[Idngwg] [JPRS yoshitaka 198] RE: [Ext] haven't received any response from you

Fri May 18 10:01:14 UTC 2018

Dear Sarmad Hussain,

Thank you for your response.

I will look into your answer and get back to you
in case I come up with any question.

Best Regards,
----
Yoshitaka Okuno
Manager, Services Development Department
Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd.

On Fri, 18 May 2018 06:04:54 +0000
Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear Yoshitaka Okuno,
> 
> Please find below the response by the IDN Guidelines Working Group (IDNGWG).
> 
> Regards,
> Sarmad
> =============
> 
> Yoshitaka Okuno
> Manager, Services Development Department Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd.
> 
> Dear Yoshitaka Okuno,
> 
> Thank you for your emails.  The IDN Guidelines WG appreciates the continued
> input from JPRS, and had discussed the input at multiple WG meetings and the
> means to address it.
> 
> Please note that the Guidelines 15 and 16 in the proposed version 4.0 are
> not new.  These are a part of the existing version 3.0 of the IDN
> Guidelines, which are currently implemented (see
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/idn-guidelines-2011-09-02-en).  The
> existing guideline states:
> 
> 5.            “All code points in a single label will be taken from the
> same script as determined by the Unicode Standard Annex #24: Script Names
> <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24>. Exceptions to this guideline are
> permissible for languages with established orthographies and conventions
> that require the commingled use of multiple scripts. Even in the case of
> this exception, visually confusable characters from different scripts will
> not be allowed to co-exist in a single set of permissible code points unless
> a corresponding policy and character table is clearly defined."
> 
> For more clarity, in the proposed version 4.0 this guideline has been
> divided into two parts.  Guideline 15 addresses the first part, while
> Guideline 16 covers the second part of the existing guideline:
> 
> 15.          All code points in a single IDN label must be taken from the
> same Unicode script as determined by the Unicode Standard Annex #24: Unicode
> Script Property (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24). Exceptions to this
> guideline are permissible for languages with established orthographies and
> conventions that require the commingled use of multiple Unicode scripts.
> Also see Additional Notes V and VI.
> 
> 16.          In the case of any exceptions made allowing mixing of Unicode
> scripts, visually confusable characters from different scripts must not be
> allowed to co-exist in a single set of permissible code points unless a
> corresponding IDN policy and IDN Table is clearly defined to minimize
> confusion between domain names.  Also see Additional Note IV.
> 
> Considering the JPRS input and additional discussion by its members, the IDN
> Guidelines WG has made some finer clarifications without changing the
> intention of the original guideline in version 3.0, as per the details
> below:
> 
> 1.            For referring to Japanese case and other cases, the WG
> discussed that changes should be made in Guideline 15 and not in Guideline
> 16.
> 2.            The WG considered that the use of “script” may be ambiguous
> and so changed the text to refer explicitly to “Unicode script” as defined
> in the Unicode script property.  This was implied in the original ver. 3.0
> of the Guidelines, which had referred to UTR 24.
> 3.            In the context of “Unicode script”, Japanese writing system
> uses Hiragana, Katakana and Han. Therefore, based on JPRS input, the WG
> agreed to qualify Japanese writing system as a case which mixes "Unicode
> scripts" and therefore should be allowed by default.  As the guidelines
> themselves were intended to be generic, the WG agreed that this be done as
> an Additional Note and not in the text of the guideline.
> 4.            Additional Note V was added to state that Japanese is a known
> case where Hiragana, Katakana and Han scripts are mixed.   It also notes
> that Chinese, Japanese and Korean IDN tables also mix “a-z” ASCII.
> Additional Note VI allows additional letters like digits and hyphen to be
> mixed in scripts, where relevant.  Therefore, cumulatively these notes allow
> for labels like "jpドメイン名の登録".  So the Additional Notes V and VI
> cover the concerns raised by JPRS to pre-qualify "Unicode script"-mixing in
> Japanese writing system.
> 
> Please also note that there are two separate guidelines which call for
> addressing similarity and confusability - no. 14 specifically for
> within-script cases and no. 16 specifically for allowed cross-script cases.
> Therefore, no. 16 was not altered to be more generic.  Both these guidelines
