It occurred to me that the Registry Service request from the registry operator, VeriSign, Inc. (hereinafter the 'Request') is in conflict with ICANN's Final Proposed Draft v. 4.0 of the IDN Guidelines (hereinafter the 'Guidelines') as published at the following uri < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-guidelines-10may18-en.pdf>. Specifically, section 2.5.3 of the Guidelines mentions that : " TLD registries are encouraged to apply additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables as determined by Unicode Technical Report #36: Unicode Security Considerations ( http://unicode.org/reports/tr36) and Unicode Technical Standard #39: Unicode Security Mechanisms (http://unicode.org/reports/tr39). " In fact, the single character domain name proposed in the Request, o.com (Latin script), is Whole-Script Confusable with xn--0xa.com (Greek Script) and xn--n1a.com (Cyrillic Script). At the time of this comment, the latter two are registered in the .com namespace and have been for over 14 years. Given the above, I would welcome clarifications on the below points for the benefit of the entire ICANN community : (i) What is each stakeholder's position on the matter. I note neither the Request nor ICANN's Review of the Request discuss the issue of Whole-Script Confusables. Moreover, there is no published policy on Whole-Script Confusables for the .com namespace at this time. (ii) Assuming both the Guidelines and the Amendment to the .com Registry Agreement are adopted contemporaneously, will Verisign be required to update its .com IDN policy to reflect the Guidelines prior to proceeding with it's plan to release any single character domain name. (iii) What are the "additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables" envisioned by Verisign. (iv) In which scenario(s) can the domain name proposed in the Request, o.com (Latin script), be safely released in accordance with the Guidelines. Many thanks, Jean-Sebastien Lascary cc idngwg@icann.org
This is a very interesting observation. I suppose you have already made the same observation to the public comment for the RSEP previously? I wonder if Sarmad has any insight into why ICANN concluded that there were no security/stability issues? https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-kane-07dec17... It seems to me that perhaps an RSTEP is in order here? Edmon From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of JS Lascary Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 10:24 AM To: comments-o-com-single-char-10may18@icann.org Cc: idngwg@icann.org Subject: [Idngwg] Comment on Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM It occurred to me that the Registry Service request from the registry operator, VeriSign, Inc. (hereinafter the 'Request') is in conflict with ICANN's Final Proposed Draft v. 4.0 of the IDN Guidelines (hereinafter the 'Guidelines') as published at the following uri <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-guidelines-10may18-en.pdf>. Specifically, section 2.5.3 of the Guidelines mentions that : " TLD registries are encouraged to apply additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables as determined by Unicode Technical Report #36: Unicode Security Considerations (http://unicode.org/reports/tr36) and Unicode Technical Standard #39: Unicode Security Mechanisms (http://unicode.org/reports/tr39). " In fact, the single character domain name proposed in the Request, o.com <http://o.com> (Latin script), is Whole-Script Confusable with xn--0xa.com <http://xn--0xa.com> (Greek Script) and xn--n1a.com <http://xn--n1a.com> (Cyrillic Script). At the time of this comment, the latter two are registered in the .com namespace and have been for over 14 years. Given the above, I would welcome clarifications on the below points for the benefit of the entire ICANN community : (i) What is each stakeholder's position on the matter. I note neither the Request nor ICANN's Review of the Request discuss the issue of Whole-Script Confusables. Moreover, there is no published policy on Whole-Script Confusables for the .com namespace at this time. (ii) Assuming both the Guidelines and the Amendment to the .com Registry Agreement are adopted contemporaneously, will Verisign be required to update its .com IDN policy to reflect the Guidelines prior to proceeding with it's plan to release any single character domain name. (iii) What are the "additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables" envisioned by Verisign. (iv) In which scenario(s) can the domain name proposed in the Request, o.com <http://o.com> (Latin script), be safely released in accordance with the Guidelines. Many thanks, Jean-Sebastien Lascary cc idngwg@icann.org <mailto:idngwg@icann.org>
participants (2)
-
Edmon -
JS Lascary