June 2018 - Idngwg - lists.icann.org

Re: [Idngwg] [Ext] haven't received any response from you
by Sarmad Hussain Sept. 3, 2018

Sept. 3, 2018

Dear Yoshitaka Okuno, Please find below the response by the IDN Guidelines Working Group (IDNGWG). Regards, Sarmad ============= Yoshitaka Okuno Manager, Services Development Department Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd. Dear Yoshitaka Okuno, Thank you for your emails. The IDN Guidelines WG appreciates the continued input from JPRS, and had discussed the input at multiple WG meetings and the means to address it. Please note that the Guidelines 15 and 16 in the proposed version 4.0 are not new. These are a part of the existing version 3.0 of the IDN Guidelines, which are currently implemented (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/idn-guidelines-2011-09-02-en) The existing guideline states: 5. “All code points in a single label will be taken from the same script as determined by the Unicode Standard Annex #24: Script Names <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24>. Exceptions to this guideline are permissible for languages with established orthographies and conventions that require the commingled use of multiple scripts. Even in the case of this exception, visually confusable characters from different scripts will not be allowed to co-exist in a single set of permissible code points unless a corresponding policy and character table is clearly defined." For more clarity, in the proposed version 4.0 this guideline has been divided into two parts. Guideline 15 addresses the first part, while Guideline 16 covers the second part of the existing guideline: 15. All code points in a single IDN label must be taken from the same Unicode script as determined by the Unicode Standard Annex #24: Unicode Script Property (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24) Exceptions to this guideline are permissible for languages with established orthographies and conventions that require the commingled use of multiple Unicode scripts. Also see Additional Notes V and VI. 16. In the case of any exceptions made allowing mixing of Unicode scripts, visually confusable characters from different scripts must not be allowed to co-exist in a single set of permissible code points unless a corresponding IDN policy and IDN Table is clearly defined to minimize confusion between domain names. Also see Additional Note IV. Considering the JPRS input and additional discussion by its members, the IDN Guidelines WG has made some finer clarifications without changing the intention of the original guideline in version 3.0, as per the details below: 1. For referring to Japanese case and other cases, the WG discussed that changes should be made in Guideline 15 and not in Guideline 16. 2. The WG considered that the use of “script” may be ambiguous and so changed the text to refer explicitly to “Unicode script” as defined in the Unicode script property. This was implied in the original ver. 3.0 of the Guidelines, which had referred to UTR 24. 3. In the context of “Unicode script”, Japanese writing system uses Hiragana, Katakana and Han. Therefore, based on JPRS input, the WG agreed to qualify Japanese writing system as a case which mixes "Unicode scripts" and therefore should be allowed by default. As the guidelines themselves were intended to be generic, the WG agreed that this be done as an Additional Note and not in the text of the guideline. 4. Additional Note V was added to state that Japanese is a known case where Hiragana, Katakana and Han scripts are mixed. It also notes that Chinese, Japanese and Korean IDN tables also mix “a-z” ASCII. Additional Note VI allows additional letters like digits and hyphen to be mixed in scripts, where relevant. Therefore, cumulatively these notes allow for labels like "jpドメイン名の登録". So the Additional Notes V and VI cover the concerns raised by JPRS to pre-qualify "Unicode script"-mixing in Japanese writing system. Please also note that there are two separate guidelines which call for addressing similarity and confusability - no. 14 specifically for within-script cases and no. 16 specifically for allowed cross-script cases. Therefore, no. 16 was not altered to be more generic. Both these guidelines point to Additional Note IV, which suggest additional mechanisms for this purpose. We hope this clarifies the motivations of the WG on how it has tried to address the input from JPRS. Please let us know if you have any further input or concerns. Regards, IDN Guidelines WG -----Original Message----- From: yoshitaka(a)jprs.co.jp [mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:49 PM To: Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg(a)iis.se> Cc: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org>; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear IDN guidelines WG Chair, (CC: Sarmad、Pitinan) On 30 March, I sent you our proposed change on the IDN implementation guidelines document, following the suggestion made in the WG public meeting in San Juan on 12 March (pasted below). For these one and half months, I have not received any response to that from you. Today, I happened to find that "Final Proposed Draft v. 4.0 of the IDN Guidelines" https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_anno uncement-2D2018-2D05-2D10-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms 7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=zptC-TxcZW1PmY1jJ5 LzXVqPvD3ZlsiKvb4agfECycQ&s=wxk9m-mdZnan6Q2PmV36GLfLEXk6eKFuZRXMIFdZLeg&e= was published. It was a surprise and disappointing for us to find it without prior correspondence regarding our proposal sent to you on 30 March. Yoshitaka Okuno Manager, Services Development Department Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd. On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 17:40:59 +0900 yoshitaka(a)jprs.co.jp wrote: > Dear IDN guidelines working group, > > Please refer to the following comments and proposal. > The comments and proposal are being sent to you, following your > suggestion made in IDN Guidelines Working Group meeting in San Juan. > > In the working group meeting, the essence was orally stated by Hiro > Hotta, JPRS in the meeting room. > > I hope this may be of help to you. > > > [Summary] > > 1. As described in current guidelines, the issues of visually confusable > characters are not specific to the cases with commingled use of > multiple scripts. > > We believe Japanese domain labels fall on the exceptional cases > stated in Guideline#15. > Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana scrips are daily used in a > commingled manner based on established orthographies and > conventions in Japan. Such comingled use is allowed even in > single words. This means Japanese people consider the collective > set of Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana characters to belong to ONE > script in constituting Japanese words, just as native English > writers/readers consider English characters to belong to ONE > script. > > Therefore, in the case where comingled use of UNICODE scripts is > allowed by Guideline#15, restrictions (if any) should be the same > as in the case of one UNICODE script in constituting domain > labels. > > 2. In Additional Note IV, the guidelines of visually confusable > characters are described. We think they are the good notes because > the issues of visually confusable characters are clearly pointed. > > Taking into account the fact that issues of visually confusable > characters reside both in the case of a single UNICODE script and > in the case where comingled UNICODE scripts are allowed, we think > the sentence "must not be allowed to" is overdescribed in > guideline#16. > > [Suggestion] > > We would like to propose as follows. > > - The guideline#16 is removed from section 2.5.2 and is moved to > a newly created section between 2.5.2 and 2.5.3. The new section > is headlined as "2.5.X Visually confusable characters". > > - The guideline#16 will be modified as follows. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > 16. > Visually confusable characters had better not co-exist in a single > set of permissible code points. TLD registries should clearly > define a corresponding policy and IDN Table to minimize confusion > between domain names. Also see Additional Note IV. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for your consideration. > ---- > Yoshitaka Okuno > Manager, Services Development Department Japan Registry Services Co., > Ltd. > >

