as a candidate hold to hold some
> registry or wants to act as a registrar to some classes of names
> usable in some protocols...)
> Note that the ISOC is not the only one to rule various protocol
> registries. There are tons of protocols that have been opened for use
> by other with extension mechanims requiring a registration of some
> name or identifier, in a registry that the initial protocol owner will
> maintain. Plus many mappings used to map a name used in one protocol
> into another protocol (such as URNs).
> Le 28 février 2012 11:52, Stephane Bortzmeyer<>  a écrit :
>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 09:55:11PM +0100,
>>   Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven<>  wrote
>>   a message of 14 lines which said:
>>> So I guess they did not check the codepoint categories in their
>>> validation step then?
>> Probably. People are free to ignore RFCs (or UTRs).
Received on Tue Feb 28 2012 - 07:15:38 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Feb 28 2012 - 07:15:39 CST