<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:PMingLiU;
panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@Arial Unicode MS";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@PMingLiU";
panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Arial Unicode MS",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial Unicode MS",sans-serif'>This is a very interesting observation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial Unicode MS",sans-serif'>I suppose you have already made the same observation to the public comment for the RSEP previously?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial Unicode MS",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial Unicode MS",sans-serif'>I wonder if Sarmad has any insight into why ICANN concluded that there were no security/stability issues?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial Unicode MS",sans-serif'><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-kane-07dec17-en.pdf">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-kane-07dec17-en.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial Unicode MS",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial Unicode MS",sans-serif'>It seems to me that perhaps an RSTEP is in order here?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial Unicode MS",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial Unicode MS",sans-serif'>Edmon<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial Unicode MS",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial Unicode MS",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial Unicode MS",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>JS Lascary<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 5, 2018 10:24 AM<br><b>To:</b> comments-o-com-single-char-10may18@icann.org<br><b>Cc:</b> idngwg@icann.org<br><b>Subject:</b> [Idngwg] Comment on Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>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 <<a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-guidelines-10may18-en.pdf">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-guidelines-10may18-en.pdf</a>>.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Specifically, section 2.5.3 of the Guidelines mentions that :<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>" 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 (<a href="http://unicode.org/reports/tr36">http://unicode.org/reports/tr36</a>) and Unicode Technical Standard #39: Unicode Security Mechanisms (<a href="http://unicode.org/reports/tr39">http://unicode.org/reports/tr39</a>). "<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>In fact, the single character domain name proposed in the Request, <a href="http://o.com">o.com</a> (Latin script), is Whole-Script Confusable with <a href="http://xn--0xa.com">xn--0xa.com</a> (Greek Script) and <a href="http://xn--n1a.com">xn--n1a.com</a> (Cyrillic Script). At the time of this comment, the latter two are registered in the .com namespace and have been for over 14 years.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Given the above, I would welcome clarifications on the below points for the benefit of the entire ICANN community :<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>(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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>(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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>(iii) What are the "additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables" envisioned by Verisign.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>(iv) In which scenario(s) can the domain name <span style='background:white'>proposed in the Request, <a href="http://o.com">o.com</a> (Latin script),</span> be safely released in accordance with the Guidelines.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Many thanks,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Jean-Sebastien Lascary<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>cc <a href="mailto:idngwg@icann.org">idngwg@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>