7 25

Re: [Idngwg] IDN Guidelines Working Group Meeting
by Mats Dufberg June 26, 2018

June 26, 2018

Are there any remote call-in possibilities? Mats --- Mats Dufberg DNS Specialist, IIS Mobile: +46 73 065 3899 https://www.iis.se/en/ From: sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org When: 22:00 - 23:00 26 June 2018 Subject: [Idngwg] IDN Guidelines Working Group Meeting Location: ICANN62 - HR Arista 1 Hi All, For those at ICANN62, here is a place holder for the meeting on Tuesday at 3pm-4pm. Hope this time works for those in Panama. Else please let me know. Regards, Sarmad

2 1

planning next steps for IDN Guidelines 4.0
by Sarmad Hussain June 25, 2018

June 25, 2018

Dear IDN Guidelines WG members, ICANN org is now in the process of planning the implementation of IDN Guidelines, as an intermediate step, before taking the Guidelines to the ICANN Board for approval. Though we were intending to formally kick-start the process after ICANN62, for those of you who are in Panama, perhaps we could take a face to face opportunity to discuss these next steps. Please suggest a convenient time when you can meet? Would today in the afternoon or some time on Sunday (except 11-noon and 3-4pm) work? I am also available next week. Please suggest a good time which works for you. Regards, Sarmad

5 5

IDN Guidelines Working Group Meeting
by Sarmad Hussain June 24, 2018

June 24, 2018

Hi All, For those at ICANN62, here is a place holder for the meeting on Tuesday at 3pm-4pm. Hope this time works for those in Panama. Else please let me know. Regards, Sarmad

