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

[Dusan Stojicevic]

Dear Roberto,

As far as I know, there's no such report. More on that - most of the IDN
ccTLDs are not even considering variants. They are not obligated to do that
(in fact, not obligated to anything what ICANN try to regulate), and
Guidelines are just recommendation for them.
Guidelines are obligation for IDN gTLDs, New gTLDs and new applications for
IDN TLDs. And that's how they manage variants.

Cheers,
Dusan




pet, 10. maj 2019. 23:31 Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com> je
napisao/la:

> Hi all.
> This email from Jothan makes a good point about the impact caused by
> changing the standard about managing variants.
> I was wondering whether we have a report on how variants are managed by
> different IDN registries.
> Somebody can point me to such a source?
> Thanks,
> Roberto
>
>
> On 30.04.2019, at 23:27, Jothan Frakes <jothan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> developers.
>
> 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
>
>
> Jothan Frakes
> +1.206-355-0230 tel
> +1.206-201-6881 fax
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20190511/a218885d/attachment.html>