Thank you Edmon. Dear All, Please let me know if you have any further feedback on the response. It would be great if you can respond by this Thursday. I will incorporate any further comments and respond to JPRS accordingly on Friday. Regards, Sarmad -----Original Message----- From: Edmon <edmon@registry.asia> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 5:09 PM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; idngwg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Idngwg] [Ext] haven't received any response from you Looks good. Edmon -----Original Message----- From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:00 PM To: idngwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Idngwg] [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear IDNGWG members, Please find below the suggested response, for your review and finalization. Regards, Sarmad ===== Dear Yoshitaka Okuno, Even though the guidelines have been finalized by the IDN Guidelines WG and published, the WG appreciates the input from JPRS. In the context of your comment regarding Guideline 16, please note that the guideline empowers the registry to manage the cases of confusable labels. The guideline only requires the registry to identify such cases (if any) and devise a policy to address it. Therefore, for example, it allows for the registries to resolve such cases of confusable registrations via the Dispute Resolution Process (DRP), as you suggest. We hope this clarifies the guideline. Regards, IDN Guidelines WG -----Original Message----- From: Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 7:26 AM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> Cc: idngwg@icann.org Subject: Re: Re: [Idngwg] [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear all, I apologize for coming late to this (I was off for a few weeks due to holidays) I agree with Kal’s view point, so support using that as a next response to Yoshitaka-san. Dennis Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 18, 2018, at 2:49 AM, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
There is no further discussion on this. Should I convert the following text by Kal in a response and share back with all of you for review. Do we need to add any further discussion?
While it is certainly worth hearing from JPRS and their perspective on > the guidelines, if the guidelines are unlikely to change until another > draft is developed well into the future, we should be very clear about > that fact to Yoshitaka and anyone else corresponding with the WG.
As for Yoshitaka's points, my preference is always to err towards permissible guidelines and to let registries control their own fate. I > think the guidelines do allow this. The guidelines say that exceptions > to the requirement should be covered by IDN policies, which parallels Yoshitaka's suggestion that confusable registrations could be resolved > via DRP (I presume he is using the common acronym for Dispute Resolution Policy). In my opinion the guidelines do not prevent JPRS from doing exactly as they wish.
Regards, Sarmad
-----Original Message----- From: Idngwg <idngwg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Kal Feher Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2018 6:02 AM To: idngwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Idngwg] [Ext] haven't received any response from you
I think we still owe Yoshitaka a reply, unless one has gone out that I have missed.
On 1/8/18 9:44 pm, Kal Feher wrote: I'd like to understand what exactly this group can and should do going > forward with the guidelines at this stage?
While it is certainly worth hearing from JPRS and their perspective on > the guidelines, if the guidelines are unlikely to change until another > draft is developed well into the future, we should be very clear about > that fact to Yoshitaka and anyone else corresponding with the WG.
As for Yoshitaka's points, my preference is always to err towards permissible guidelines and to let registries control their own fate. I > think the guidelines do allow this. The guidelines say that exceptions > to the requirement should be covered by IDN policies, which parallels Yoshitaka's suggestion that confusable registrations could be resolved > via DRP (I presume he is using the common acronym for Dispute Resolution Policy). In my opinion the guidelines do not prevent JPRS from doing exactly as they wish.
Kal
On 31/7/18 10:03 pm, Mats Dufberg wrote: [Internal message, Yoshitaka Okuno not included.]
After reading the message Yoshitaka Okuno(1) I have the following reflections and questions:
He states regarding example in 2 below:
"These may be regarded as confusable strings by some people."
Does he then mean people outside the Japanese community?
"But these consist of totally different characters with different reading and meaning, and each of them exists in reality. We think both words should be allowed to be registered as domain name labels. Those words live in Japanese real life with no confusion."
Does he mean that people from the Japanese community will have no problem to differentiate between the two phrases? Or does he mean that the two phrases are usually used in two different contexts so that no real confusion happens?
In whose eyes should the "visual similarity" sit?
Mats
(1) As far as I can see, Yoshitaka is a male's name and therefore "he", "his".