1 0

Re: [Idngwg] [Ext] haven't received any response from you
by Tan Tanaka, Dennis June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

I'm fine with the response, Sarmad. Ok to send from my end. Others, please chime in. -Dennis On 6/12/18, 1:11 AM, "Sarmad Hussain" <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear All, A gentle reminder. We would like to finalize how we respond to JPRS. Based on the reply from Dennis and the discussions within the WG on Guidelines 15 and 16, here is a suggested response for your consideration. ----------- Dear Yoshitaka Okuno, The IDN Guidelines WG had discussed the case of Japanese writing system at multiple meetings based on feedback received from JPRS. Kindly note that based on the definition of scripts by the Unicode standard, Japanese writing system mixes Hiragana, Katakana and Kanji (Han) scripts. Guideline 15 puts constraints on mixing scripts in general. But associated Additional Notes have been added to note that Hiragana, Katakana and Kanji (Han) scripts along with ASCII are allowed to be mixed for the Japanese writing system. Guideline 16 is specifically applicable to all the script mixing cases allowed in Guideline 15. Therefore, Guideline 16 will be applicable to the Japanese writing system as well. Regards, IDN Guidelines WG ----------- Should I proceed with this response to JPRS? Please share your feedback. Regards, Sarmad -----Original Message----- From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 5:00 PM To: Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com>; idngwg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Idngwg] [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear All, There has been no further discussion on this thread. How would you like to proceed? Would you want me to share a draft response based on Dennis' email? Regards, Sarmad -----Original Message----- From: Tan Tanaka, Dennis [mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 7:17 PM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org>; idngwg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Idngwg] [Ext] haven't received any response from you I believe Yoshitaka-san has misunderstood our response. He states, "We have understood that Japanese language *shall not* be considered as "mixing of Unicode scripts" written in Guideline #16." (emphasis added) actually, the opposite is true. That is why we added the qualifier "Unicode" to the word "script" (as stated in IDNGWG's response). If this is correct, I recommend we respond accordingly to keep it on record and to avoid future misunderstanding with JRPS folks. -D On 5/28/18, 1:32 AM, "Idngwg on behalf of Sarmad Hussain" <idngwg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear IDNGWG members, Kindly advise how you would like to respond to the following message. Regards, Sarmad -----Original Message----- From: yoshitaka(a)jprs.co.jp [mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp] Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:06 AM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org> Cc: yoshitaka(a)jprs.co.jp; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org>; idngwg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear IDNGWG and Sarmad Hussain, Thank you for your response. We summarized our understanding as below. Should this mail doesn't reach IDNGWG, I'd appreciate it if Mr. Sarmad could forward it to IDNGWG. We have recognized that IDNGWG added Additional Note V and VI to the Guideline as a result of discussion on our comments. We have understood that Japanese language shall not be considered as "mixing of Unicode scripts" written in Guideline #16. Thanks again for your assistance. Best Regards, ---- Yoshitaka Okuno Manager, Services Development Department Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd. On Fri, 18 May 2018 06:04:54 +0000 Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear Yoshitaka Okuno, > > Please find below the response by the IDN Guidelines Working Group (IDNGWG). > > Regards, > Sarmad > ============= > > Yoshitaka Okuno > Manager, Services Development Department Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd. > > Dear Yoshitaka Okuno, > > Thank you for your emails. The IDN Guidelines WG appreciates the > continued input from JPRS, and had discussed the input at multiple WG > meetings and the means to address it. > > Please note that the Guidelines 15 and 16 in the proposed version 4.0 > are not new. These are a part of the existing version 3.0 of