John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Wednesday, 06 December, 2000 10:22 -0500 Dan Kolis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Dan K says:
> > 1) your right. with your tld .de I assume for the moment you
> > also speak German. The difference is what you 'try' when a url
> > doesn't work. If you tried:
> >
--On Wednesday, 06 December, 2000 10:22 -0500 Dan Kolis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan K says:
> 1) your right. with your tld .de I assume for the moment you
> also speak German. The difference is what you 'try' when a url
> doesn't work. If you tried:
> > http://ßrehct.de
> > and it didn't wor
Claus said:
>> http://www.déjà.fr/
>> http://www.deja.fr/
>This is really not new at all. Today, we do already have domains that
>are very similar: foobar.com vs. foo-bar.com vs. foobarr.com vs. ...
>foobar.com vs. foobár.com is not much different.
>Claus
Dan K says:
1) your right. with your
long.
Dassa
|>-Original Message-
|>From: Stephen Dyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 9:14 PM
|>To: vint cerf; Richard Shockey; Dan Kolis; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|>Subject: Re: Example of dns (non) fun
|>
|>
|>Hi,
|>
|>There is also a
Hi,
There is also an interesting legal problem lurking with
http://www.deja.fr/ and http://www.bq--aduwvya.fr/
A court might find me guilty of trademark violation of "deja" with the
first URL, but I can't see them upholding the same for "bq--aduwvya"
Steve Dyer
At 03:37 05/12/2000 -0500, v
from a purely mechanical point of view, if the character encoding
of these two strings makes them distinct, one might have to treat
them as distinct registrations - unless a very mechanical means of
converting them both into some canonical form were available to
make them "match" - one would imag
At 05:00 PM 12/4/2000 -0500, Dan Kolis wrote:
>In the present regime, its not surprising the frist below does not resolve
>and the second does:
>
>http://www.déjà.fr/
>http://www.deja.fr/
>
>
>In the proposed regime, its not obvious what to do from a purely consumer
>point of view.
Depends on who
> actually your urls could be:
>
> http://www.bq--aduwvya.fr/
> http://www.deja.fr/
>
> a application may render the bq--aduwvya.fr as déjà.fr or it may not.
> Finally it would be up to the URDP process or the courts as to *if* the
> two domains are the same. We shouldn't worry what the URD
I suggest you look in on the IDN working group, review their
documents if you have not done so, and then take this
discussion up on theiir mailing list if you aren't satisfied
with the answers you get.
john
---
--On Monday, December 04, 2000 5:00 PM -0500 Dan Kolis
<[EMAIL P
Dan,
actually your urls could be:
http://www.bq--aduwvya.fr/
http://www.deja.fr/
a application may render the bq--aduwvya.fr as déjà.fr or it may not.
Finally it would be up to the URDP process or the courts as to *if* the
two domains are the same. We shouldn't worry what the URDP or the c
In the present regime, its not surprising the frist below does not resolve
and the second does:
http://www.déjà.fr/
http://www.deja.fr/
In the proposed regime, its not obvious what to do from a purely consumer
point of view. Verisigns view would be each is completely unique. ICANN's
dispute res
11 matches
Mail list logo
