[CPWG] Fwd: [ICANN65-PC] FYI - topic suggestions - ICANN65 - GNSO requested deferral of IDN Guidelines 4.0 Vote - CPH / Registrants impact

Maureen Hilyard maureen.hilyard at gmail.com
Mon May 13 23:16:48 UTC 2019


On 13/05/2019, 11:28, "IDN-WG on behalf of Roberto Gaetano" <
idn-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of
roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com> wrote:

    I don’t know if all of us are subscribed to the UA-discuss mailing list.
    For those who are not, please follow the discussion taking place on
this subject because there are some important points about the impact on
    The archives for May are at
    I believe that we should have a discussion in Marrakesh about what we
can do in ALAC to bring forward the interests and the needs of IDN
Registrants, and raise the attention of the ALAC Leadership on this topic.

    On 10.05.2019, at 23:30, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com
<mailto:roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>> wrote:

    Hi all.
    Please find below the email that Jothan Frakes has sent, in his
personal capacity, to the UASG mailing list and that I am forwarding you
with his permission.
    I believe that there are some points that should make us think.
    As Jothan notes, standards do not impact only contracted parties but
have an effect also on registrants and users at-large. I believe that we
have not done enough so far in identifying those impacts - and maybe this
working group is the place where to develop this discussion.
    I am in Bucharest, where I have attended SEEDIG. This has been a great
experience for a number of reasons, a very important one being that most
languages in this region have non-ASCII scripts - or have at least
diacritical characters that imply the use of IDNs. I have learned that the
ccTLDs of this region have different policies for treating variants, and
this creates a different user experience in different countries.
    I was wondering - and I will ask the same question to the UASG -
whether we have a report on how variants are managed by different IDN
registries. This could be a good starting point to compare the effect upon
different registrants and Internet users.

    Begin forwarded message:

    From: Jothan Frakes <jothan at gmail.com<mailto:jothan at gmail.com>>
    Subject: [UA-discuss] GNSO requested deferral of IDN Guidelines 4.0
Vote - CPH / Registrants impact
    Date: 30. April 2019 at 23:27:03 EEST
    To: "UA-discuss at icann.org<mailto:UA-discuss at icann.org>" <
UA-discuss at icann.org<mailto:UA-discuss at icann.org>>

    The GNSO just sent a letter to request that the vote on adoption of the
IDN Guidelines 4.0 be deferred

    There is some UA pain that will come from these Guidelines we should be
completely aware of.

    It is important to identify the manner in which standards can impact
the contracted parties, such as the Registries and Registrars, but getting
even further out the supply chain into registrants and Internet users,
there are some impacts to them as well as their audiences.

    If the new standard causes something that was a separate registration
to become a variant of another registration, or invalidates an existing
registration, this is a bad outcome for the innovators, developers, and
early patrons that supported the internationalization of the namespace.

    Part of what the objective of UA is, to my reckoning, is to increase
engagement and support of coding projects that will require adoption of
standards that may not immediately hold levels of RoI to them, and they are
looking for reasons not to do them.

    These new guidelines are good - and needed - they are the result of
many people's hard work, time and wisdom, and address many solutions.  The
approach of pushing these out is problematic.  Further, there seems no
recourse for those (even if statistically small) who may be impacted
adversely, lose their domain, or have it be invalidated (and thus REVERSE
their UA experience)

    There is potential impact to existing TLDs, and most notably to
registrants of second level names where there are registrations using
former standards that become unsupported or invalidated.

    A very important challenge we face with the UA effort is inspiring
developers to implement IDN and EAI as we help globalize the Internet
through our work.

    IF the approach on standards will be to invalidate some portion of the
community of registrations like this, there must be attention to how this
impacts existing innovators.

    Innovators worked to drive the standards and increase awareness - and
the invalidation or deprecation of a registration that someone has carried
for a number of years (some are 15+ years) is the precise opposite of a
reward for early support, and it is going to send a very loud message to

    I believe that further review is needed by registries on the technical
impacts of the changes, but any delay can help ICANN and the community
address the disenfranchisement factor.

    This should be important to UASG - we need developers to embrace the
additional effort that they have to invest in their work to consider IDN,
EAI and other things.


    Jothan Frakes
    +1.206-355-0230 tel
    +1.206-201-6881 fax

    IDN-WG mailing list
    IDN-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org

    IDN WG Wiki:

ICANN65-PC mailing list
ICANN65-PC at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190513/b8e4682b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CPWG mailing list