[Idngwg] [Ext] haven't received any response from you
Sarmad Hussain
sarmad.hussain at icann.org
Tue Jun 5 11:59:45 UTC 2018
Dear All,
There has been no further discussion on this thread. How would you like to proceed? Would you want me to share a draft response based on Dennis' email?
Regards,
Sarmad
-----Original Message-----
From: Tan Tanaka, Dennis [mailto:dtantanaka at verisign.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 7:17 PM
To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at icann.org>; idngwg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Idngwg] [Ext] haven't received any response from you
I believe Yoshitaka-san has misunderstood our response. He states,
"We have understood that Japanese language *shall not* be considered as "mixing
of Unicode scripts" written in Guideline #16." (emphasis added)
actually, the opposite is true. That is why we added the qualifier "Unicode" to the word "script" (as stated in IDNGWG's response). If this is correct, I recommend we respond accordingly to keep it on record and to avoid future misunderstanding with JRPS folks.
-D
On 5/28/18, 1:32 AM, "Idngwg on behalf of Sarmad Hussain" <idngwg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of sarmad.hussain at icann.org> wrote:
Dear IDNGWG members,
Kindly advise how you would like to respond to the following message.
Regards,
Sarmad
-----Original Message-----
From: yoshitaka at jprs.co.jp [mailto:yoshitaka at jprs.co.jp]
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:06 AM
To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at icann.org>
Cc: yoshitaka at jprs.co.jp; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo at icann.org>;
idngwg at icann.org
Subject: RE: [Ext] haven't received any response from you
Dear IDNGWG and Sarmad Hussain,
Thank you for your response.
We summarized our understanding as below.
Should this mail doesn't reach IDNGWG,
I'd appreciate it if Mr. Sarmad could forward it to IDNGWG.
We have recognized that IDNGWG added Additional Note V and VI to the
Guideline as a result of discussion on our comments.
We have understood that Japanese language shall not be considered as "mixing
of Unicode scripts" written in Guideline #16.
Thanks again for your assistance.
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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_res
>
ources_pages_idn-2Dguidelines-2D2011-2D09-2D02-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrc
rwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4
&m=KR3mHCS8MRtbT2mH1CivMpm_Vg71we-wvho7cqN5Z9Q&s=FeWKN256bvrq6yzR-dhED-qNb7W
nq8_cy1tkQv6CwGA&e=). 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_r
> eports_tr24&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=K
> TETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=KR3mHCS8MRtbT2mH1CivMpm_V
> g71we-wvho7cqN5Z9Q&s=wkkgI6r04K42Ol_7w4Xo__C0IXBtXIKYZmKGmP4teq0&e=>.
> 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
> (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_r
>
eports_tr24&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEa
GPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=KR3mHCS8MRtbT2mH1CivMpm_Vg71we-wvho7c
qN5Z9Q&s=wkkgI6r04K42Ol_7w4Xo__C0IXBtXIKYZmKGmP4teq0&e=). 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_new
> s_anno
> uncement-2D2018-2D05-2D10-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPS
> S6sJms
> 7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=zptC-TxcZW1P
> mY1jJ5
> LzXVqPvD3ZlsiKvb4agfECycQ&s=wxk9m-mdZnan6Q2PmV36GLfLEXk6eKFuZRXMIFdZLe
> g&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.
> >
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5026 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/idngwg/attachments/20180605/e9a75fa3/smime.p7s>
More information about the Idngwg
mailing list