Draft WGIG Issue Paper on the Multilingualization ofInternet Naming System
This paper is a 'draft working paper' reflecting the preliminary findings of the drafting team. It
has been subject to review by all WGIG members, but it does not necessarily present a
consensus position nor does it contain agreed language accepted by every member. The purposeof this draft is to provide a basis for the ongoing work of the group. It is therefore not to be seen
as a chapter of the final WGIG report, but rather as raw material that will be used when drafting
the report. This draft working paper has been published on the WGIG website for publiccomment, so it will evolve, taking into account input from governments and stakeholders.

1. Issue
1.1 Growth of the Internet using a single international language.
The Internet was first started and developed from ARPANET in the United States.
Ever since 1990, it has flourished with tremendous speed and is now a critical factor in
the basic Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) as basic infrastructure.
Development of the Internet has changed how we live and how we do business.
From this development, people have gained unprecedented benefits from the Internet.
However, the primary development to date has taken place mainly in one language,
English, which results language barriers in non-English speaking countries and for nonEnglish speaking users. This has contributed to a gap in information and access to
information between English and non-English speaking countries. In turn, in some nonEnglish countries this has contributed to the lack of integration of the Internet and theability to fully maximize the Internet for economic growth.
Not just a resolution to digital divide and associated economic gap,
Multilingualization of Internet has been also believed to increase the diversity of culture
and serve special interests of different peoples. It is specially important for

indigenous

peoples, for whom the Internet is a potentially valuable tool for preserving traditional
languages and, knowledge. No one seems to argues the importance of the cultural
diversity and its profound implication benefited from Internet multilingualization. This
paper presently focuses on the multilingualization of Internet Naming System, one of1the areas which should be addressed under the slogan of the Internet multilingualization..
1.2 Increasing but incomplete support of the Internet for other languages
The methods for multilingual access to Internet resource currently available are:IDN(Internationalized Domain Name), Keyword lookup, Keyword search, andDirectory services1.
IDN(Internationalized Domain Name) is designed to use the multilingual
characters as well as English alphabet, numerical character and some symbols without
any modification to existing DNS systems. However, it presently does not allow the
TLDs to use the multilingual characters, which is still on the table of debate for further
improvement. 234
Keyword lookup is a kind of website address service that directs users to an
appropriate website when a keyword is typed into the browser’s address bar. It is
known to be capable of handling native characters of the various languages.
From the technical point of view, there are two types of keyword lookup services.
One is a client-side-based service like IDN which requires users to install a plug-in
software on each browser, while the other one is a server-side-based service whichneeds some modifications to DNS lookup functions.
Directory and Keyword search are the services enabled by various search engines.
The former utilizes pre-registered databases and the latter utilizes databases that
accumulate website contents.

1

Native Name Seminar during APRICOT(Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies)

2005 will address the related issues methods.(http://www.iak.ne.kr/nativename/2005/kyoto3.htm)

2

http://www.icann.org/meetings/kualalumpur/captioning-idn-workshop-21jul04.htm

3

http://www.icann.org/meetings/capetown/captioning-idn-workshop-01dec04.htm

4http://www.minc.org/events/carthage2003/

2

2. Attribution to category
It is evident that more people will become more actively engaged in the Internet
population if Internet address system allows Internet browsing in their own local
language from current English based domain name system.

Considering that there are

more than 60 percent of non-English speaking people around the world, it shows how
important it is to have Internet address systems in local languages. This will create
more convenient Internet environment with localized Internet addresses and will
enhance the generalization and globalization of the Internet. Thus, this issue isattributed to the category and mission “Access for ALL”.

3. Assessment of risk and problem: what works, what doesn’t, where are the risks
As noted in the preceding chapter, there are a number of multilingual accessmethods for content on Internet. Each of those has their own inherent merits anddemerits. In this paper we presently focus on those two types of services, IDN andkeyword looup, which functions or to be intended to function as the Internet address.
3.1 What Works?
The first form of multilingualized Internet name is IDN(internationalized DomainName) which has the structure of “Name in local language” + “.” + “English TLD”
(e.g., 삼성전자.kr). The resolution for IDN is based on the distribution of client
software.

