[Idngwg] Comment on Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM

[JS Lascary]

My initial email is a public comment submission to which I cc’d the IDN WG.
I would imagine it will be published in the next few days.

JS


On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:34 PM Edmon <edmon at registry.asia> wrote:

> This is a very interesting observation.
>
> I suppose you have already made the same observation to the public comment
> for the RSEP previously?
>
>
>
> I wonder if Sarmad has any insight into why ICANN concluded that there
> were no security/stability issues?
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-kane-07dec17-en.pdf
>
>
>
> It seems to me that perhaps an RSTEP is in order here?
>
>
>
> Edmon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *JS Lascary
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 5, 2018 10:24 AM
> *To:* comments-o-com-single-char-10may18 at icann.org
> *Cc:* idngwg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Idngwg] Comment on Release for Registration one .COM Domain
> Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM
>
>
>
> It occurred to me that the Registry Service request from the registry
> operator, VeriSign, Inc. (hereinafter the 'Request') is in conflict with
> ICANN's Final Proposed Draft v. 4.0 of the IDN Guidelines  (hereinafter the
> 'Guidelines') as published at the following uri <
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-guidelines-10may18-en.pdf
> >.
>
>
>
> Specifically, section 2.5.3 of the Guidelines mentions that :
>
>
>
> " TLD registries are encouraged to apply additional constraints on
> registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables as determined by
> Unicode Technical Report #36: Unicode Security Considerations (
> http://unicode.org/reports/tr36) and Unicode Technical Standard #39:
> Unicode Security Mechanisms (http://unicode.org/reports/tr39). "
>
>
>
> In fact, the single character domain name proposed in the Request, o.com
> (Latin script), is Whole-Script Confusable with xn--0xa.com (Greek
> Script) and xn--n1a.com (Cyrillic Script). At the time of this comment,
> the latter two are registered in the .com namespace and have been for over
> 14 years.
>
>
>
> Given the above, I would welcome clarifications on the below points for
> the benefit of the entire ICANN community :
>
> (i) What is each stakeholder's position on the matter. I note neither the
> Request nor ICANN's Review of the Request discuss the issue of Whole-Script
> Confusables. Moreover, there is no published policy on Whole-Script
> Confusables for the .com namespace at this time.
>
> (ii) Assuming both the Guidelines and the Amendment to the .com Registry
> Agreement are adopted contemporaneously, will Verisign be required to
> update its .com IDN policy to reflect the Guidelines prior to proceeding
> with it's plan to release any single character domain name.
>
> (iii) What are the "additional constraints on registrations that minimize
> Whole-Script Confusables" envisioned by Verisign.
>
> (iv) In which scenario(s) can the domain name  proposed in the Request,
> o.com (Latin script), be safely released in accordance with the
> Guidelines.
>
>
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Jean-Sebastien Lascary
>
>
>
> cc idngwg at icann.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/idngwg/attachments/20180605/4b15253e/attachment-0001.html>