the IDN > Guidelines, which are currently implemented (see > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_res > ources_pages_idn-2Dguidelines-2D2011-2D09-2D02-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrc rwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4 &m=KR3mHCS8MRtbT2mH1CivMpm_Vg71we-wvho7cqN5Z9Q&s=FeWKN256bvrq6yzR-dhED-qNb7W nq8_cy1tkQv6CwGA&e=). The existing guideline states: > > 5. “All code points in a single label will be taken from the > same script as determined by the Unicode Standard Annex #24: Script > Names > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_r > eports_tr24&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=K > TETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=KR3mHCS8MRtbT2mH1CivMpm_V > g71we-wvho7cqN5Z9Q&s=wkkgI6r04K42Ol_7w4Xo__C0IXBtXIKYZmKGmP4teq0&e=>. > Exceptions to this guideline are permissible for languages with established orthographies and conventions that require the commingled use of multiple scripts. Even in the case of this exception, visually confusable characters from different scripts will not be allowed to co-exist in a single set of permissible code points unless a corresponding policy and character table is clearly defined." > > For more clarity, in the proposed version 4.0 this guideline has been > divided into two parts. Guideline 15 addresses the first part, while > Guideline 16 covers the second part of the existing guideline: > > 15. All code points in a single IDN label must be taken from the > same Unicode script as determined by the Unicode Standard Annex #24: > Unicode Script Property > (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_r > eports_tr24&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEa GPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=KR3mHCS8MRtbT2mH1CivMpm_Vg71we-wvho7c qN5Z9Q&s=wkkgI6r04K42Ol_7w4Xo__C0IXBtXIKYZmKGmP4teq0&e=). Exceptions to this guideline are permissible for languages with established orthographies and conventions that require the commingled use of multiple Unicode scripts. > Also see Additional Notes V and VI. > > 16. In the case of any exceptions made allowing mixing of Unicode > scripts, visually confusable characters from different scripts must > not be allowed to co-exist in a single set of permissible code points > unless a corresponding IDN policy and IDN Table is clearly defined to > minimize confusion between domain names. Also see Additional Note IV. > > Considering the JPRS input and additional discussion by its members, > the IDN Guidelines WG has made some finer clarifications without > changing the intention of the original guideline in version 3.0, as > per the details > below: > > 1. For referring to Japanese case and other cases, the WG > discussed that changes should be made in Guideline 15 and not in > Guideline 16. > 2. The WG considered that the use of “script” may be ambiguous > and so changed the text to refer explicitly to “Unicode script” as > defined in the Unicode script property. This was implied in the > original ver. 3.0 of the Guidelines, which had referred to UTR 24. > 3. In the context of “Unicode script”, Japanese writing system > uses Hiragana, Katakana and Han. Therefore, based on JPRS input, the > WG agreed to qualify Japanese writing system as a case which mixes > "Unicode scripts" and therefore should be allowed by default. As the > guidelines themselves were intended to be generic, the WG agreed that > this be done as an Additional Note and not in the text of the guideline. > 4. Additional Note V was added to state that Japanese is a known > case where Hiragana, Katakana and Han scripts are mixed. It also notes > that Chinese, Japanese and Korean IDN tables also mix “a-z” ASCII. > Additional Note VI allows additional letters like digits and hyphen to > be mixed in scripts, where relevant. Therefore, cumulatively these > notes allow for labels like "jpドメイン名の登録". So the Additional Notes V > and VI cover the concerns raised by JPRS to pre-qualify "Unicode > script"-mixing in Japanese writing system. > > Please also note that there are two separate guidelines which call for > addressing similarity and confusability - no. 14 specifically for > within-script cases and no. 16 specifically for allowed cross-script cases. > Therefore, no. 16 was not altered to be more generic. Both these > guidelines point to Additional Note IV, which suggest additional > mechanisms for this purpose. > > We hope this clarifies the motivations of the WG on how it has tried > to