> point to Additional Note IV, which suggest additional mechanisms for this
> purpose.
> 
> We hope this clarifies the motivations of the WG on how it has tried to
> address the input from JPRS.  Please let us know if you have any further
> input or concerns.
> 
> Regards,
> IDN Guidelines WG
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: yoshitaka at jprs.co.jp [mailto:yoshitaka at jprs.co.jp]
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:49 PM
> To: Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg at iis.se>
> Cc: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at icann.org>; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana
> <pitinan.koo at icann.org>
> Subject: [Ext] haven't received any response from you
> 
> Dear IDN guidelines WG Chair,
> (CC: Sarmad、Pitinan)
> 
> On 30 March, I sent you our proposed change on the IDN implementation
> guidelines document, following the suggestion made in the WG public meeting
> in San Juan on 12 March (pasted below). For these one and half months, I
> have not received any response to that from you.
> 
> Today, I happened to find that "Final Proposed Draft v. 4.0 of the IDN
> Guidelines"
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_anno
> uncement-2D2018-2D05-2D10-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms
> 7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=zptC-TxcZW1PmY1jJ5
> LzXVqPvD3ZlsiKvb4agfECycQ&s=wxk9m-mdZnan6Q2PmV36GLfLEXk6eKFuZRXMIFdZLeg&e=
> was published.
> 
> It was a surprise and disappointing for us to find it without prior
> correspondence regarding our proposal sent to you on 30 March.
> 
> Yoshitaka Okuno
> Manager, Services Development Department Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd.
> 
> 
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 17:40:59 +0900
> yoshitaka at jprs.co.jp wrote:
> > Dear IDN guidelines working group,
> >
> > Please refer to the following comments and proposal.
> > The comments and proposal are being sent to you, following your
> > suggestion made in IDN Guidelines Working Group meeting in San Juan.
> >
> > In the working group meeting, the essence was orally stated by Hiro
> > Hotta, JPRS in the meeting room.
> >
> > I hope this may be of help to you.
> >
> >
> > [Summary]
> >
> > 1. As described in current guidelines, the issues of visually confusable
> >    characters are not specific to the cases with commingled use of
> >    multiple scripts.
> >
> >    We believe Japanese domain labels fall on the exceptional cases
> >    stated in Guideline#15.
> >    Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana scrips are daily used in a
> >    commingled manner based on established orthographies and
> >    conventions in Japan. Such comingled use is allowed even in
> >    single words. This means Japanese people consider the collective
> >    set of Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana characters to belong to ONE
> >    script in constituting Japanese words, just as native English
> >    writers/readers consider English characters to belong to ONE
> >    script.
> >
> >    Therefore, in the case where comingled use of UNICODE scripts is
> >    allowed by Guideline#15, restrictions (if any) should be the same
> >    as in the case of one UNICODE script in constituting domain
> >    labels.
> >
> > 2. In Additional Note IV, the guidelines of visually confusable
> >    characters are described. We think they are the good notes because
> >    the issues of visually confusable characters are clearly pointed.
> >
> >    Taking into account the fact that issues of visually confusable
> >    characters reside both in the case of a single UNICODE script and
> >    in the case where comingled UNICODE scripts are allowed, we think
> >    the sentence "must not be allowed to" is overdescribed in
> >    guideline#16.
> >
> > [Suggestion]
> >
> >   We would like to propose as follows.
> >
> >   - The guideline#16 is removed from section 2.5.2 and is moved to
> >     a newly created section between 2.5.2 and 2.5.3. The new section
> >     is headlined as "2.5.X Visually confusable characters".
> >
> >   - The guideline#16 will be modified as follows.
> >     -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     16.
> >     Visually confusable characters had better not co-exist in a single
> >     set of permissible code points. TLD registries should clearly
> >     define a corresponding policy and IDN Table to minimize confusion
> >     between domain names. Also see Additional Note IV.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Thanks for your consideration.
> > ----
> > Yoshitaka Okuno
> > Manager, Services Development Department Japan Registry Services Co.,
> > Ltd.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 