Dear All, Kindly see below the acknowledgement received by JPRS on the response by IDNGWG. This email seems to have gone through in the mailing list so you may have already received it, but forwarding again, just to be sure. Regards, Sarmad -----Original Message----- From: yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp [mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 3:01 PM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> Cc: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org>; idngwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [JPRS yoshitaka 198] RE: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear Sarmad Hussain, Thank you for your response. I will look into your answer and get back to you in case I come up with any question. 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_res
ources_pages_idn-2Dguidelines-2D2011-2D09-2D02-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrc rwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4 &m=52LHJ6fW9fTMdEqzHEr6ltSRnXB4s3Q3pFiEOc9hKjA&s=qSP879DLUA1DB50_gijc9uKxt3C I8Ans0RP8kgSzqA8&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=52LHJ6fW9fTMdEqzHEr6ltSRn XB4s3Q3pFiEOc9hKjA&s=rwfJN44B7D00Zbn8i5bVhDHpUXyxgkPQcg4tSkzUrZ4&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=52LHJ6fW9fTMdEqzHEr6ltSRnXB4s3Q3pFiEO c9hKjA&s=rwfJN44B7D00Zbn8i5bVhDHpUXyxgkPQcg4tSkzUrZ4&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_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@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.