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

[Ram Mohan]

>The manner in which we address legacy registrations will have an impact on
the success of the UA.

While it's important to keep in mind the user experience, we should also
consider the impact of non harmonized systems. As much as IDNA20008 has
problems, it still resolves some key issues in IDNA2003.

While it's a straightforward argument to say no variants should be allowed
on the DNS, the reality in many linguistic locales is that variants are a
part of everyday life. Not just in the Han script, but in Indic and Arabic
scripts, among others. We can't wish them away, nor do we have the luxury
of saying the DNS wasn't designed for it, so it shall never support it.

Harmonization of the rules of usage, combined with what an appropriate and
universal user experience ought to be are important foundations for the
universal acceptance of internationalized domain names.

Ram

On Mon, May 13, 2019, 12:26 AM Jothan Frakes <jothan at jothan.com> wrote:

> [speaking entirely in a personal capacity here]
>
> I strongly recommend that attention needs to be put towards how the
> registrants, as well as the provider channel are impacted, especially with
> respect to the impact on second level (or deeper) registration policies,
> and this not be trivialized.
>
> Confidence and Trust are a large component of attracting better adoption
> and driving forward UA projects.
>
> The user journey of a registrant needs a lot of consideration here.  Also,
> commercially interested parties like registrars get to have very
> uncomfortable interaction with registrants who suddenly may have a domain
> that is hobbled or invalidated.  Software developers are looking at this as
> well, determining how (and if) to support IDN and UA.
>
> 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.
>
>
> That was some helpful measurement.  Building upon this, the grandfathered
> registrant-folk were probably a mix of innovators and entrepreneurs (or
> both).  But the fact that they invested time and money, and have renewed
> these registrations over the span of time indicates that they are
> interested in the stuff we're hoping to grow adoption and acceptance of.
>
> Hopefully, if we can get more universal acceptance/awareness in
> communities that could benefit from them, the total sum of all IDN
> registrations we currently have will be 1% of some future number.
>
> My hope is that some future standard update at that point in time not
> break that statistically insignificant user pool, and this is what
> developers, IT management, and those who control product cycles where UA
> can be introduced are considering when choosing what to have teams focus on
> in their road-maps.
>
> 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.
>
>
> Grand-fathering the registrations is one aspect of addressing these
> things.  This means a registrant has the option to continue to pay for the
> domain and keep using it, which is good.  The challenge comes with
> standards updates that gradually (or suddenly) diminish the ability to use
> that name to the level of benefit that was present at the time of
> registration.
>
> A better way to preserve confidence might be to buy them back or offer a
> path to updated standards for those registrants in a way that is reasonable
> and acceptable to them.
>
> Developers and development leaders will look closely at how this is
> addressed, as UA projects are harder, with more testing and QA, as well as
> other specializations which introduce greater scope than other projects
> that might have clearer profit/benefit or prioritization.
>
> The manner in which we address legacy registrations will have an impact on
> the success of the UA
>
> -Jothan
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 7:32 PM 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
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20190513/e8383be4/attachment.html>