[IDN-WG] [UA-discuss] GNSO requested deferral of IDN Guidelines 4.0 Vote - CPH / Registrants impact

Tue May 14 06:44:04 UTC 2019

Hi Roberto,

This is really a challenges for non-ASCII scripts in IDN space.

It would be more helpful if we get more information from ccTLDs of this
region who have different policies for treating variants- non-ASCII scripts
.

I also agree with you about to learn how variants are managed by different
IDN registries

*Regards / Jahangir*

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 4:28 PM Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> I don’t know if all of us are subscribed to the UA-discuss mailing list.
> For those who are not, please follow the discussion taking place on this
> subject because there are some important points about the impact on
> registrants.
> The archives for May are at
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/2019-May/thread.html
> I believe that we should have a discussion in Marrakesh about what we can
> do in ALAC to bring forward the interests and the needs of IDN Registrants,
> and raise the attention of the ALAC Leadership on this topic.
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>
>
> On 10.05.2019, at 23:30, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com
> <mailto:roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi all.
> Please find below the email that Jothan Frakes has sent, in his personal
> capacity, to the UASG mailing list and that I am forwarding you with his
> permission.
> I believe that there are some points that should make us think.
> As Jothan notes, standards do not impact only contracted parties but have
> an effect also on registrants and users at-large. I believe that we have
> not done enough so far in identifying those impacts - and maybe this
> working group is the place where to develop this discussion.
> I am in Bucharest, where I have attended SEEDIG. This has been a great
> experience for a number of reasons, a very important one being that most
> languages in this region have non-ASCII scripts - or have at least
> diacritical characters that imply the use of IDNs. I have learned that the
> ccTLDs of this region have different policies for treating variants, and
> this creates a different user experience in different countries.
> I was wondering - and I will ask the same question to the UASG - whether
> we have a report on how variants are managed by different IDN registries.
> This could be a good starting point to compare the effect upon different
> registrants and Internet users.
> Opinions?
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Jothan Frakes <jothan at gmail.com<mailto:jothan at gmail.com>>
> Subject: [UA-discuss] GNSO requested deferral of IDN Guidelines 4.0 Vote -
> CPH / Registrants impact
> Date: 30. April 2019 at 23:27:03 EEST
> To: "UA-discuss at icann.org<mailto:UA-discuss at icann.org>" <
> UA-discuss at icann.org<mailto:UA-discuss at icann.org>>
>
> The GNSO just sent a letter to request that the vote on adoption of the
> IDN Guidelines 4.0 be deferred
>
> There is some UA pain that will come from these Guidelines we should be
> completely aware of.
>
> It is important to identify the manner in which standards can impact the
> contracted parties, such as the Registries and Registrars, but getting even
> further out the supply chain into registrants and Internet users, there are
> some impacts to them as well as their audiences.
>
> If the new standard causes something that was a separate registration to
> become a variant of another registration, or invalidates an existing
> registration, this is a bad outcome for the innovators, developers, and
> early patrons that supported the internationalization of the namespace.
>
> Part of what the objective of UA is, to my reckoning, is to increase
> engagement and support of coding projects that will require adoption of
> standards that may not immediately hold levels of RoI to them, and they are
> looking for reasons not to do them.
>
> These new guidelines are good - and needed - they are the result of many
> people's hard work, time and wisdom, and address many solutions.  The
> approach of pushing these out is problematic.  Further, there seems no
> recourse for those (even if statistically small) who may be impacted
> adversely, lose their domain, or have it be invalidated (and thus REVERSE
> their UA experience)
>
> There is potential impact to existing TLDs, and most notably to
> registrants of second level names where there are registrations using
> former standards that become unsupported or invalidated.
>
> A very important challenge we face with the UA effort is inspiring
> developers to implement IDN and EAI as we help globalize the Internet
> through our work.
>
> IF the approach on standards will be to invalidate some portion of the
> community of registrations like this, there must be attention to how this
> impacts existing innovators.
>
> Innovators worked to drive the standards and increase awareness - and the
> invalidation or deprecation of a registration that someone has carried for
> a number of years (some are 15+ years) is the precise opposite of a reward
> for early support, and it is going to send a very loud message to
> developers.
>
> I believe that further review is needed by registries on the technical
> impacts of the changes, but any delay can help ICANN and the community
> address the disenfranchisement factor.
>
> This should be important to UASG - we need developers to embrace the
> additional effort that they have to invest in their work to consider IDN,
> EAI and other things.
>
> -Jothan
>
>
> Jothan Frakes
> +1.206-355-0230 tel
> +1.206-201-6881 fax
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IDN-WG mailing list
> IDN-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
>
> IDN WG Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy