Forwarding reply. I think the group email got dropped off accidentally. PS It would be great if the mailing list address ‘sent on behalf’ to avoid direct replies going missing From: Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia<mailto:edmon@registry.asia>> Date: Wednesday, 18 November 2015 at 9:11 PM To: 'Mats Dufberg' <mats.dufberg@iis.se<mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se>>, Kal Feher <kalman.feher@neustar.biz<mailto:kalman.feher@neustar.biz>> Subject: RE: [Idngwg] A draft for the meeting Wednesday Agree with using MUST / SHOULD and possibly MAY too. Agree that we should probably revisit specific assignments after we have a good stocktaking of the issues. Edmon From: idngwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mats Dufberg via Idngwg Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 5:10 PM To: Feher, Kal; idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] A draft for the meeting Wednesday Rather than deferring to another document we can explicitly state for each statement if it is a MUST, SHOULD or a recommendation. I do not think that the Guidelines will be a large document, and by splitting it into two documents we increase confusion and the risk that both documents are not read. Let us postpone the final decision, but you raise an important point that we must consider if it is a MUST, a SHOULD or a recommendation. In my list that I sent some hours ago probably contain all three types. Yours, Mats -- Mats Dufberg DNS Specialist, IIS Mobile: +46 73 065 3899 https://www.iis.se/en/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.iis.se_en&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=_-v0M-gLiqWrtaHtP66hjSPyu3ePgw9YIihGxxybjqU&m=w5UphEdneaif45sl4jdL73oSwrvik0CjYKxmhTJ73qA&s=mFKrB02b3x1h_maN6owCxINm1wi9d5RrKwpJnKs_sdo&e=> Från: <idngwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of idngwg <idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>> Svara till: "Feher, Kal" <Kalman.Feher@neustar.biz<mailto:Kalman.Feher@neustar.biz>> Datum: Wednesday 18 November 2015 09:06 Till: idngwg <idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>> Ämne: Re: [Idngwg] A draft for the meeting Wednesday I think you may have misunderstood my point. The guidelines are part of the RA which makes them enforceable. There’s no likelihood they’ll be removed from the RA, so we have to be mindful of the impact of any inclusion, no matter how trivial. Therefore only items we want to be explicitly enforceable should be present in the guidelines. However we may want to explore alternative expressions for our advice if we consider something important enough to document, but impractical for contractual inclusion. My question during our first meeting regarding the original purpose of the guidelines was with their current use in mind. The answer as I recall, was that there was no specific goal and that they evolved through several iterations with no purpose other than to document good implementation advice. Given that the older revisions were developed ignorant of what would become the current use of the guidelines, we should take this as an opportunity to consider exactly what belongs in a contractually enforceable IDN implementation document. I have to disagree regarding your suggestion that we not defer to other documents. I think we should always defer to other documents. Having any specific advice within the guidelines will result in those items becoming immutable, no matter how impractical they might become. There are forums for providing expert advice on specific IDN topics and we should allow those forums to guide Registry operators rather than overriding them with this document. From: <idngwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>" <idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>> Reply-To: Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia<mailto:edmon@registry.asia>> Date: Wednesday, 18 November 2015 at 5:39 PM To: "idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>" <idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] A draft for the meeting Wednesday Those are all good points. I am not so sure whether enforcement/oversight is within the scope of our discussion though. On that, I think perhaps more appropriate to rely on existing mechanisms (including for gTLDs the new implementation & policy recommendations) On the question of “standards or advisory body”, I view this group as the expert “body” producing the guidelines. Although I am not sure whether it is appropriate to understand us as a “body” per se. More specifically, rather than *defer* to other documents, perhaps we can identify a few sets of documents as our points of references, and *refer* to them in the guidelines: - Current (and past versions of) IDN Guidelines - Policy related documents (from ccNSO and GNSO) concerning IDN - Relevant portions of IDN fast track and AGB - ICANN IDN Variant project documents - IDN related RFCs and ongoing IETF works - (and others maybe) Building on them though, I think we will need to produce recommendations that may not be explicitly included in those documents. Edmon From:idngwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Feher, Kal via Idngwg Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 2:16 PM To: idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] A draft for the meeting Wednesday My suggested talking points below: Given that this will be an enforceable document, what items belong in the guidelines and what items should be moved out to a non enforceable advisory document? What criteria and oversight will be applied to each item staying within the guidelines? Should items come from authoritative sources and if those sources modify their advice, should the guidelines explicitly allow contracted parties to follow those modifications? Will we include any items which have not been recommended by a domain name standards or advisory body and if so, should those recommendations be enforceable? From: <idngwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>" <idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>> Reply-To: Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia<mailto:edmon@registry.asia>> Date: Wednesday, 18 November 2015 at 1:09 PM To: "idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>" <idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] A draft for the meeting Wednesday Mat’s list is a good set of items for starting discussion. My contribution below on a more abstract/structural level. I think the following components may be useful for the guidelines: - Terminology - IDN Registration Policy Components - IDN policy development checklist/references - IDN policies/tables/repertoires considerations - Technical & linguistic considerations - IDN Registration - 2LD registrations - ccTLD vs gTLD contextual differences - IDN TLDs - IDN Variants - IDN Policy implementation recommendations - additional implementation guidelines based on ccNSO/GNSO documents - IDN registration systems A very rough off the top of my head framework. Edmon From:idngwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mats Dufberg via Idngwg Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:40 AM To: idngwg Subject: [Idngwg] A draft for the meeting Wednesday Friends, Enclosed is my contribution to the meeting tomorrow. Yours, Mats -- Mats Dufberg DNS Specialist, IIS Mobile: +46 73 065 3899 https://www.iis.se/en/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.iis.se_en&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=_-v0M-gLiqWrtaHtP66hjSPyu3ePgw9YIihGxxybjqU&m=IZDtZg3nhgM2Httz7TAQKafSuLY1F6opzoVFaqIJcJI&s=vtp0t2dt8PmZr_sCOR_fOklHHsSjiB9pPMt6rnGi2pw&e=>