[Idngwg] Text for email to SSAC

[Edmon Chung]

From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon at registry.asia] 
Sent: Thursday, 27 July 2017 15:59 PM
To: 'Tan Tanaka, Dennis' <dtantanaka at verisign.com>; 'Sarmad Hussain' <sarmad.hussain at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Idngwg] Text for email to SSAC

 

Fine please invite them.

I am unfortunately not able to join today's meeting.  Am in Bangkok at the APrIGF meetings.

Edmon

 

 

 

From: idngwg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:idngwg-bounces at icann.org>  [mailto:idngwg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Idngwg
Sent: Tuesday, 25 July 2017 03:22 AM
To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at icann.org <mailto:sarmad.hussain at icann.org> >; idngwg at icann.org <mailto:idngwg at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [Idngwg] Text for email to SSAC

 

I’m fine with the proposed text.

 

Thanks, Sarmad.

 

-Dennis

 

From: <idngwg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:idngwg-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at icann.org <mailto:sarmad.hussain at icann.org> >
Date: Monday, July 24, 2017 at 2:49 PM
To: "idngwg at icann.org <mailto:idngwg at icann.org> " <idngwg at icann.org <mailto:idngwg at icann.org> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Idngwg] Text for email to SSAC

 

Dear IDNGWG members, 

 

Following our discussion, here is a draft email to be sent to invite SSAC members to a discussion on “non-authoritative” records in a TLD zone.  Please feel free to make any edits.   

 

===============

Dear SSAC colleagues,

 

You may know that a revised draft of IDN Implementation Guidelines recently underwent a  Public Comment <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/idn-guidelines-2017-03-03-en> .  In a comment <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-idn-guidelines-03mar17/2017-March/000000.html>  submitted by Hugo Salgado from NIC Chile (.CL), it has been suggested to clarify the difference between “the use of IDN labels inside a TLD zone [from] records that are not-authoritative, like NS names and glue records."

 

It further suggests that “a TLD can pose rules and restrictions for labels in the second (or third) level, but not downside and ‘sibling-side’. So my TLD can restrict a certain unicode point for registration purposes, but it could exist inside the TLD zone as an NS name in a level below the TLD as a glue record, and can exist at another TLD as a delegation, over which we don't have any jurisdiction.”

 

“As an example, if I'm the registry of .example TLD and we don't allow U+00E1  LATIN SMALL LETTER A WITH ACUTE, we can't prohibit a record like:

 

    allowed.example.    IN NS á.allowed.example

    á.allowed.example.  IN A  192.0.2.1

 

and certainly we can't prohibit a delegation to other TLD:

 

    allowed.example.    IN NS á.cl”

 

The IDN Guidelines Working Group (IDNGWG) has found the comment significant.  IDNGWG would like to get SSAC’s opinion on whether records which are “not-authoritative” should also be constrained to comply with IDNA2008 by the IDN Guidelines.  If SSAC considers this relevant, IDNGWG would request for assistance from SSAC to suggest appropriate language for such a guideline.

 

We would like to invite relevant SSAC member to join IDNGWG during one of its weekly call, held on Thursdays at 11am UTC.  IDNGWG can organize a call on a different day/time if suggested schedule is not suitable for SSAC.  

 

We look forward our to your confirmation. 

 

Regards,
IDN Guidelines WG members

 

========

 

Regards,

Sarmad

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/idngwg/attachments/20170727/f0ef5988/attachment-0001.html>