[Gnso-ssr] discussion -- SAC060 -- User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs

[Patrik Fältström]

It is pretty hard to know what you did type without quoting...

On 2014-03-04 08:40, Kal Feher wrote:
> -KF in many regions there are
> committees and submission mechanisms, which is why language tables
> change over time. We don't want that process for the root though.

You do not want that in a TLD or any zone either. You only want backward
compatible changes.

> -KF I'm referring to the second sentence "However, each release of
> the integrated IDN LGR will be open to public comments prior to
> publication." What is each LGR group supposed to do with this advice?
> Are they supposed to document comments and categorise them? eg:
> relevant if applied to second level or lower, but not appropriate for
> root. I think actions from the board should be translatable to a
> specific action or criteria to each LGR working group.

What SSAC say is that the process must be made clear. That there is an
ability to comment is part of the problem. SSAC do not propose a solution.

> -KF  But what does "Closed" mean for the current status? Do the EBERO
> providers have registries with all LGRs currently or soon to be in
> use? Or does "closed" mean "we have told EBEROs to do this"?

Unknown to SSAC. We have not asked for a clarification for the status
"closed". To some degree I am nervous the "closed" status is the latter
and that whoever did close the issue do not understand IDN and variants
(and specifically changes between versions of LGRs). I hope I am wrong
though and that the "closed" status is because the right thing has happened.

   Patrik Fältström


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 291 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ssr/attachments/20140304/830a17d3/signature-0001.asc>