[Idngwg] A draft for the meeting Wednesday

Wed Nov 18 09:09:50 UTC 2015

Rather than deferring to another document we can explicitly state for each statement if it is a MUST, SHOULD or a recommendation. I do not think that the Guidelines will be a large document, and by splitting it into two documents we increase confusion and the risk that both documents are not read.

Let us postpone the final decision, but you raise an important point that we must consider if it is a MUST, a SHOULD or a recommendation. In my list that I sent some hours ago probably contain all three types.

Yours,
Mats

--
Mats Dufberg
DNS Specialist, IIS
Mobile: +46 73 065 3899
https://www.iis.se/en/<http://www.iis.se/en>

Från: <idngwg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of idngwg <idngwg at icann.org<mailto:idngwg at icann.org>>
Svara till: "Feher, Kal" <Kalman.Feher at neustar.biz<mailto:Kalman.Feher at neustar.biz>>
Datum: Wednesday 18 November 2015 09:06
Till: idngwg <idngwg at icann.org<mailto:idngwg at icann.org>>
Ämne: Re: [Idngwg] A draft for the meeting Wednesday

I think you may have misunderstood my point. The guidelines are part of the RA which makes them enforceable. There’s no likelihood they’ll be removed from the RA, so we have to be mindful of the impact of any inclusion, no matter how trivial. Therefore only items we want to be explicitly enforceable should be present in the guidelines. However we may want to explore alternative expressions for our advice if we consider something important enough to document, but impractical for contractual inclusion.

My question during our first meeting regarding the original purpose of the guidelines was with their current use in mind. The answer as I recall, was that there was no specific goal and that they evolved through several iterations with no purpose other than to document good implementation advice. Given that the older revisions were developed ignorant of what would become the  current use of the guidelines, we should take this as an opportunity to consider exactly what belongs in a contractually enforceable IDN implementation document.

I have to disagree regarding your suggestion that we not defer to other documents. I think we should always defer to other documents. Having any specific advice within the guidelines will result in those items becoming immutable, no matter how impractical they might become. There are forums for providing expert advice on specific IDN topics and we should allow those forums to guide Registry operators rather than overriding them with this document.

From: <idngwg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "idngwg at icann.org<mailto:idngwg at icann.org>" <idngwg at icann.org<mailto:idngwg at icann.org>>
Reply-To: Edmon Chung <edmon at registry.asia<mailto:edmon at registry.asia>>
Date: Wednesday, 18 November 2015 at 5:39 PM
To: "idngwg at icann.org<mailto:idngwg at icann.org>" <idngwg at icann.org<mailto:idngwg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Idngwg] A draft for the meeting Wednesday

Those are all good points.
I am not so sure whether enforcement/oversight is within the scope of our discussion though.  On that, I think perhaps more appropriate to rely on existing mechanisms (including for gTLDs the new implementation & policy recommendations)

On the question of “standards or advisory body”, I view this group as the expert “body” producing the guidelines. Although I am not sure whether it is appropriate to understand us as a “body” per se.

More specifically, rather than *defer* to other documents, perhaps we can identify a few sets of documents as our points of references, and *refer* to them in the guidelines:
- Current (and past versions of) IDN Guidelines
- Policy related documents (from ccNSO and GNSO) concerning IDN
- Relevant portions of IDN fast track and AGB
- ICANN IDN Variant project documents
- IDN related RFCs and ongoing IETF works
- (and others maybe)

Building on them though, I think we will need to produce recommendations that may not be explicitly included in those documents.

Edmon

From:idngwg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:idngwg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Feher, Kal via Idngwg
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 2:16 PM
To: idngwg at icann.org<mailto:idngwg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Idngwg] A draft for the meeting Wednesday

My suggested talking points below:
Given that this will be an enforceable document, what items belong in the guidelines and what items should be moved out to a non enforceable advisory document?

What criteria and oversight will be applied to each item staying within the guidelines? Should items come from authoritative sources and if those sources modify their advice, should the guidelines explicitly allow contracted parties to follow those modifications?

Will we include any items which have not been recommended by a domain name standards or advisory body and if so, should those recommendations be enforceable?

From: <idngwg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "idngwg at icann.org<mailto:idngwg at icann.org>" <idngwg at icann.org<mailto:idngwg at icann.org>>
Reply-To: Edmon Chung <edmon at registry.asia<mailto:edmon at registry.asia>>
Date: Wednesday, 18 November 2015 at 1:09 PM
To: "idngwg at icann.org<mailto:idngwg at icann.org>" <idngwg at icann.org<mailto:idngwg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Idngwg] A draft for the meeting Wednesday

Mat’s list is a good set of items for starting discussion.

My contribution below on a more abstract/structural level.  I think the following components may be useful for the guidelines:

- Terminology
- IDN Registration Policy Components
- IDN policy development checklist/references
            - IDN policies/tables/repertoires considerations
            - Technical & linguistic considerations
- IDN Registration
            - 2LD registrations
- ccTLD vs gTLD contextual differences
- IDN TLDs
- IDN Variants
- IDN Policy implementation recommendations
            - additional implementation guidelines based on ccNSO/GNSO documents
- IDN registration systems

A very rough off the top of my head framework.

Edmon

From:idngwg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:idngwg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mats Dufberg via Idngwg
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:40 AM
To: idngwg
Subject: [Idngwg] A draft for the meeting Wednesday

Friends,

Enclosed is my contribution to the meeting tomorrow.

Yours,
Mats

--
Mats Dufberg
DNS Specialist, IIS
Mobile: +46 73 065 3899
https://www.iis.se/en/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.iis.se_en&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=_-v0M-gLiqWrtaHtP66hjSPyu3ePgw9YIihGxxybjqU&m=IZDtZg3nhgM2Httz7TAQKafSuLY1F6opzoVFaqIJcJI&s=vtp0t2dt8PmZr_sCOR_fOklHHsSjiB9pPMt6rnGi2pw&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/idngwg/attachments/20151118/5d8b08fe/attachment-0001.html>