IDN has been commercialized in China, Japan, Korea and others. Throughthe effort from many sectors of Internet community, the global technical standard has
been established.
Another form of multilingualized Internet name is known as

keyword lookup

service which has “Name in local language” (e.g., 삼성전자) format. The resolution
for keyword lookup service is based on the name servers or on the client software,
depending on service provider. Keyword lookup service was first commercialized in
Korea in 1999, and shortly after China and Japan.

3

3.2 What doesn’t work?
IDN service started ambitiously but the market reaction was not adequate as it had
been expected.

Referring to the most recent statistics from webhosting.info, 74% of

IDN registration throughout the world is concentrated on three countries: USA, Korea
and Japan.

In other words, IDN is not only lopsided, but also its growth isconsiderably slower than English Domain Name.
The multilingual process of IDN does not take place at the server side, but at theclient side. This requires a client software to be installed on every individual’s personal
computer for the necessary function of converting multilingual code to ASCII code. It
is becoming to a certain degree obstacles for flourishing the service. To alleviate thisproblem, many people proposed to have a built-in IDN client software in everybrowser which could contribute and assist to the deployment of IDN service.
However, major browser companies such as, Microsoft has not yet put up a clear
schedule for such an update5.
In addition, structure of IDN, “Name in local language” + “.” + “English TLD”
(e.g., 수원시청.kr) is not natural by looks to local peoples due to difference of
linguistic culture.

e.g.,

http://수원시청

=> natural

http://수원시청.kr=> awkward to local people

Another point we need to take into account is that the current IDN in service cannot
be considered to be fully internationalized, because we still need to add English TLD at
the end and to use Latin characters to type the protocol name(http). This forces theusers to change input method, which resulted in another inconvenient aspect of IDN.
It has been reported that, to mitigate this inconvenience, the Internet community, In
some countries,

5

has been pulling together and now gains the success gradually.

http://www.icann.org/meetings/capetown/captioning-idn-workshop-01dec04.htm

4Particularly in China, the input methods that allow people to type out IDNs without
shifting input method (press “Spacebar” forChinese characters and “Enter” forASCII letters, both “。” and “.” can be recognized by Chinese Domain Name system).

Another issue we need to address is that there is no policy yet on who should beentitled to make policy on linguistic issues, such as the table of character equivalences
for each script and language. There have been complaints about the legitimacy of some
ccTLDs establishing tables for languages used in other countries. The lack of globallyagreed character tables might lead to incredible confusion, as domain names which
would be equivalent under certain TLDs would not be equivalent under others.
The current policy approach by ICANN until now has been of “laissez-faire”,
which each country and registry choosing its policies. However, some global policy isnecessary, especially in the gTLD field. For example, consumers should not be asked
to pay many times the registration fee to reserve all different variants of their names; inthose languages which employ extended Western scripts, the opportunity of a sunrise
period for existing registrants to register the “enhanced” (i.e., with proper accents orother marks) version of their names should be considered6. It is likely that, in the lackof universal access policies, gTLDs would not add support for “minority” scripts, as
commercially it would not be of interest to them. All these issues require a more
careful discussion of global policies on IDNs, before it is too late.

The necessity for keyword lookup service is growing and its market acceptance insome countries is quite successful, but the keyword lookup service standard is still at
the stage of triggering and an international consensus on service is not assembled yet.
Leading companies in each country are determining their own service concept
independently. While they have been putting their efforts to reach a sort of compromise,they could not come up with the visible outputs.

For example of the service, Netpia.com Inc. (Korea) is providing the keyword
lookup service under the name of “Native Language Internet Address (NLIA),” and6For example, the current registrant of “liberte.com” could be given priority over “liberté.com”.

5they have developed their own version of the server-side-technology.
JWord is Japanese example for keyword lookup service provider based on the bro
wser plug-in software. 3721.com in China is also a keyword lookup service provider
which employs the same technology with Jword.
In the past, company called RealNames had launched the keyword lookup service
on a global scale under the support of Microsoft. Microsoft then allowed built-in client
function of keyword lookup service to Internet Explorer browser. But the service wassuddenly discontinued due to partnership breakoff between RealNames and Microsoft.
Not to speak of the ending of service, it also created uncountable loss to a number of
innocent customers and users. This historical case would present us the importance ofan accountable international and multilateral organization with regard to the Internet
name services.

