[UA-discuss] GNSO requested deferral of IDN Guidelines 4.0 Vote - CPH / Registrants impact

[Asmus Freytag]

While the root has a mandate to be more restrictive, and therefore 
excludes digits and hyphens, there would be a benefit of some 
consistency in practice between second level and the root: in particular 
for zones that support entire scripts and / or multiple scripts.

There's been a lot of thought put into how to make those scenarios safe 
(and unbiased towards particular languages) in the root that would be 
useful for the second level to take recognition of (and to apply them 
after accounting for needed extensions like digits).

The current practice in some TLDs to throw open registrations to any 
PVALID code points isn't really helpful. You might call it either lazy, 
because defining sensible restrictions takes work, or greedy, because 
restrictions to reduce the available name space; except generally, they 
are designed not to prevent legitimate registrations of useful labels 
(that is those, that most users for at least some language can read/type 
and that are not malicious registrations of look-alikes).
A./

On 5/13/2019 8:58 AM, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via UA-discuss wrote:
>
> Thanks for the publicity Ajay ☺
>
> The draft recommendations should come out very soon for public 
> comments. However, our work is limited to the use of the RZ-LGR. As 
> the name suggests, the RZ-LGR’s purpose is to validate top level 
> domain labels. This thread is about the ICANN IDN Implementation 
> Guidelines which is geared towards second level domain names.
>
> Dennis
>
> *From: *UA-discuss <ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "Dr. 
> Ajay Data" <ajay at data.in>
> *Date: *Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 11:42 PM
> *To: *"UA-discuss at icann.org" <ua-discuss at icann.org>, John Levine 
> <john.levine at standcore.com>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [UA-discuss] GNSO requested deferral of IDN 
> Guidelines 4.0 Vote - CPH / Registrants impact
>
> ICANN Board asked the ICANN community to recommend how to technically 
> apply the RZ-LGR in a harmonized way for existing and future IDN 
> ccTLDs and gTLDs.
>
> This Study Group was formed and chaired by Dennis Tan and the document 
> will be out soon for public comment.
>
> This will answer many of the doubts and queries.
>
> Thanks
>
> AD
>
>
> On May 12, 2019 8:02:41 AM GMT+05:30, John Levine 
> <john.levine at standcore.com> wrote:
>
>     In article <54666ffb-2773-97e9-10d0-f6c0d4afa8aa at ix.netcom.com> you write:
>
>         Anytime you change the registration policies for an existing registry,
>         you will have to figure out how to grandfather existing, delegated
>         labels (if any).
>
>     The LGRs for several existing TLDS have changed, and .com and .net
>     have some IDNs that predate any LGRs.  The rule seems to be that you
>     can renew whatever you have forever, but if it expires and it's not
>     valid under the new rule, nobody can reregister it.
>
>     I'm not sure how much of a problem this is in practice.  When I went
>     through and looked at all of the IDNs in gTLDs including all the old
>     ones, the number that were grandfathered was quite small, well under
>     1% of the total.  By percentages it seemed to be more of a problem
>     that some new TLDs aren't following their own existing rules.
>
>     R's,
>     John
>
>
> -- 
> Sent from my Android device with XGenPlus.Image removed by sender.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20190513/2c189ad2/attachment.html>