[Idngwg] A draft for the meeting Wednesday

Wed Nov 18 09:36:01 UTC 2015

Hi Kal,

I don't think I misunderstood.  I am acutely aware of the inclusion in RA,
and also the IDNG is almost the only document from ICANN also binding for
IDN ccTLDs that I know of, so I understand where you are coming from.

If my explanation in the first meeting confused you I apologise.

The IDNG always had a clear purpose, that is to provide a lightweight set of
guidelines that would support IDN adoption and ensure that implementations
converge towards a standard, with a clear understanding that that standard
changes and continues to evolve over time.

The IDNG has always been the instrument required for all gTLDs and IDN
ccTLDs in how IDN registrations must be implemented for the 2LDs.  Older
versions were not created ignorant of its current use either (at least not
in my view. perhaps Ram can add more)

As you correctly point out, each recommendation becomes part of requirements
for gTLDs (and IDN ccTLDs for that matter).  Therefore, I do not think it is
appropriate to defer any substantive requirement to external documents
(aside from technical protocols, including LGRs).  Nevertheless, it is
because of the nature of the IDNG that I actually think there is no other
more qualified forum than this one, given that any recommendation must take
both technology, including protocol and operational technologies, as well as
Policy (both big "P" ICANN policies and small "p") into consideration.

Which other more qualified forums do you have in mind? 

Lets add this to the items to be talked about today.

Edmon

From: idngwg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:idngwg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf
Of Feher, Kal via Idngwg
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 4:06 PM
To: idngwg at icann.org
Subject: 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=IZD
tZg3nhgM2Httz7TAQKafSuLY1F6opzoVFaqIJcJI&s=vtp0t2dt8PmZr_sCOR_fOklHHsSjiB9pP
Mt6rnGi2pw&e=> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/idngwg/attachments/20151118/b55ae9d3/attachment-0001.html>