address the input from JPRS. Please let us know if you have any > further input or concerns. > > Regards, > IDN Guidelines WG > > > -----Original Message----- > From: yoshitaka(a)jprs.co.jp [mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp] > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:49 PM > To: Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg(a)iis.se> > Cc: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org>; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana > <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org> > Subject: [Ext] haven't received any response from you > > Dear IDN guidelines WG Chair, > (CC: Sarmad、Pitinan) > > On 30 March, I sent you our proposed change on the IDN implementation > guidelines document, following the suggestion made in the WG public > meeting in San Juan on 12 March (pasted below). For these one and half > months, I have not received any response to that from you. > > Today, I happened to find that "Final Proposed Draft v. 4.0 of the IDN > Guidelines" > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_new > s_anno > uncement-2D2018-2D05-2D10-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPS > S6sJms > 7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=zptC-TxcZW1P > mY1jJ5 > LzXVqPvD3ZlsiKvb4agfECycQ&s=wxk9m-mdZnan6Q2PmV36GLfLEXk6eKFuZRXMIFdZLe > g&e= > was published. > > It was a surprise and disappointing for us to find it without prior > correspondence regarding our proposal sent to you on 30 March. > > Yoshitaka Okuno > Manager, Services Development Department Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd. > > > On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 17:40:59 +0900 > yoshitaka(a)jprs.co.jp wrote: > > Dear IDN guidelines working group, > > > > Please refer to the following comments and proposal. > > The comments and proposal are being sent to you, following your > > suggestion made in IDN Guidelines Working Group meeting in San Juan. > > > > In the working group meeting, the essence was orally stated by Hiro > > Hotta, JPRS in the meeting room. > > > > I hope this may be of help to you. > > > > > > [Summary] > > > > 1. As described in current guidelines, the issues of visually confusable > > characters are not specific to the cases with commingled use of > > multiple scripts. > > > > We believe Japanese domain labels fall on the exceptional cases > > stated in Guideline#15. > > Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana scrips are daily used in a > > commingled manner based on established orthographies and > > conventions in Japan. Such comingled use is allowed even in > > single words. This means Japanese people consider the collective > > set of Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana characters to belong to ONE > > script in constituting Japanese words, just as native English > > writers/readers consider English characters to belong to ONE > > script. > > > > Therefore, in the case where comingled use of UNICODE scripts is > > allowed by Guideline#15, restrictions (if any) should be the same > > as in the case of one UNICODE script in constituting domain > > labels. > > > > 2. In Additional Note IV, the guidelines of visually confusable > > characters are described. We think they are the good notes because > > the issues of visually confusable characters are clearly pointed. > > > > Taking into account the fact that issues of visually confusable > > characters reside both in the case of a single UNICODE script and > > in the case where comingled UNICODE scripts are allowed, we think > > the sentence "must not be allowed to" is overdescribed in > > guideline#16. > > > > [Suggestion] > > > > We would like to propose as follows. > > > > - The guideline#16 is removed from section 2.5.2 and is moved to > > a newly created section between 2.5.2 and 2.5.3. The new section > > is headlined as "2.5.X Visually confusable characters". > > > > - The guideline#16 will be modified as follows. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 16. > > Visually confusable characters had better not co-exist in a single > > set of permissible code points. TLD registries should clearly > > define a corresponding policy and IDN Table to minimize confusion > > between domain names. Also see Additional Note IV. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Thanks for your consideration. > > ---- > > Yoshitaka Okuno > > Manager, Services Development Department Japan Registry Services > > Co., Ltd. > > > > > > >