--- Mats Dufberg DNS Specialist, IIS Mobile: +46 73 065 3899 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iis.se_en_& d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwP cawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=joKA2xTDMoVh7AEsz0PcrKZCSZs53w_o3 BW4x_jsCpw&s=ySyXGvIe3ap_ZQi_N1Fi9C-j3iDORSgXf1xwCf5ZFh0&e=
-----Original Message----- From: Idngwg <idngwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp" <yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> Date: Tuesday, 31 July 2018 at 09:27 To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>, idngwg <idngwg@icann.org> Cc: "yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp" <yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] [Ext] haven't received any response from you
Dear IDNGWG and Sarmad Hussain, Thank you for your confirmation. We feel very disappointed that our opinion is not adopted. We still cannot understand the basic concept of IDN Guidelines. To understand your concept, we would like to show you some typical cases of Japanese language words as follows. We would appreciate if IDNGWG could tell us their opinion for each.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- - - 1. should confusable characters be forced out of repertoire? In defining a set of characters that can be used in Japanese labels, we think that it is not appropriate to prohibit other characters >> to be used, leaving only one character, just because certain characters are visually confusable to each other. That would inhibit natural expressions or daily-used input method. As we explained over and over again, Hiragana, Katakana and >> Kanji characters can be mixed in an arbitrary order in Japanese words. And daily-used computer input method supports such typing. This illustrates the same situation where "l"/"O" is forced >> out of repertoire just because "1"/"0" is visually confusable with "l"/"O". In this case "fortune100.TLD" cannot be an applied-for label and >> the applicant must apply for "fortuneloo.TLD" (el-ou-ou) instead of "fortune100.TLD". If ASCII labels follow the concept of guidelines, "1" and "0" are not allowed to be used in any labels at all. Therefore, our answer to the original question "should confusable characters be forced out of repertoire?" is "No". Question for IDNGWG; Do you have any differnet opinions about this issues?
-------------------------------------------------------------------- - - 2. should confusable labels be blocked? Please see the following examples. "ハニー" (U+30CF, U+30CB, U+30FC) means "honey" "八二一" (U+516B, U+4E8C, U+4E00) means group name of Japanese photographers "hani hajime" These may be regarded as confusable strings by some people. But these consist of totally different characters with different reading and meaning, and each of them exists in reality. We think both words should be allowed to be registered as domain name labels. Those words live in Japanese real life with no confusion. If there should be any problems on their use, they should be resolved using DRP. Therefore, our answer to the original question "should confusable labels be blocked?" is "No". Questions for IDNGWG; Do you think that only one of them is allowed to be registered in the above example? And what is the reason and/or tangible ground of your opinion?
Dear Yoshitaka Okuno,
I apologize for the delay in responding, as I have been traveling.
Please find below the response from the IDN Guidelines WG to your follow-up query.
Please separately let me know if you have a query or comment for the integration panel in the context of Japanese proposal for the Root Zone LGR.
Regards Sarmad
----------- 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
-----Original Message----- From: yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp [mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 6:06 AM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> Cc: yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org>; idngwg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Ext] haven't received any response from you
Dear IDNGWG and Sarmad Hussain,
I apologize for this delayed response due to false positive of >> my SPAM filter.
Thank you for sharing our comments with IDNGWG members.
We hope that the consequence is clearly described as follows in item V of "2.8 Additional Notes" to make readers unmistakably understand >> the guidelines.
=== Guideline 15: For example, Japanese language normally mixes Hiragana, Katakana and Han scripts. Therefore, Japanese labels can be mixed strings of Hiragana, Katakana and Han characters, and shall be treated in the same way as in a single Unicode script. Also, for Chinese, .... ===
We should not treat "mixing of Hiragana, Katakana and Han" and >> "mixing of different language scripts" in the same rank, and we should clearly state this concept in the guidelines.
We hope that you would share our additional comment as above with Integration Panel members.
Thanks and Regards,
Yoshitaka Okuno Manager, Services Development Department Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd.
PS. We still have a strong view that visual similarity should be dealt with in applications or DRP, not in domain name registration, if such treatment is needed. We hope this view will be communicated more openly later.
Best Regards, ---- Yoshitaka Okuno Manager, Services Development Department Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd.
On Mon, 28 May 2018 05:26:17 +0000 Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Yoshitaka Okuno,
Thank you for your response.
This is to acknowledge its receipt and to confirm that your response below has been shared with the IDNGWG members.
