[Idngwg] should registries be allowed to implement techno-policies that violate these IDN Guidelines

[Feher, Kal]

It's an interesting topic that raises the question of what exactly the IDN
Guidelines are? It may be that the usage of the noun 'guideline' in this
instance is misused. Are these a collection of implementation instructions
that should be followed, but can be deviated from under appropriate
circumstances or are these rules to be followed at all times?

I can think of examples for both. Adherence to IDNA 2008 and following
RFCs 5890-4 should be a rule in my opinion. Using established LGRs on the
other hand, should be a suggestion only.

There needs to be a mechanism for operators to deviate from some of our
guidelines in a controlled manner. I read Google's changes not as reducing
the authority of the IDN Guidelines, but rather clarifying that any
negotiated changes to the guidelines have primacy with regards to
adherence to the Registry Agreement. If they've received approval to
implement IDNs in a certain way, Registry Operators need confidence that
approval will not be ignored or subverted.

However, negotiating changes to the provision of IDNs (as described by the
IDN Guidelines), should probably be described within the Guidelines
themselves. That is, the Guidelines should be clear on what can be
altered, under what circumstances and what if any mitigation actions
should accompany that change.


Kal Feher




On 5/08/2016, 13:38, "idngwg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Edmon Chung"
<idngwg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of edmon at registry.asia> wrote:

>Hi Everyone,
>
>It has come to my attention in the recent public comments regarding
>registry agreement amendment that Google has expressed that it seems they
>do not wish for these IDN Guidelines to be hard requirements for gTLDs:
>
>======================================
>Specification 6, Section 1.4 (IDNs): [Google Registry] expressed concern
>that the proposed language would permanently prevent registries from
>being able to predictably negotiate potential changes to the provision of
>IDNs that conflicted with the IDN Guidelines, as the IDN Guidelines would
>continue to control even if these services had been reviewed, approved,
>and reflected in the respective Registry Operator¹s Exhibit A. Thus,
>[Google Registry] recommended that the proposed text be revised to
>reflect that if there is an approved RSEP allowing the Registry to
>deviate from the IDN Guidelines, the IDN-related provisions of Exhibit A
>would control.
>======================================
>
>Given our discussion so far, I think we intend for these IDN Guidelines
>to be overarching requirements that should never be conflicted with.
>
>If that is the idea for these IDN Guidelines, then we should alert ICANN
>not to allow such "exceptions".  If there exist a case that such an
>"exception" is needed, the proper approach maybe to update these IDN
>Guidelines...
>
>Wonder what others think...
>
>Edmon
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Idngwg mailing list
>Idngwg at icann.org
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>listinfo_idngwg&d=DQIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=_-v0M-gLiqWrtaHtP66hjS
>Pyu3ePgw9YIihGxxybjqU&m=hxzbKHfVngOpAHk3TwwF1YgCpaBSyBrCGnzl6_EnD0o&s=hVJX
>rrKouawdSP2KKqSb7gwBZYLAdrjYCUawuCsNzww&e=