2 1

Re: [Idngwg] [Ext] haven't received any response from you
by Tan Tanaka, Dennis June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

I believe Yoshitaka-san has misunderstood our response. He states, "We have understood that Japanese language *shall not* be considered as "mixing of Unicode scripts" written in Guideline #16." (emphasis added) actually, the opposite is true. That is why we added the qualifier "Unicode" to the word "script" (as stated in IDNGWG's response). If this is correct, I recommend we respond accordingly to keep it on record and to avoid future misunderstanding with JRPS folks. -D On 5/28/18, 1:32 AM, "Idngwg on behalf of Sarmad Hussain" <idngwg-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear IDNGWG members, Kindly advise how you would like to respond to the following message. Regards, Sarmad -----Original Message----- From: yoshitaka(a)jprs.co.jp [mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp] Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:06 AM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org> Cc: yoshitaka(a)jprs.co.jp; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org>; idngwg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear IDNGWG and Sarmad Hussain, Thank you for your response. We summarized our understanding as below. Should this mail doesn't reach IDNGWG, I'd appreciate it if Mr. Sarmad could forward it to IDNGWG. We have recognized that IDNGWG added Additional Note V and VI to the Guideline as a result of discussion on our comments. We have understood that Japanese language shall not be considered as "mixing of Unicode scripts" written in Guideline #16. Thanks again for your assistance. Best Regards, ---- Yoshitaka Okuno Manager, Services Development Department Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd. On Fri, 18 May 2018 06:04:54 +0000 Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear Yoshitaka Okuno, > > Please find below the response by the IDN Guidelines Working Group (IDNGWG). > > Regards, > Sarmad > ============= > > Yoshitaka Okuno > Manager, Services Development Department Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd. > > Dear Yoshitaka Okuno, > > Thank you for your emails. The IDN Guidelines WG appreciates the > continued input from JPRS, and had discussed the input at multiple WG > meetings and the means to address it. > > Please note that the Guidelines 15 and 16 in the proposed version 4.0 > are not new. These are a part of the existing version 3.0 of the IDN > Guidelines, which are currently implemented (see > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_res > ources_pages_idn-2Dguidelines-2D2011-2D09-2D02-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrc rwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4 &m=KR3mHCS8MRtbT2mH1CivMpm_Vg71we-wvho7cqN5Z9Q&s=FeWKN256bvrq6yzR-dhED-qNb7W nq8_cy1tkQv6CwGA&e=). The existing guideline states: > > 5. “All code points in a single label will be taken from the > same script as determined by the Unicode Standard Annex #24: Script > Names > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_r > eports_tr24&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=K > TETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=KR3mHCS8MRtbT2mH1CivMpm_V > g71we-wvho7cqN5Z9Q&s=wkkgI6r04K42Ol_7w4Xo__C0IXBtXIKYZmKGmP4teq0&e=>. > Exceptions to this guideline are permissible for languages with established orthographies and conventions that require the commingled use of multiple scripts. Even in the case of this exception, visually confusable characters from different scripts will not be allowed to co-exist in a single set of permissible code points unless a corresponding policy and character table is clearly defined." > > For more clarity, in the proposed version 4.0 this guideline has been > divided into two parts. Guideline 15 addresses the first part, while > Guideline 16 covers the second part of the existing guideline: > > 15. All code points in a single IDN label must be taken from the > same Unicode script as determined by the Unicode Standard Annex #24: > Unicode Script Property > (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_r > eports_tr24&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEa GPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=KR3mHCS8MRtbT2mH1CivMpm_Vg71we-wvho7c qN5Z9Q&s=wkkgI6r04K42Ol_7w4Xo__C0IXBtXIKYZmKGmP4teq0&e=). Exceptions to this guideline are permissible for languages with established orthographies and conventions that require the commingled use of multiple Unicode scripts. > Also see Additional Notes V and VI. > > 16. In the case of any exceptions made allowing mixing of Unicode > scripts, visually confusable characters from different scripts must > not be allowed to co-exist in a single set of permissible code points > unless a corresponding IDN policy and IDN Table is clearly defined to > minimize confusion between domain names. Also see Additional Note IV. > > Considering the JPRS input and additional discussion by its members, > the IDN Guidelines WG has made some finer clarifications without > changing the intention of the original guideline in version 3.0, as > per the details > below: > > 1. For referring to Japanese case and other cases, the WG > discussed that changes should be made in Guideline 15 and not in > Guideline 16. > 2. The WG considered that the use of “script” may be ambiguous > and so changed the text to refer explicitly to “Unicode script” as > defined in the Unicode script property. This was implied in the > original ver. 3.0 of the Guidelines, which had referred to UTR 24. > 3. In the context of “Unicode script”, Japanese writing system > uses Hiragana, Katakana and Han. Therefore, based on JPRS input, the > WG agreed to qualify Japanese writing system as a case which mixes > "Unicode scripts" and therefore should be