Regards, Sarmad
-----Original Message----- From: yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp [mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp] Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:06 AM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> Cc: yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org>; idngwg@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@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_r
es
ources_pages_idn-2Dguidelines-2D2011-2D09-2D02-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u 3>> P
Jp6wrc
rwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm- m x
d028M4
&m=KR3mHCS8MRtbT2mH1CivMpm_Vg71we-wvho7cqN5Z9Q&s=FeWKN256bvrq6yzR-dh E>> D
-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 =>> K
TETvEa
GPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=KR3mHCS8MRtbT2mH1CivMpm_Vg71w e
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Best Regards, ---- Yoshitaka Okuno Manager, Services Development Department Japan Registry Services >> Co., Ltd. On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 22:21:36 +0000 Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> wrote: -
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@jprs.co.jp [mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:49 PM To: Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@iis.se> Cc: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@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_n
ew s_anno
uncement-2D2018-2D05-2D10-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkb
PS S6sJms
7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=zptC-TxcZW
1P mY1jJ5
LzXVqPvD3ZlsiKvb4agfECycQ&s=wxk9m-mdZnan6Q2PmV36GLfLEXk6eKFuZRXMIFdZ
Le 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@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. > >
------=_NextPart_000_0060_01D3F66E.4DAD12E0 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s"
MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIK 5 D
CCA9ow
ggLCoAMCAQICEBnO/OtOViifQymetjGOKB8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwXzETMBEGCgmS J o
mT8ixk
ARkWA29yZzEVMBMGCgmSJomT8ixkARkWBWljYW5uMRIwEAYKCZImiZPyLGQBGRYCZHMx H T
AbBgNV
BAMTFGFkMS1sYXguZHMuaWNhbm4ub3JnMB4XDTE0MDcxMjAwMzkyMloXDTIwMDcxMTAw N D
kyMFow
XzETMBEGCgmSJomT8ixkARkWA29yZzEVMBMGCgmSJomT8ixkARkWBWljYW5uMRIwEAYK C Z
ImiZPy
LGQBGRYCZHMxHTAbBgNVBAMTFGFkMS1sYXguZHMuaWNhbm4ub3JnMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG 9 w
0BAQEF
AAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAp2rO8T/RetycoY+6zohRDGphUlFE8hKyoCGVLBOVNuPH8kAN 7 P
G4vyR7
m182FaFtyt3kbCgzat38XbGtpUkpf/TWmumJUnKODb1Mtt3YB6B5URPGFyIu1aa/o31W j K
Y/hLGR
4a3tNRIpfy7JUnI7SiWfjoeiq2q1xwPCJ+xdfeOwkJEagM5L9BE3jRKGxEve0DLTWvDt 4a3tNRIpfy7JUnI7SiWfjoeiq2q1xwPCJ+J 4a3tNRIpfy7JUnI7SiWfjoeiq2q1xwPCJ+Z
4a3tNRIpfy7JUnI7SiWfjoeiq2q1xwPCJ+pMKSdr
NGPYViHYuRlizbvil6+Jux7kNg9cMxrqZUW7zx6xsBKfmISH/gNZQsSrX9IlRJNVQh/o NGPYViHYuRlizbvil6+v NGPYViHYuRlizbvil6+7
NGPYViHYuRlizbvil6+eef7MY
R98TLnnOpaonPQR54nk2IlABW8ZQjYyCfNftTCyTwVJyL0M05qWJG+b7eQIDAQABo4GR R98TLnnOpaonPQR54nk2IlABW8ZQjYyCfNftTCyTwVJyL0M05qWJG+M R98TLnnOpaonPQR54nk2IlABW8ZQjYyCfNftTCyTwVJyL0M05qWJG+I
