I've updated the grandfathering suggestions using the language in rfc 7940 as a guide. It's hard to determine if a deliberate choice of terms was made in writing that document, because label and domain are used in a few cases interchangeably. However, when referring to the string being evaluated or generated, label (or variant label) is always used. When referring to the registered object, "domain name" is mostly used. So I have sought to match that in the text. Kal Feher Neustar Inc. / Enterprise Architect Level 8, 10 Queens Road, Melbourne, Australia VIC 3004 Office +61 3 9866 3710 / kal.feher@neustar.biz<mailto:kal.feher@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> Follow Neustar: [http://neunet.neustar.biz/sites/default/files/295/New%20Picture.png] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [http://neunet.neustar.biz/sites/default/files/295/New%20Picture%20(1)(1).png] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> [http://neunet.neustar.biz/sites/default/files/295/New%20Picture%20(2).png] Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustarinc> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: <idngwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, 2 February 2017 at 20:26 To: Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia<mailto:edmon@registry.asia>>, "idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>" <idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>> Subject: [Idngwg] call today - 2 Feb. 2017 Thanks Edmon. The changes have been incorporated in the attached document. We will use this version for our call today. Regards, Sarmad From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@registry.asia] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 2:02 PM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>>; idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Idngwg] Summary of meeting on 26 Jan. 2017 Hi Everyone, please find a rough draft for 4th part (with minor edits to part 1) as discussed from last meeting: ====================================================== 2.7 Similarity and Confusability of Labels ... Commingling of cross-script code points in a single IDN label (recommendation 5, version 3) All code points in a single label must be taken from the same script as determined by the Unicode Standard Annex #24: Script Names http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24[unicode.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_tr24&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=vs67oSzdoKg1I8yXSeEulH7Yxcufd2VTpR6oqGOVaIM&s=ztaPF-opuZl1GG3Qr6GxanJ3or_kOwASxeQsoWC6ca4&e=>. Exceptions to this guideline are permissible for languages with established orthographies and conventions that require the commingled use of multiple scripts. .... Harmonization of variant rules across same-script IDN tables ... Cross-script homoglyph labels ... Limitations of IDN tables and policies In the case of any exceptions made allowing mixing of scripts, 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. TLD registries should also consider policies for visually confusable characters within a same script. Nevertheless, it is important to understand that not all visual confusing similarity issues can be addressed by IDN tables, LGRs and policies. Other policies such as dispute resolution policies may be necessary to mitigate against abusive registrations exploiting visually similar characters. For example, even for Latin LDH repertoire, whereas the digit "0" and letter "O", or the capital letter "I", small letter "l" and digit "1", may be considered visually confusable characters the mitigation policy for abuse is often addressed by dispute resolution policies, leveraging other bodies of knowledge (e.g. Trademark Law) to evaluate whether similarities between names causes confusion and abuse. ====================================================== Also, my apologies, I will not be able to join the call today. Edmon From: idngwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Wednesday, 1 February 2017 01:28 AM To: idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: [Idngwg] Summary of meeting on 26 Jan. 2017 Dear All, Please find attached the summary of the meeting of the WG on 26 Jan. Please let me know if there are any changes or suggestions. The meeting has the following AIs: S. No. Action Items Owner 1 Draft the additional fourth part of the recommendation by splitting the first recommendation on comingling cross-script code points on addressing similarity cases EC 2

From 20170119 - Update recommendation on grandfathering current registrations based on the discussion

KF The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday 2 Feb. 2017 11am UTC. We will continue following a weekly meeting schedule. The attached notes of the meeting and the recording of the meeting are available at the IDNGWG wiki page at https://community.icann.org/display/IDN/IDN+Implementation+Guidelines[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_IDN_IDN-26-2343-3BImplementation-26-2343-3BGuidelines&d=DgMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=iHyLVWg5XYYYMyRqhLrWLRT-0Iuh0o5-T_cl8G4x7nY&s=_HPo9va0P1o27gRKBycMzrAZTgn8xXAy86zJg9CEjjI&e=>. Regards, Sarmad