Re: Tilde

Martin:

>>Also FYI, the character string "foo~" (where "~" is the TILDE 
>>OPERATOR) currently translates to xn--foo-ch2a, which can be 
>>registered as xn--foo-ch2a.com ("foo~.com). This domain is 
>>perfectly legal in both .com and .net TLD's -- in fact, it's 
>>currently open.
>
>Did you try that? Even if it works, .com is still in testbed, and,
>according to the IANA rules, and the published Verisign policies,
>will not be allowed in production use.
>
>If you just used some Web interface to find out whether it has not
>been registered yet, and could be, then you probably have used a
>Web interface which does not implement the Verisign policy correctly.

Yes, I did try that and it did appear to work. From my experience, 
what I said above still remains true.

Let me present you with my finding and you tell me where it's not 
correct, Okay?

Please go to:

     http://mct.verisign-grs.com/index.shtml

Clearly this is not "some Web interface", because it is a Versign Web 
interface, is it not? I assume that a Versign Web interface would 
conform to the Versign policy correctly, wouldn't you think?

In any event, please enter the following character string (Punycode):

     xn--0bh.com

Select the radio button "Punycode" and click "Convert".

The result will be "~.com" (TILDE OPERATOR DOT COM).

At the bottom of the page, please do a Whois Query for Domain. The 
result will show that the domain name is currently registered with 
TUCOWS and has been for several years.

Considering all, are you saying that this domain name will never be 
allowed to be used (as you say, "in production use") like current 
"standard" domains? As such, the individual who registered and paid 
for this domain name, and is still paying renewals, will never to be 
allowed to use it?

>Please do read and understand the relevant internet standards first.

That's my desire -- but I'm not as involved as you, and your peers, 
in the IDNS process and it's hard for me to figure out what's 
relevant and what's not. For example, Versign reported that they 
notified registrars who have invalid IDN registrations on April 9, 
2003. As such, if the above noted domain was invalid, as you claim, 
then shouldn't the registered owner have been notified of such by 
now? I have personal knowledge (knowing the owner) that this hasn't 
happened. Why not?

And, if what you claim is common knowledge in your industry, then why 
is Versign, and it's accredited registrars, still receiving money for 
registrations and renewals for domain names that they know can never 
be used? This doesn't sound right, does it?

Now, please, please enlighten me.

tedd

PS: And, thanks for your comments.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sperling.com/