R98TLnnOpaonPQR54nk2IlABW8ZQjYyCfNftTCyTwVJyL0M05qWJG+GOMBMG
CSsGAQQBgjcUAgQGHgQAQwBBMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBhjAPBgNVHRMBAf8EBTADAQH/ M B
0GA1Ud
DgQWBBTpKerCBbuXyks/cnl6+luCS7lqhDASBgkrBgEEAYI3FQEEBQIDAQABMCMGCSsG A Q
QBgjcV
AgQWBBQ7JvikaZYKKTIHybKXhMebCWyPKzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEADOmrsr5f 5 i
gaqu9A
4YOPskS46dvfemEAWChEjoEAg1kIPWMkJx4hn0wkgd7/QbzCRUxS2iFHWPU+kQUTLKj9 G G
iUVdQ6
YjDg2Qrc6a9F0re7zj/mhqZrSJAbgG0qgRjlKSodltvw74lLpK8BH3hbTuBp3Fcp605z s G
iJHfmc
B3X25UqJ9QUtc+Pf+49UtLCf3bGzKTvwoGa+UAsioZ55ii2Jqh8JJBf17WqWNioMAxKJ B3X25UqJ9QUtc+Pf+49UtLCf3bGzKTvwoGa+R B3X25UqJ9QUtc+Pf+49UtLCf3bGzKTvwoGa+s
B3X25UqJ9QUtc+Pf+49UtLCf3bGzKTvwoGa+rLNiWo
UwWZiWe5A5o87WCTnRXbC/X1RmlbiyzAWtGThC1dVONa93SxZFZGFeBQD7Np1bhwSFhP c e
qVkyON
iuPzlS6LSb/0FPi2imPszjCCBwIwggXqoAMCAQICCnVql4YAAQAACR8wDQYJKoZIhvcN A Q
EFBQAw
XzETMBEGCgmSJomT8ixkARkWA29yZzEVMBMGCgmSJomT8ixkARkWBWljYW5uMRIwEAYK C Z
ImiZPy
LGQBGRYCZHMxHTAbBgNVBAMTFGFkMS1sYXguZHMuaWNhbm4ub3JnMB4XDTE4MDUwMzIw M T
AzMFoX
DTIwMDUwMjIwMTAzMFowgZgxEzARBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEZFgNvcmcxFTATBgoJkiaJk/Is Z A
EZFgVp
Y2FubjESMBAGCgmSJomT8ixkARkWAmRzMRQwEgYDVQQLEwtJQ0FOTi1Vc2VyczEXMBUG A 1
UEAxMO
U2FybWFkIEh1c3NhaW4xJzAlBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWGHNhcm1hZC5odXNzYWluQGljYW5u L m
9yZzCC
ASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMeUJZWT2LHkkgUQ3PBYne3/nqJ2 Q 9
o0N+41
SzEall6+A+7o8nU9ZLDgCkCobGmM+kdoEMqRZJ10HeiMDuJxLgEn6kWGXWp8U1vb6qHX SzEall6+A+7o8nU9ZLDgCkCobGmM+8 SzEall6+A+7o8nU9ZLDgCkCobGmM+H
SzEall6+A+7o8nU9ZLDgCkCobGmM+SbHkoC
0L+PdB6in1CSYw7892ll76dAc/5w1z8PRHXfjcL/+I2YpCO5UCU98Unp2u1mmCXXndme 0L+Y 0L+7
0L+3sZRkY
HcKuZRaR03hksSGuKgxd+wHStK9woa5R8KQS1Gc6IHRFPJT7G4tR98iqYGqxkxe/itSM HcKuZRaR03hksSGuKgxd+2 HcKuZRaR03hksSGuKgxd++
HcKuZRaR03hksSGuKgxd+54d/Xr
4RSq34jyYCqc690W94Vp2LP69wWOCakCSysUUI3LcFp8urfC5ZQVGRBiqlPNySg4R4ok J K
bKDMil
EBkCAwEAAaOCA4QwggOAMD0GCSsGAQQBgjcVBwQwMC4GJisGAQQBgjcVCIG6sk2EyMhq g 6
2TP4eU
9FqD+YhuTofryz+Gg5haAgFkAgEHMCkGA1UdJQQiMCAGCisGAQQBgjcKAwQGCCsGAQUF 9FqD+YhuTofryz+B 9FqD+YhuTofryz+w
9FqD+YhuTofryz+MEBggr
BgEFBQcDAjAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCBaAwNQYJKwYBBAGCNxUKBCgwJjAMBgorBgEEAYI3 C g
MEMAoG
CCsGAQUFBwMEMAoGCCsGAQUFBwMCMIGUBgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8EgYYwgYMwCwYJYIZIAWUD B A
EqMAsG
CWCGSAFlAwQBLTALBglghkgBZQMEARYwCwYJYIZIAWUDBAEZMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBAjAL B g
lghkgB
ZQMEAQUwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcwBwYFKw4DAgcwDgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCAMA4GCCqGSIb3 D Q
MEAgIC
ADAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUb9oEypTkHK3ULRCW/C19dwlSCH8wHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAU6SnqwgW7 l 8
pLP3J5
evpbgku5aoQwgdkGA1UdHwSB0TCBzjCBy6CByKCBxYaBwmxkYXA6Ly8vQ049YWQxLWxh e C
5kcy5p
Y2Fubi5vcmcoMSksQ049YWQxLWxheCxDTj1DRFAsQ049UHVibGljJTIwS2V5JTIwU2Vy d m
ljZXMs
Q049U2VydmljZXMsQ049Q29uZmlndXJhdGlvbixEQz1kcyxEQz1pY2FubixEQz1vcmc/ Y 2
VydGlm
aWNhdGVSZXZvY2F0aW9uTGlzdD9iYXNlP29iamVjdENsYXNzPWNSTERpc3RyaWJ1dGlv b l
BvaW50
MIHKBggrBgEFBQcBAQSBvTCBujCBtwYIKwYBBQUHMAKGgapsZGFwOi8vL0NOPWFkMS1s Y X
