Dear colleagues, Here's a draft of what I was saying during yesterday's meeting, as promised. The first paragraph is the existing text; the second a suggested addition. //current recommendation 2: No code point permitted in IDNA2003 but disallowed in IDNA2008 will be accepted for registration regardless of the extent to which such code points appear in names registered prior to the protocol revision. The registrant of a domain that is no longer supported by IDNA2008 should be notified that there may be unanticipated consequences for a user attempting to reach it, and such names should be replaced, held, or deleted at registry initiative. In the case of code points permitted in IDNA2008 but disallowed in IDNA2003, those allowed for use in the Root Zone, typically for scripts added in Unicode versions since 2003, should be allowed in labels at other levels. Code points, however, added to IDNA2008 for other reasons should generally be disallowed in the interests of a good user experience and respecting the Longevity Principle in the Procedure. == The word "respecting" is meant to cause discussion. We may want to consider "in the spirit of" or a weaker form of words. This touches on an interesting issue - the Procedure is binding at the Top Level, but what is its relationship to the other levels? I've attached the v.3 of the document, so you can see this in context. Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon> From: idngwg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: 04 May 2016 19:00 To: idngwg@icann.org Subject: [Idngwg] Draft document initial version Dear IDNGWG members, Please find attached the an initial version of the document derived from the issues list and follow our discussion in the previous conf. call (see action items in the email below). I have divided "Terminology and Transition" to two sections and added a place holder for EPP, as raised by the community, totaling to eight items - for the WG to finalize. I have also gone through the earlier version 3.0 of these guidelines and added the recommendations from it in the relevant sections (all nine have been mapped) - shown in italics - as a reference starting point. Finally, I have added the terminology we are identifying in the appendix of this document. This list will grow over time, and we will also need to finalize the definitions for each term. The recommendation section against issue is left blank for the WG to discuss and advise. Please feel free to share your feedback to develop the document further. Looking forward to your call tomorrow (Thursday). Regards, Sarmad