allowed by default. As the > guidelines themselves were intended to be generic, the WG agreed that > this be done as an Additional Note and not in the text of the guideline. > 4. Additional Note V was added to state that Japanese is a known > case where Hiragana, Katakana and Han scripts are mixed. It also notes > that Chinese, Japanese and Korean IDN tables also mix “a-z” ASCII. > Additional Note VI allows additional letters like digits and hyphen to > be mixed in scripts, where relevant. Therefore, cumulatively these > notes allow for labels like "jpドメイン名の登録". So the Additional Notes V > and VI cover the concerns raised by JPRS to pre-qualify "Unicode > script"-mixing in Japanese writing system. > > Please also note that there are two separate guidelines which call for > addressing similarity and confusability - no. 14 specifically for > within-script cases and no. 16 specifically for allowed cross-script cases. > Therefore, no. 16 was not altered to be more generic. Both these > guidelines point to Additional Note IV, which suggest additional > mechanisms for this purpose. > > We hope this clarifies the motivations of the WG on how it has tried > to address the input from JPRS. Please let us know if you have any > further input or concerns. > > Regards, > IDN Guidelines WG > > > -----Original Message----- > From: yoshitaka(a)jprs.co.jp [mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp] > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:49 PM > To: Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg(a)iis.se> > Cc: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org>; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana > <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org> > Subject: [Ext] haven't received any response from you > > Dear IDN guidelines WG Chair, > (CC: Sarmad、Pitinan) > > On 30 March, I sent you our proposed change on the IDN implementation > guidelines document, following the suggestion made in the WG public > meeting in San Juan on 12 March (pasted below). For these one and half > months, I have not received any response to that from you. > > Today, I happened to find that "Final Proposed Draft v. 4.0 of the IDN > Guidelines" > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_new > s_anno > uncement-2D2018-2D05-2D10-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPS > S6sJms > 7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=zptC-TxcZW1P > mY1jJ5 > LzXVqPvD3ZlsiKvb4agfECycQ&s=wxk9m-mdZnan6Q2PmV36GLfLEXk6eKFuZRXMIFdZLe > g&e= > was published. > > It was a surprise and disappointing for us to find it without prior > correspondence regarding our proposal sent to you on 30 March. > > Yoshitaka Okuno > Manager, Services Development Department Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd. > > > On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 17:40:59 +0900 > yoshitaka(a)jprs.co.jp wrote: > > Dear IDN guidelines working group, > > > > Please refer to the following comments and proposal. > > The comments and proposal are being sent to you, following your > > suggestion made in IDN Guidelines Working Group meeting in San Juan. > > > > In the working group meeting, the essence was orally stated by Hiro > > Hotta, JPRS in the meeting room. > > > > I hope this may be of help to you. > > > > > > [Summary] > > > > 1. As described in current guidelines, the issues of visually confusable > > characters are not specific to the cases with commingled use of > > multiple scripts. > > > > We believe Japanese domain labels fall on the exceptional cases > > stated in Guideline#15. > > Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana scrips are daily used in a > > commingled manner based on established orthographies and > > conventions in Japan. Such comingled use is allowed even in > > single words. This means Japanese people consider the collective > > set of Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana characters to belong to ONE > > script in constituting Japanese words, just as native English > > writers/readers consider English characters to belong to ONE > > script. > > > > Therefore, in the case where comingled use of UNICODE scripts is > > allowed by Guideline#15, restrictions (if any) should be the same > > as in the case of one UNICODE script in constituting domain > > labels. > > > > 2. In Additional Note IV, the guidelines of visually confusable > > characters are described. We think they are the good notes because > > the issues of visually confusable characters are clearly pointed. > > > > Taking into account the fact that issues of visually confusable > > characters reside both in the case of a single UNICODE script and > > in the case where comingled UNICODE scripts are allowed, we think > > the sentence "must not be allowed to" is overdescribed in > > guideline#16. > > > > [Suggestion] > > > > We would like to propose as follows. > > > > - The guideline#16 is removed from section 2.5.2 and is moved to > > a newly created section between 2.5.2 and 2.5.3. The new section > > is headlined as "2.5.X Visually confusable characters". > > > > - The guideline#16 will be modified as follows. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 16. > > Visually confusable characters had better not co-exist in a single > > set of permissible code points. TLD registries should clearly > > define a corresponding policy and IDN Table to minimize confusion > > between domain names. Also see Additional Note IV. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Thanks for your consideration. > > ---- > > Yoshitaka Okuno > > Manager, Services Development Department Japan Registry Services > > Co., Ltd. > > > > > > >

2 2

Comment on Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM
by JS Lascary June 5, 2018

June 5, 2018

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(a)icann.org

4 6