should registries be allowed to implement techno-policies that violate these IDN Guidelines
Hi Everyone, It has come to my attention in the recent public comments regarding registry agreement amendment that Google has expressed that it seems they do not wish for these IDN Guidelines to be hard requirements for gTLDs: ====================================== Specification 6, Section 1.4 (IDNs): [Google Registry] expressed concern that the proposed language would permanently prevent registries from being able to predictably negotiate potential changes to the provision of IDNs that conflicted with the IDN Guidelines, as the IDN Guidelines would continue to control even if these services had been reviewed, approved, and reflected in the respective Registry Operator’s Exhibit A. Thus, [Google Registry] recommended that the proposed text be revised to reflect that if there is an approved RSEP allowing the Registry to deviate from the IDN Guidelines, the IDN-related provisions of Exhibit A would control. ====================================== Given our discussion so far, I think we intend for these IDN Guidelines to be overarching requirements that should never be conflicted with. If that is the idea for these IDN Guidelines, then we should alert ICANN not to allow such "exceptions". If there exist a case that such an "exception" is needed, the proper approach maybe to update these IDN Guidelines... Wonder what others think... Edmon
It's an interesting topic that raises the question of what exactly the IDN Guidelines are? It may be that the usage of the noun 'guideline' in this instance is misused. Are these a collection of implementation instructions that should be followed, but can be deviated from under appropriate circumstances or are these rules to be followed at all times? I can think of examples for both. Adherence to IDNA 2008 and following RFCs 5890-4 should be a rule in my opinion. Using established LGRs on the other hand, should be a suggestion only. There needs to be a mechanism for operators to deviate from some of our guidelines in a controlled manner. I read Google's changes not as reducing the authority of the IDN Guidelines, but rather clarifying that any negotiated changes to the guidelines have primacy with regards to adherence to the Registry Agreement. If they've received approval to implement IDNs in a certain way, Registry Operators need confidence that approval will not be ignored or subverted. However, negotiating changes to the provision of IDNs (as described by the IDN Guidelines), should probably be described within the Guidelines themselves. That is, the Guidelines should be clear on what can be altered, under what circumstances and what if any mitigation actions should accompany that change. Kal Feher On 5/08/2016, 13:38, "idngwg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Edmon Chung" <idngwg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of edmon@registry.asia> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
It has come to my attention in the recent public comments regarding registry agreement amendment that Google has expressed that it seems they do not wish for these IDN Guidelines to be hard requirements for gTLDs:
====================================== Specification 6, Section 1.4 (IDNs): [Google Registry] expressed concern that the proposed language would permanently prevent registries from being able to predictably negotiate potential changes to the provision of IDNs that conflicted with the IDN Guidelines, as the IDN Guidelines would continue to control even if these services had been reviewed, approved, and reflected in the respective Registry Operator¹s Exhibit A. Thus, [Google Registry] recommended that the proposed text be revised to reflect that if there is an approved RSEP allowing the Registry to deviate from the IDN Guidelines, the IDN-related provisions of Exhibit A would control. ======================================
Given our discussion so far, I think we intend for these IDN Guidelines to be overarching requirements that should never be conflicted with.
If that is the idea for these IDN Guidelines, then we should alert ICANN not to allow such "exceptions". If there exist a case that such an "exception" is needed, the proper approach maybe to update these IDN Guidelines...
Wonder what others think...
Edmon
_______________________________________________ Idngwg mailing list Idngwg@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_idngwg&d=DQIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=_-v0M-gLiqWrtaHtP66hjS Pyu3ePgw9YIihGxxybjqU&m=hxzbKHfVngOpAHk3TwwF1YgCpaBSyBrCGnzl6_EnD0o&s=hVJX rrKouawdSP2KKqSb7gwBZYLAdrjYCUawuCsNzww&e=
How would registry to registry variation in IDN implementation reflect on a global user experience ? if there are major differences across registries then users will be confused and affects the whole progress of IDN. I think the guidelines should create uniformity across registries and a single clear linguistic user experience. On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
It has come to my attention in the recent public comments regarding registry agreement amendment that Google has expressed that it seems they do not wish for these IDN Guidelines to be hard requirements for gTLDs:
====================================== Specification 6, Section 1.4 (IDNs): [Google Registry] expressed concern that the proposed language would permanently prevent registries from being able to predictably negotiate potential changes to the provision of IDNs that conflicted with the IDN Guidelines, as the IDN Guidelines would continue to control even if these services had been reviewed, approved, and reflected in the respective Registry Operator’s Exhibit A. Thus, [Google Registry] recommended that the proposed text be revised to reflect that if there is an approved RSEP allowing the Registry to deviate from the IDN Guidelines, the IDN-related provisions of Exhibit A would control. ======================================
Given our discussion so far, I think we intend for these IDN Guidelines to be overarching requirements that should never be conflicted with.
If that is the idea for these IDN Guidelines, then we should alert ICANN not to allow such "exceptions". If there exist a case that such an "exception" is needed, the proper approach maybe to update these IDN Guidelines...
Wonder what others think...
Edmon
_______________________________________________ Idngwg mailing list Idngwg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg
-- --------------------------- Wael Nasr SVP - TLDVIilla LLC http://icannwiki.com/Wael_Nasr http://www.linkedin.com/in/nasrwael US Office : +1 209 682 5144. Bahrain mobile :+973 393 16891
participants (3)
-
Edmon Chung -
Feher, Kal -
Wael Nasr