4. Actors (who, with whom)
4.1 IDN- ICANN: Name policy- IETF: Technical standardization- MINC: Service promotion and discussion forum for local players- I-DNS: Initial technology initiator and service provider- JPRS, KRNIC, CNNIC, HKNIC: Major steering actors* In China, IDN for ccTLD has been tested and applied independently.
- TLD registry: Service registries- government: active especially in non-English speaking countries

4.2 Keyword Lookup service- Netpia: Korean Keyword Lookup service provider and associated solution
provider- CNNIC: Chinese Keyword Lookup service provider- 3721 (Yahoo): Chinese/Japanese Keyword Lookup service provider- ITU: Technical standardization (in progress)- ISP (Internet Service Provider): providing server-based infrastructure for the6

keyword lookup by patching multilingual S/W package to theirown DNS servers.
- MINC: service promotion and discussion forum for local players

5. Governance Mechanism
5.1 Status Quo
5.1.1 IDN
IDN fundamentally holds the identical DNS governance mechanism.
ICANN takes in share of the policy and IETF is responsible for the technicalstandardization. Under the supervision of the US government, ICANN is handlingpolicies including confirmation of language code table, decision of supporting
multilingual TLD, registration policy for script variants, etc.

Currently, China,

Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and Middle East countries are actively participating insuch activities.

And as mentioned above, IETF is handling the entire activities

that are related to technical standards.
5.1.2 Keyword Lookup Service
The keyword lookup service providers in each country are defining the natureof their own services and decide the service policies independently based on theirown definitions. For instance, some companies show the search results associatedwith the meaning of keyword as well as the corresponding webpage, while others
are more focused on the address concept and put 1:1 look-up service as number
one priority.
To overcome conflicting issues and problems, there have been many efforts toreach the international consensus through discussions in MINC, APAN meetingand so on78910.

However, there are no visible outputs so far.

5.2 Suggestions for governance alternatives alternations
5.2.1 Principles

7

http://www.iak.ne.kr/new/keyword/minutes/030827.htm

8

http://www.iak.ne.kr/new/keyword/minutes/030318.htm

9http://www.iak.ne.kr/new/keyword/fukuoka/minutes.htm

10

http://www.qgpop.net/2003fukuoka/AB.html#A1

7

a. As for multilingualization of Internet name, it is a policy issue rather than atechnical issue to be tackled through international cooperation based on
mutual understanding.
.
b. The multilingual Internet names are the Internet address resources of eachcountry, and the administration should fall under each sovereign state.
b. An multilateral organization under the UN framework with the fullparticipation of the private sectors and civil societies should make unified
uniform policies to guide the deployment and administration of multilingual
Internet names. And the existing organizations go on functioning for thetechnical coordination.
c. The multilateral organization should be operated under the principles of
democracy, transparency, openness and efficiency.
d. In case we are unable to promote the use of multilingual Internet names
through the appropriate measures. It is possible that the potential users ofmultilingual Internet names may choose alternative technical solutions thatare not in line with the current technical criteria due to their urgent need.
5.2.2 Proposals
a. Given the complexity of the world languages, pilot project for IDN.IDN
should be first implemented only in certain languages (e.g. the six working
languages of UN, or the IDN-commercialized languages) so as to ensure thestable operation of the domain name system. After then it could be extended
gradually to other languages.
b. The ccTLD registry may choose independently the IDN languages (or choose afont combination in one language) for the ccTLD.
c. Register the IDN mode of each ccTLD in punycode in the ICANN root serverd. The prepared ccTLD registry may first apply to ICANN for the IDN
registration services. Those who are not ready may apply after the completionof preparation.

8

e. In the initial period of this project, it is suggested that each ccTLD set only one(or one group of ) correspondent IDN ccTLD (e.g. IDN.cn). Adjustment and increase
may be made on demand when practical experience has been accumulated.
f. The multilateral organization supports the technical research and name-policy-related
study on the Keyword lookup service. In addition, the organization provides the spaceof discussion among the keyword lookup service stakeholders including existing
service providers.

6. Adequacy measured against criteria / benchmarks set out in Declaration of
Principles.
It meets all the criteria set out in Declaration of Principles: being multilateral,transparent and democratic, the Internet governance issue should be addressed in acoordinated manner and based on a multi-stakeholder approach.
Declaration of Principles sets out that the Internet should “facilitate access for all
and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into accountmultilingualism”. Plan of Action also sets out: in cooperation with the relevant
stakeholders, to promote regional root servers and the use of multilingual domainnames in order to overcome barriers to access.

9