[UA-discuss] [Ext] Pending Documents for Publication

Tex Texin textexin at xencraft.com
Fri Sep 1 21:48:01 UTC 2017

The reports are very good. However, the reports are not newsworthy by themselves without context.

What will the comms folks say about the significance of the reports?


Simply saying that sites and emails do not support IDN is not news, unless we indicate that the problems have a social or business impact.

The reports do not comment on that.


For example, we identify two issues with email validation- inconsistency across implementations and inaccuracy (or non-compliant) against the standards.

On paper this seems like a problem. However, the validation can reflect limitations of the backend. Making the validation consistent with the standard only makes sense if the backend can support that data. So the problem with email validation may not be ignorance of the developers just that it is a symptom of the deficiencies of the backend which take much longer to correct. We need to be careful to categorize the problems correctly for the media.


A “meaty” issue is the ambiguity of open dot. A URL that works on one browser and not another is a problem for users and businesses and it is significant if no one can correctly say what the right answer is. That said, maybe we shouldn’t bite the sponsor’s hand since making noise about standards problems seems self-destructive. We can instead quietly encourage the standards to be clarified.


So I come back to a few questions:

1)      Who is the audience that UASG is targeting? (Or who is comms targeting?)

2)      What kind of media attention are we looking for?

3)      What will we say about the significance of these reports?

4)      Should the reports have conclusions that also include the impact of these discoveries on society and industry or simply remain as they are now a summary of findings and leave the significance to other documents?






From: ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Richard Merdinger
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 1:18 PM
To: Don Hollander; Dennis Tan Tanaka
Cc: ua-discuss at icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] [Ext] Pending Documents for Publication


Going with Dennis; I think the idea is putting it out in appropriately-sized chunks, where chunk-size includes one or more documents.


Richard Merdinger

VP, Domains - GoDaddy

 <mailto:rmerdinger at godaddy.com> rmerdinger at godaddy.com




From: <ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Don Hollander <don.hollander at icann.org>
Date: Friday, September 1, 2017 at 3:11 PM
To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka at verisign.com>
Cc: "ua-discuss at icann.org" <ua-discuss at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] [Ext] Pending Documents for Publication


Thanks Dennis.


The Comms folks are suggesting we publish at least the Browser Review and the Website review at the same time to give media more ‘meat’ at one time.


Most of the documents have been circulating for comment in a vanilla form for some time.




On 2/09/2017, at 7:44 AM, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka at verisign.com> wrote:


Can I suggest that UASG publishes one document at a time, perhaps one week apart, so that it gives us time to review?





From: < <mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org> ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Jovenet Consulting < <mailto:contact at jovenet.email> contact at jovenet.email>
Date: Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:45 AM
To: Don Hollander < <mailto:don.hollander at icann.org> don.hollander at icann.org>
Cc: " <mailto:UA-discuss at icann.org> UA-discuss at icann.org" < <mailto:ua-discuss at icann.org> ua-discuss at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [UA-discuss] Pending Documents for Publication


Can someone get back to me and confirms:

1.      What to publish (a hyperlink to a website)?

2.      When to publish?


On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Don Hollander < <mailto:don.hollander at icann.org> don.hollander at icann.org> wrote:

Please find attached documents for final comments before we publish:


04a – A review of popular browsers for UA Readiness – Spoiler alert – most are OK, but few handle the open dot or IDNs as we expect them to.   Some browser developers may see this as a feature and not a bug.


04c – a look at the issues that have been raised through our UA Complaints process and their resolution.  Short answer, not too many raised and even fewer resolved by the website developer


04d – A look at Websites and how UA Ready they are.  Good news – 7% accepted all names and just 7% accepted none of our sample set.  Bad news, just 7% accepted all names.  


04g – UASG Programming Language Evaluation Criteria


06a – Revised UASG010 – Quick Guide to Linkification


06b – Revised UASG014 – Quick Guide to EAI






Jean Guillon

 <mailto:contact at jovenet.email> contact at jovenet.email

Phone: +33.631109837

 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jovenet.consulting&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=YI0XKyKCabKQi3GVWLvuoyCWjH9WBgEBxLbMnmhSRwo&m=1P-eqr0jE-r-8cHBBTGRkIZ73E2qdSzZTsEy661aevs&s=aRz312jtSDX_1Nct5mSbGsTTH5ijYHYpb7wfSJG95Uo&e=> www.jovenet.consulting[jovenet.consulting]


Don Hollander

Universal Acceptance Steering Group

Skype: don_hollander




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20170901/e98fb101/attachment.html>

More information about the UA-discuss mailing list