guZHMu
aWNhbm4ub3JnLENOPUFJQSxDTj1QdWJsaWMlMjBLZXklMjBTZXJ2aWNlcyxDTj1TZXJ2 a W
NlcyxD
Tj1Db25maWd1cmF0aW9uLERDPWRzLERDPWljYW5uLERDPW9yZz9jQUNlcnRpZmljYXRl P 2
Jhc2U/
b2JqZWN0Q2xhc3M9Y2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbkF1dGhvcml0eTBNBgNVHREERjBEoCgGCisG A Q
QBgjcU
AgOgGgwYc2FybWFkLmh1c3NhaW5AaWNhbm4ub3JngRhzYXJtYWQuaHVzc2FpbkBpY2Fu b i
5vcmcw
DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAHbIaTTqckaD1y/vCD4q8u09N66oVdbm4CCQLwdlYNO1 u U
guov8L
W+d8vJsANoGQ5aB349mzZVEJmfe9IrCWOS9R2MZi5u6PxsZFLiouD2LVldFZ/gA0tWqP W+p W+t
W+y/HEwi
T9MJ+dujtjGuhUyQGJ/c/TAXYw+11URpdw/ulLO94pKhybMJlGuCD9Y6SugUUvRZfV9C T9MJ+G T9MJ+q
T9MJ+3dA43k
EkvN7EUxhPSytjwr+X4mcJfzR1TV5D+nsb+Qh6tLYNVg750MJZkUdvs1SqWFQHaOGcfI EkvN7EUxhPSytjwr+X4mcJfzR1TV5D+nsb+e EkvN7EUxhPSytjwr+X4mcJfzR1TV5D+nsb+K
EkvN7EUxhPSytjwr+X4mcJfzR1TV5D+nsb+rLgTKN
daSK/m87mPTCp04BO1A/pQcuekmI3ozmwP1XSCFzpsLnT1TbX3vfGluqgUu655kxggOJ M I
IDhQIB
ATBtMF8xEzARBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEZFgNvcmcxFTATBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEZFgVpY2FubjES M B
AGCgmS
JomT8ixkARkWAmRzMR0wGwYDVQQDExRhZDEtbGF4LmRzLmljYW5uLm9yZwIKdWqXhgAB A A
AJHzAJ
BgUrDgMCGgUAoIIB8TAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJ B T
EPFw0x
ODA1MjgwNTI2MTNaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBR8LUxI1LAn3WdertCUOSpR06a2zjB8 B g
krBgEE
AYI3EAQxbzBtMF8xEzARBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEZFgNvcmcxFTATBgoJkiaJk/IsZAEZFgVp Y 2
FubjES
MBAGCgmSJomT8ixkARkWAmRzMR0wGwYDVQQDExRhZDEtbGF4LmRzLmljYW5uLm9yZwIK d W
qXhgAB
AAAJHzB+BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzFvoG0wXzETMBEGCgmSJomT8ixkARkWA29yZzEVMBMG AAAJHzB+C AAAJHzB+g
AAAJHzB+mSJomT
8ixkARkWBWljYW5uMRIwEAYKCZImiZPyLGQBGRYCZHMxHTAbBgNVBAMTFGFkMS1sYXgu Z H
MuaWNh
bm4ub3JnAgp1apeGAAEAAAkfMIGTBgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xgYUwgYIwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcw C w
YJYIZI
AWUDBAEqMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBFjALBglghkgBZQMEAQIwDgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCAMA0G C C
qGSIb3
DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIaMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQCAzALBglghkgBZQMEAgIwCwYJYIZIAWUD B A
IBMA0G
CSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAGnzDMiJdTOPXpJyTFeYUB2YBt8onPcISntBB1ohaYV82KwA F Y
7m8crG
qXogm9djUaaE31w4JyZEiX83pPrUW1OKPDIa6yY84QGIhZ2c+PKdD+EItxuF3vPKVrkagCg+q4V9
L8siqUtRctZnrMfMG4L7gp7pRMRZNiiSdXqCnKkxGIAnUBLyG0AnHG5plJ2xWxz/2IPh x E
pfR84k
6/oHS8XMBwADup4zfW/B8hh37p4hw64lLzohgRA5iRnYFKFjdVeDF5AXe67WvQPCITcV 9 H
SXAWV9
W0lN52xhWzsOZkgV25sNzTvqog7NeKObagntuDlBRK/srrL4a4vhXPllySkAAAAAAAA=
------=_NextPart_000_0060_01D3F66E.4DAD12E0--
_______________________________________________ Idngwg mailing list Idngwg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg
_______________________________________________ Idngwg mailing list Idngwg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg
-- Kal Feher Melbourne, Australia
_______________________________________________ Idngwg mailing list Idngwg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg