FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you
Dear All, We received the following communication from JPRS today. Please let us know how you would want to respond to it. Regards, Sarmad -----Original Message----- From: yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp [mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:49 AM 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_news_anno uncement-2D2018-2D05-2D10-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms 7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=zptC-TxcZW1PmY1jJ5 LzXVqPvD3ZlsiKvb4agfECycQ&s=wxk9m-mdZnan6Q2PmV36GLfLEXk6eKFuZRXMIFdZLeg&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.
Hello Sarmad, I don't recall the communication. Was it discussed in one of our meetings and were there any action points from that discussion that we have failed to take? On 11/5/18 10:37 pm, Sarmad Hussain wrote:
Dear All,
We received the following communication from JPRS today. Please let us know how you would want to respond to it.
Regards, Sarmad
-----Original Message----- From: yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp [mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:49 AM 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_news_anno uncement-2D2018-2D05-2D10-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms 7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=zptC-TxcZW1PmY1jJ5 LzXVqPvD3ZlsiKvb4agfECycQ&s=wxk9m-mdZnan6Q2PmV36GLfLEXk6eKFuZRXMIFdZLeg&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.
_______________________________________________ Idngwg mailing list Idngwg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg
-- Kal Feher @kalfeher
Dear Kal, All, The communication was forwarded to IDN Guidelines WG when it was received (see attached email). This comment is in continuation of the comment submitted by JPRS <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-idn-guidelines-19oct17/2017q4/00000 3.html> during the public comment. The WG had a discussion around the input received by JPRS at multiple meetings. The final discussion took place on 19 April and the changes proposed were reviewed and agreed on 26 April (see notes at https://community.icann.org/display/IDN/IDN+Implementation+Guidelines). The summary of the discussion and changes to incorporate the JPRS feedback is as follows: 1. The WG discussed that changes should be made in Guideline 15 and not 16. 2. The WG considered that the use of “script” is ambiguous and so changed the text to refer to “Unicode script” as defined in the Unicode script property. 3. In the context of “unicode script”, Japanese writing system uses Hiragana, Katakana and Han. Therefore, the WG agreed to qualify Japanese case as a known exception of script mixing. However, it was agreed that this be done as an Additional Note and not in the text of the guideline (latter to remain generic). 4. Additional Note V was added and says 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. 5. Additional Note VII allows additional letters like digits and hyphen to be mixed in scripts, where relevant. The Additional Notes V and VII added are covering the concerns raised by JPRS to pre-qualify script-mixing in Japanese writing system. It still puts the Japanese case in the “exception” category because the point of reference is the “Unicode script”, which the JPRS had suggested be reviewed. The WG considered it and decided to use the “Unicode script” so that part of the comment was perhaps not addressed per the expectation of the JPRS. Also, there are two separate guidelines - no. 14 for within-script cases and no. 16 for cross-script cases. Therefore, no. 16 was not altered. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. Regards, Sarmad From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kal Feher Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 9:50 PM To: idngwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Hello Sarmad, I don't recall the communication. Was it discussed in one of our meetings and were there any action points from that discussion that we have failed to take? On 11/5/18 10:37 pm, Sarmad Hussain wrote: Dear All, We received the following communication from JPRS today. Please let us know how you would want to respond to it. Regards, Sarmad -----Original Message----- From: yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> [mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:49 AM To: Mats Dufberg <mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se> <mats.dufberg@iis.se> Cc: Sarmad Hussain <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> <sarmad.hussain@icann. org>; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org> <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_news_anno uncement-2D2018-2D05-2D10-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms 7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=zptC-TxcZW1PmY1jJ5 LzXVqPvD3ZlsiKvb4agfECycQ&s=wxk9m-mdZnan6Q2PmV36GLfLEXk6eKFuZRXMIFdZLeg&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 <mailto: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. _______________________________________________ Idngwg mailing list Idngwg@icann.org <mailto:Idngwg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg -- Kal Feher @kalfeher
Dear All, Kindly also note that Guideline 16 is part of the existing implemented “version 3.0” of the guidelines. The existing guideline says: 1. “All code points in a single label will be taken from the same script as determined by the Unicode Standard Annex #24: Script Names < <http://www. unicode.org/reports/tr24> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24>. 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. In the proposed version 4.0 this guideline has been divided into two parts. Guideline 15 addresses the first (unhighlighted) part. Guideline 16 covers the highlighted part. We now have: 1. 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 ( <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24). 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. 2. 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. Regards, Sarmad From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 11:11 AM To: Kal Feher <icann@feherfamily.org>; idngwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear Kal, All, The communication was forwarded to IDN Guidelines WG when it was received (see attached email). This comment is in continuation of the comment submitted by JPRS <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-idn-guidelines-19oct17/2017q4/00000 3.html> during the public comment. The WG had a discussion around the input received by JPRS at multiple meetings. The final discussion took place on 19 April and the changes proposed were reviewed and agreed on 26 April (see notes at https://community.icann.org/display/IDN/IDN+Implementation+Guidelines). The summary of the discussion and changes to incorporate the JPRS feedback is as follows: 1. The WG discussed that changes should be made in Guideline 15 and not 16. 2. The WG considered that the use of “script” is ambiguous and so changed the text to refer to “Unicode script” as defined in the Unicode script property. 3. In the context of “unicode script”, Japanese writing system uses Hiragana, Katakana and Han. Therefore, the WG agreed to qualify Japanese case as a known exception of script mixing. However, it was agreed that this be done as an Additional Note and not in the text of the guideline (latter to remain generic). 4. Additional Note V was added and says 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. 5. Additional Note VII allows additional letters like digits and hyphen to be mixed in scripts, where relevant. The Additional Notes V and VII added are covering the concerns raised by JPRS to pre-qualify script-mixing in Japanese writing system. It still puts the Japanese case in the “exception” category because the point of reference is the “Unicode script”, which the JPRS had suggested be reviewed. The WG considered it and decided to use the “Unicode script” so that part of the comment was perhaps not addressed per the expectation of the JPRS. Also, there are two separate guidelines - no. 14 for within-script cases and no. 16 for cross-script cases. Therefore, no. 16 was not altered. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. Regards, Sarmad From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kal Feher Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 9:50 PM To: idngwg@icann.org <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Hello Sarmad, I don't recall the communication. Was it discussed in one of our meetings and were there any action points from that discussion that we have failed to take? On 11/5/18 10:37 pm, Sarmad Hussain wrote: Dear All, We received the following communication from JPRS today. Please let us know how you would want to respond to it. Regards, Sarmad -----Original Message----- From: yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> [mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:49 AM To: Mats Dufberg <mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se> <mats.dufberg@iis.se> Cc: Sarmad Hussain <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> <sarmad.hussain@icann. org>; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org> <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_news_anno uncement-2D2018-2D05-2D10-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms 7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=zptC-TxcZW1PmY1jJ5 LzXVqPvD3ZlsiKvb4agfECycQ&s=wxk9m-mdZnan6Q2PmV36GLfLEXk6eKFuZRXMIFdZLeg&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 <mailto: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. _______________________________________________ Idngwg mailing list Idngwg@icann.org <mailto:Idngwg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg -- Kal Feher @kalfeher
I think we should communicate to Yoshitaka what you have outlined, especially letting him know that we did take the suggestion into consideration. And get from him, with the explanation, whether he still has a concern with the existing language. Edmon From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 2:25 AM To: Kal Feher <icann@feherfamily.org>; idngwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear All, Kindly also note that Guideline 16 is part of the existing implemented “version 3.0” of the guidelines. The existing guideline says: 1. “All code points in a single label will be taken from the same script as determined by the Unicode Standard Annex #24: Script Names < <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24>. 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. In the proposed version 4.0 this guideline has been divided into two parts. Guideline 15 addresses the first (unhighlighted) part. Guideline 16 covers the highlighted part. We now have: 1. 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 ( <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24). 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. 2. 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. Regards, Sarmad From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 11:11 AM To: Kal Feher <icann@feherfamily.org <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> >; idngwg@icann.org <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear Kal, All, The communication was forwarded to IDN Guidelines WG when it was received (see attached email). This comment is in continuation of the comment submitted by JPRS <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-idn-guidelines-19oct17/2017q4/000003...> during the public comment. The WG had a discussion around the input received by JPRS at multiple meetings. The final discussion took place on 19 April and the changes proposed were reviewed and agreed on 26 April (see notes at https://community.icann.org/display/IDN/IDN+Implementation+Guidelines). The summary of the discussion and changes to incorporate the JPRS feedback is as follows: 1. The WG discussed that changes should be made in Guideline 15 and not 16. 2. The WG considered that the use of “script” is ambiguous and so changed the text to refer to “Unicode script” as defined in the Unicode script property. 3. In the context of “unicode script”, Japanese writing system uses Hiragana, Katakana and Han. Therefore, the WG agreed to qualify Japanese case as a known exception of script mixing. However, it was agreed that this be done as an Additional Note and not in the text of the guideline (latter to remain generic). 4. Additional Note V was added and says 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. 5. Additional Note VII allows additional letters like digits and hyphen to be mixed in scripts, where relevant. The Additional Notes V and VII added are covering the concerns raised by JPRS to pre-qualify script-mixing in Japanese writing system. It still puts the Japanese case in the “exception” category because the point of reference is the “Unicode script”, which the JPRS had suggested be reviewed. The WG considered it and decided to use the “Unicode script” so that part of the comment was perhaps not addressed per the expectation of the JPRS. Also, there are two separate guidelines – no. 14 for within-script cases and no. 16 for cross-script cases. Therefore, no. 16 was not altered. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. Regards, Sarmad From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kal Feher Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 9:50 PM To: idngwg@icann.org <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Hello Sarmad, I don't recall the communication. Was it discussed in one of our meetings and were there any action points from that discussion that we have failed to take? On 11/5/18 10:37 pm, Sarmad Hussain wrote: Dear All, We received the following communication from JPRS today. Please let us know how you would want to respond to it. Regards, Sarmad -----Original Message----- From: yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> [mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:49 AM To: Mats Dufberg <mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se> <mats.dufberg@iis.se> Cc: Sarmad Hussain <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org> <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_news_anno uncement-2D2018-2D05-2D10-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms 7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=zptC-TxcZW1PmY1jJ5 LzXVqPvD3ZlsiKvb4agfECycQ&s=wxk9m-mdZnan6Q2PmV36GLfLEXk6eKFuZRXMIFdZLeg&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 <mailto: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. _______________________________________________ Idngwg mailing list Idngwg@icann.org <mailto:Idngwg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg -- Kal Feher @kalfeher
Thank you Edmon. Ok, I will draft an email response and share back on this list for you all to review. Once you approve, I can forward to Yoshitaka on behalf of the IDNGWG. Regards, Sarmad From: Edmon [mailto:edmon@registry.asia] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:05 AM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; 'Kal Feher' <icann@feherfamily.org>; idngwg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you I think we should communicate to Yoshitaka what you have outlined, especially letting him know that we did take the suggestion into consideration. And get from him, with the explanation, whether he still has a concern with the existing language. Edmon From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 2:25 AM To: Kal Feher <icann@feherfamily.org <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> >; idngwg@icann.org <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear All, Kindly also note that Guideline 16 is part of the existing implemented “version 3.0” of the guidelines. The existing guideline says: 1. “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_reports_...> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24 [unicode.org]>. 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. In the proposed version 4.0 this guideline has been divided into two parts. Guideline 15 addresses the first (unhighlighted) part. Guideline 16 covers the highlighted part. We now have: 1. 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_reports_...> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24 [unicode.org]). 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. 2. 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. Regards, Sarmad From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 11:11 AM To: Kal Feher <icann@feherfamily.org <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> >; idngwg@icann.org <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear Kal, All, The communication was forwarded to IDN Guidelines WG when it was received (see attached email). This comment is in continuation of the comment submitted by JPRS <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-idn-guidelines-19oct17/2017q4/000003...> during the public comment. The WG had a discussion around the input received by JPRS at multiple meetings. The final discussion took place on 19 April and the changes proposed were reviewed and agreed on 26 April (see notes 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_dis...> ). The summary of the discussion and changes to incorporate the JPRS feedback is as follows: 1. The WG discussed that changes should be made in Guideline 15 and not 16. 2. The WG considered that the use of “script” is ambiguous and so changed the text to refer to “Unicode script” as defined in the Unicode script property. 3. In the context of “unicode script”, Japanese writing system uses Hiragana, Katakana and Han. Therefore, the WG agreed to qualify Japanese case as a known exception of script mixing. However, it was agreed that this be done as an Additional Note and not in the text of the guideline (latter to remain generic). 4. Additional Note V was added and says 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. 5. Additional Note VII allows additional letters like digits and hyphen to be mixed in scripts, where relevant. The Additional Notes V and VII added are covering the concerns raised by JPRS to pre-qualify script-mixing in Japanese writing system. It still puts the Japanese case in the “exception” category because the point of reference is the “Unicode script”, which the JPRS had suggested be reviewed. The WG considered it and decided to use the “Unicode script” so that part of the comment was perhaps not addressed per the expectation of the JPRS. Also, there are two separate guidelines – no. 14 for within-script cases and no. 16 for cross-script cases. Therefore, no. 16 was not altered. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. Regards, Sarmad From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kal Feher Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 9:50 PM To: idngwg@icann.org <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Hello Sarmad, I don't recall the communication. Was it discussed in one of our meetings and were there any action points from that discussion that we have failed to take? On 11/5/18 10:37 pm, Sarmad Hussain wrote: Dear All, We received the following communication from JPRS today. Please let us know how you would want to respond to it. Regards, Sarmad -----Original Message----- From: yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> [mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:49 AM To: Mats Dufberg <mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se> <mats.dufberg@iis.se> Cc: Sarmad Hussain <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org> <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_news_anno uncement-2D2018-2D05-2D10-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms 7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=zptC-TxcZW1PmY1jJ5 LzXVqPvD3ZlsiKvb4agfECycQ&s=wxk9m-mdZnan6Q2PmV36GLfLEXk6eKFuZRXMIFdZLeg&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 <mailto: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. _______________________________________________ Idngwg mailing list Idngwg@icann.org <mailto:Idngwg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg -- Kal Feher @kalfeher
thx. sounds good. edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> Sent: 15 May 2018 11:14:38 PM GMT-07:00 To: Edmon <edmon@registry.asia>, 'Kal Feher' <icann@feherfamily.org>, "idngwg@icann.org" <idngwg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Thank you Edmon. Ok, I will draft an email response and share back on this list for you all to review. Once you approve, I can forward to Yoshitaka on behalf of the IDNGWG. Regards, Sarmad From: Edmon [mailto:edmon@registry.asia] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:05 AM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; 'Kal Feher' <icann@feherfamily.org>; idngwg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you I think we should communicate to Yoshitaka what you have outlined, especially letting him know that we did take the suggestion into consideration. And get from him, with the explanation, whether he still has a concern with the existing language. Edmon From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 2:25 AM To: Kal Feher <icann@feherfamily.org <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> >; idngwg@icann.org <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear All, Kindly also note that Guideline 16 is part of the existing implemented “version 3.0” of the guidelines. The existing guideline says: 1. “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_reports_...> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24 [unicode.org]>. 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. In the proposed version 4.0 this guideline has been divided into two parts. Guideline 15 addresses the first (unhighlighted) part. Guideline 16 covers the highlighted part. We now have: 1. 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_reports_...> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24 [unicode.org]). 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. 2. 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. Regards, Sarmad From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 11:11 AM To: Kal Feher <icann@feherfamily.org <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> >; idngwg@icann.org <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear Kal, All, The communication was forwarded to IDN Guidelines WG when it was received (see attached email). This comment is in continuation of the comment submitted by JPRS <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-idn-guidelines-19oct17/2017q4/000003...> during the public comment. The WG had a discussion around the input received by JPRS at multiple meetings. The final discussion took place on 19 April and the changes proposed were reviewed and agreed on 26 April (see notes 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_dis...> ). The summary of the discussion and changes to incorporate the JPRS feedback is as follows: 1. The WG discussed that changes should be made in Guideline 15 and not 16. 2. The WG considered that the use of “script” is ambiguous and so changed the text to refer to “Unicode script” as defined in the Unicode script property. 3. In the context of “unicode script”, Japanese writing system uses Hiragana, Katakana and Han. Therefore, the WG agreed to qualify Japanese case as a known exception of script mixing. However, it was agreed that this be done as an Additional Note and not in the text of the guideline (latter to remain generic). 4. Additional Note V was added and says 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. 5. Additional Note VII allows additional letters like digits and hyphen to be mixed in scripts, where relevant. The Additional Notes V and VII added are covering the concerns raised by JPRS to pre-qualify script-mixing in Japanese writing system. It still puts the Japanese case in the “exception” category because the point of reference is the “Unicode script”, which the JPRS had suggested be reviewed. The WG considered it and decided to use the “Unicode script” so that part of the comment was perhaps not addressed per the expectation of the JPRS. Also, there are two separate guidelines – no. 14 for within-script cases and no. 16 for cross-script cases. Therefore, no. 16 was not altered. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. Regards, Sarmad From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kal Feher Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 9:50 PM To: idngwg@icann.org <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Hello Sarmad, I don't recall the communication. Was it discussed in one of our meetings and were there any action points from that discussion that we have failed to take? On 11/5/18 10:37 pm, Sarmad Hussain wrote: Dear All, We received the following communication from JPRS today. Please let us know how you would want to respond to it. Regards, Sarmad -----Original Message----- From: yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> [mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:49 AM To: Mats Dufberg <mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se> <mats.dufberg@iis.se> Cc: Sarmad Hussain <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org> <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_news_anno uncement-2D2018-2D05-2D10-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms 7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=zptC-TxcZW1PmY1jJ5 LzXVqPvD3ZlsiKvb4agfECycQ&s=wxk9m-mdZnan6Q2PmV36GLfLEXk6eKFuZRXMIFdZLeg&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 <mailto: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. _______________________________________________ Idngwg mailing list Idngwg@icann.org <mailto:Idngwg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg
Dear All, Please find below a suggested response to JPRS. Please let us know your feedback or edits. Once finalized and approved, I will send this across to JPRS. Regards, Sarmad =================== Dear Yoshitaka Okuno, Thank you for your emails. The IDN Guidelines WG appreciates continued input from JPRS, and had discussed the input at multiple WG meetings and 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 guidelines, which are currently implemented (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/idn-guidelines-2011-09-02-en). The existing guidelines state: 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 <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24>. 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." In the proposed version 4.0, for more clarity 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 (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24). 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 WG has made some finer clarifications without changing the intention of the original guideline. 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 guideline, 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: Edmon [mailto:edmon@dot.asia] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:39 AM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; Edmon <edmon@registry.asia>; 'Kal Feher' <icann@feherfamily.org>; idngwg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you thx. sounds good. edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Sarmad Hussain < <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> sarmad.hussain@icann.org> Sent: 15 May 2018 11:14:38 PM GMT-07:00 To: Edmon < <mailto:edmon@registry.asia> edmon@registry.asia>, 'Kal Feher' < <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> icann@feherfamily.org>, " <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org" < <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Thank you Edmon. Ok, I will draft an email response and share back on this list for you all to review. Once you approve, I can forward to Yoshitaka on behalf of the IDNGWG. Regards, Sarmad From: Edmon [ <mailto:edmon@registry.asia> mailto:edmon@registry.asia] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:05 AM To: Sarmad Hussain < <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; 'Kal Feher' < <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> icann@feherfamily.org>; <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you I think we should communicate to Yoshitaka what you have outlined, especially letting him know that we did take the suggestion into consideration. And get from him, with the explanation, whether he still has a concern with the existing language. Edmon From: Idngwg [ <mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 2:25 AM To: Kal Feher < <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org%20%3cmailto:icann@feherfamily.org> icann@feherfamily.org <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> >; <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org < <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear All, Kindly also note that Guideline 16 is part of the existing implemented “version 3.0” of the guidelines. The existing guideline says: 1. “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_reports_...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_...> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_... [unicode.org]>. 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. In the proposed version 4.0 this guideline has been divided into two parts. Guideline 15 addresses the first (unhighlighted) part. Guideline 16 covers the highlighted part. We now have: 1. 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_reports_...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_...> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_... [unicode.org]). 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. 2. 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. Regards, Sarmad From: Idngwg [ <mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 11:11 AM To: Kal Feher < <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org%20%3cmailto:icann@feherfamily.org> icann@feherfamily.org <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> >; <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org < <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear Kal, All, The communication was forwarded to IDN Guidelines WG when it was received (see attached email). This comment is in continuation of the comment submitted by JPRS < <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-idn-guidelines-19oct17/2017q4/000003...> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-idn-guidelines-19oct17/2017q4/000003...> during the public comment. The WG had a discussion around the input received by JPRS at multiple meetings. The final discussion took place on 19 April and the changes proposed were reviewed and agreed on 26 April (see notes at <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis... [community.icann.org] < <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> ). The summary of the discussion and changes to incorporate the JPRS feedback is as follows: 1. The WG discussed that changes should be made in Guideline 15 and not 16. 2. The WG considered that the use of “script” is ambiguous and so changed the text to refer to “Unicode script” as defined in the Unicode script property. 3. In the context of “unicode script”, Japanese writing system uses Hiragana, Katakana and Han. Therefore, the WG agreed to qualify Japanese case as a known exception of script mixing. However, it was agreed that this be done as an Additional Note and not in the text of the guideline (latter to remain generic). 4. Additional Note V was added and says 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. 5. Additional Note VII allows additional letters like digits and hyphen to be mixed in scripts, where relevant. The Additional Notes V and VII added are covering the concerns raised by JPRS to pre-qualify script-mixing in Japanese writing system. It still puts the Japanese case in the “exception” category because the point of reference is the “Unicode script”, which the JPRS had suggested be reviewed. The WG considered it and decided to use the “Unicode script” so that part of the comment was perhaps not addressed per the expectation of the JPRS. Also, there are two separate guidelines – no. 14 for within-script cases and no. 16 for cross-script cases. Therefore, no. 16 was not altered. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. Regards, Sarmad From: Idngwg [ <mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kal Feher Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 9:50 PM To: <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org < <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Hello Sarmad, I don't recall the communication. Was it discussed in one of our meetings and were there any action points from that discussion that we have failed to take? On 11/5/18 10:37 pm, Sarmad Hussain wrote: Dear All, We received the following communication from JPRS today. Please let us know how you would want to respond to it. Regards, Sarmad -----Original Message----- From: <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp < <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> [ <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:49 AM To: Mats Dufberg < <mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se> mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se> < <mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se> mats.dufberg@iis.se> Cc: Sarmad Hussain < <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> < <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana < <mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org> mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org> < <mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org> 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_news_anno> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_anno uncement-2D2018-2D05-2D10-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms 7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=zptC-TxcZW1PmY1jJ5 LzXVqPvD3ZlsiKvb4agfECycQ&s=wxk9m-mdZnan6Q2PmV36GLfLEXk6eKFuZRXMIFdZLeg&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 <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp < <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> mailto: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. _______________________________________________ Idngwg mailing list <mailto:Idngwg@icann.org> Idngwg@icann.org < <mailto:Idngwg@icann.org> mailto:Idngwg@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg
looks good. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> Sent: 16 May 2018 1:30:45 AM GMT-07:00 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia>, Edmon <edmon@registry.asia>, 'Kal Feher' <icann@feherfamily.org>, "idngwg@icann.org" <idngwg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear All, Please find below a suggested response to JPRS. Please let us know your feedback or edits. Once finalized and approved, I will send this across to JPRS. Regards, Sarmad =================== Dear Yoshitaka Okuno, Thank you for your emails. The IDN Guidelines WG appreciates continued input from JPRS, and had discussed the input at multiple WG meetings and 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 guidelines, which are currently implemented (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/idn-guidelines-2011-09-02-en). The existing guidelines state: 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 <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24>. 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." In the proposed version 4.0, for more clarity 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 (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24). 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 WG has made some finer clarifications without changing the intention of the original guideline. 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 guideline, 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: Edmon [mailto:edmon@dot.asia] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:39 AM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; Edmon <edmon@registry.asia>; 'Kal Feher' <icann@feherfamily.org>; idngwg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you thx. sounds good. edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Sarmad Hussain < <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> sarmad.hussain@icann.org> Sent: 15 May 2018 11:14:38 PM GMT-07:00 To: Edmon < <mailto:edmon@registry.asia> edmon@registry.asia>, 'Kal Feher' < <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> icann@feherfamily.org>, " <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org" < <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Thank you Edmon. Ok, I will draft an email response and share back on this list for you all to review. Once you approve, I can forward to Yoshitaka on behalf of the IDNGWG. Regards, Sarmad From: Edmon [ <mailto:edmon@registry.asia> mailto:edmon@registry.asia] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:05 AM To: Sarmad Hussain < <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; 'Kal Feher' < <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> icann@feherfamily.org>; <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you I think we should communicate to Yoshitaka what you have outlined, especially letting him know that we did take the suggestion into consideration. And get from him, with the explanation, whether he still has a concern with the existing language. Edmon From: Idngwg [ <mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 2:25 AM To: Kal Feher < <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org%20%3cmailto:icann@feherfamily.org> icann@feherfamily.org <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> >; <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org < <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear All, Kindly also note that Guideline 16 is part of the existing implemented “version 3.0” of the guidelines. The existing guideline says: 1. “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_reports_...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_...> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_... [unicode.org]>. 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. In the proposed version 4.0 this guideline has been divided into two parts. Guideline 15 addresses the first (unhighlighted) part. Guideline 16 covers the highlighted part. We now have: 1. 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_reports_...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_...> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_... [unicode.org]). 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. 2. 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. Regards, Sarmad From: Idngwg [ <mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 11:11 AM To: Kal Feher < <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org%20%3cmailto:icann@feherfamily.org> icann@feherfamily.org <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> >; <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org < <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear Kal, All, The communication was forwarded to IDN Guidelines WG when it was received (see attached email). This comment is in continuation of the comment submitted by JPRS < <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-idn-guidelines-19oct17/2017q4/000003...> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-idn-guidelines-19oct17/2017q4/000003...> during the public comment. The WG had a discussion around the input received by JPRS at multiple meetings. The final discussion took place on 19 April and the changes proposed were reviewed and agreed on 26 April (see notes at <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis... [community.icann.org] < <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> ). The summary of the discussion and changes to incorporate the JPRS feedback is as follows: 1. The WG discussed that changes should be made in Guideline 15 and not 16. 2. The WG considered that the use of “script” is ambiguous and so changed the text to refer to “Unicode script” as defined in the Unicode script property. 3. In the context of “unicode script”, Japanese writing system uses Hiragana, Katakana and Han. Therefore, the WG agreed to qualify Japanese case as a known exception of script mixing. However, it was agreed that this be done as an Additional Note and not in the text of the guideline (latter to remain generic). 4. Additional Note V was added and says 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. 5. Additional Note VII allows additional letters like digits and hyphen to be mixed in scripts, where relevant. The Additional Notes V and VII added are covering the concerns raised by JPRS to pre-qualify script-mixing in Japanese writing system. It still puts the Japanese case in the “exception” category because the point of reference is the “Unicode script”, which the JPRS had suggested be reviewed. The WG considered it and decided to use the “Unicode script” so that part of the comment was perhaps not addressed per the expectation of the JPRS. Also, there are two separate guidelines – no. 14 for within-script cases and no. 16 for cross-script cases. Therefore, no. 16 was not altered. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. Regards, Sarmad From: Idngwg [ <mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kal Feher Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 9:50 PM To: <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org < <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Hello Sarmad, I don't recall the communication. Was it discussed in one of our meetings and were there any action points from that discussion that we have failed to take? On 11/5/18 10:37 pm, Sarmad Hussain wrote: Dear All, We received the following communication from JPRS today. Please let us know how you would want to respond to it. Regards, Sarmad -----Original Message----- From: <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp < <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> [ <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:49 AM To: Mats Dufberg < <mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se> mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se> < <mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se> mats.dufberg@iis.se> Cc: Sarmad Hussain < <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> < <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana < <mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org> mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org> < <mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org> 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_news_anno> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_anno uncement-2D2018-2D05-2D10-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms 7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=zptC-TxcZW1PmY1jJ5 LzXVqPvD3ZlsiKvb4agfECycQ&s=wxk9m-mdZnan6Q2PmV36GLfLEXk6eKFuZRXMIFdZLeg&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 <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp < <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> mailto: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. _______________________________________________ Idngwg mailing list <mailto:Idngwg@icann.org> Idngwg@icann.org < <mailto:Idngwg@icann.org> mailto:Idngwg@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg
Thank you Edmon. I will wait for a day or so to make sure there is no additional feedback from other WG members. Please let me know if you need more time to review. If there is no further feedback, I will forward to JPRS this Friday around 0600 UTC. Regards, Sarmad -----Original Message----- From: Edmon [mailto:edmon@dot.asia] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 2:01 PM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; Edmon <edmon@registry.asia>; 'Kal Feher' <icann@feherfamily.org>; idngwg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you looks good. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> Sent: 16 May 2018 1:30:45 AM GMT-07:00 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia>, Edmon <edmon@registry.asia>, 'Kal Feher' <icann@feherfamily.org>, "idngwg@icann.org" <idngwg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear All, Please find below a suggested response to JPRS. Please let us know your feedback or edits. Once finalized and approved, I will send this across to JPRS. Regards, Sarmad =================== Dear Yoshitaka Okuno, Thank you for your emails. The IDN Guidelines WG appreciates continued input from JPRS, and had discussed the input at multiple WG meetings and 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 guidelines, which are currently implemented (see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...). The existing guidelines state: 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_reports_...>. 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." In the proposed version 4.0, for more clarity 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_reports_...). 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 WG has made some finer clarifications without changing the intention of the original guideline. 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 guideline, 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: Edmon [mailto:edmon@dot.asia] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:39 AM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; Edmon <edmon@registry.asia>; 'Kal Feher' <icann@feherfamily.org>; idngwg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you thx. sounds good. edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Sarmad Hussain < <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> sarmad.hussain@icann.org> Sent: 15 May 2018 11:14:38 PM GMT-07:00 To: Edmon < <mailto:edmon@registry.asia> edmon@registry.asia>, 'Kal Feher' < <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> icann@feherfamily.org>, " <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org" < <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Thank you Edmon. Ok, I will draft an email response and share back on this list for you all to review. Once you approve, I can forward to Yoshitaka on behalf of the IDNGWG. Regards, Sarmad From: Edmon [ <mailto:edmon@registry.asia> mailto:edmon@registry.asia] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:05 AM To: Sarmad Hussain < <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; 'Kal Feher' < <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> icann@feherfamily.org>; <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you I think we should communicate to Yoshitaka what you have outlined, especially letting him know that we did take the suggestion into consideration. And get from him, with the explanation, whether he still has a concern with the existing language. Edmon From: Idngwg [ <mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 2:25 AM To: Kal Feher < <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org%20%3cmailto:icann@feherfamily.org> icann@feherfamily.org <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> >; <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org < <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear All, Kindly also note that Guideline 16 is part of the existing implemented “version 3.0” of the guidelines. The existing guideline says: 1. “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_reports_...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_...> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_... [unicode.org]>. 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. In the proposed version 4.0 this guideline has been divided into two parts. Guideline 15 addresses the first (unhighlighted) part. Guideline 16 covers the highlighted part. We now have: 1. 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_reports_...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_...> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_... [unicode.org]). 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. 2. 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. Regards, Sarmad From: Idngwg [ <mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 11:11 AM To: Kal Feher < <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org%20%3cmailto:icann@feherfamily.org> icann@feherfamily.org <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> >; <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org < <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Dear Kal, All, The communication was forwarded to IDN Guidelines WG when it was received (see attached email). This comment is in continuation of the comment submitted by JPRS < <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-idn-guidelines-19oct17/2017q4/000003...> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-idn-guidelines-19oct17/2017q4/000003...> during the public comment. The WG had a discussion around the input received by JPRS at multiple meetings. The final discussion took place on 19 April and the changes proposed were reviewed and agreed on 26 April (see notes at <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis... [community.icann.org] < <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> ). The summary of the discussion and changes to incorporate the JPRS feedback is as follows: 1. The WG discussed that changes should be made in Guideline 15 and not 16. 2. The WG considered that the use of “script” is ambiguous and so changed the text to refer to “Unicode script” as defined in the Unicode script property. 3. In the context of “unicode script”, Japanese writing system uses Hiragana, Katakana and Han. Therefore, the WG agreed to qualify Japanese case as a known exception of script mixing. However, it was agreed that this be done as an Additional Note and not in the text of the guideline (latter to remain generic). 4. Additional Note V was added and says 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. 5. Additional Note VII allows additional letters like digits and hyphen to be mixed in scripts, where relevant. The Additional Notes V and VII added are covering the concerns raised by JPRS to pre-qualify script-mixing in Japanese writing system. It still puts the Japanese case in the “exception” category because the point of reference is the “Unicode script”, which the JPRS had suggested be reviewed. The WG considered it and decided to use the “Unicode script” so that part of the comment was perhaps not addressed per the expectation of the JPRS. Also, there are two separate guidelines – no. 14 for within-script cases and no. 16 for cross-script cases. Therefore, no. 16 was not altered. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. Regards, Sarmad From: Idngwg [ <mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kal Feher Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 9:50 PM To: <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org < <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you Hello Sarmad, I don't recall the communication. Was it discussed in one of our meetings and were there any action points from that discussion that we have failed to take? On 11/5/18 10:37 pm, Sarmad Hussain wrote: Dear All, We received the following communication from JPRS today. Please let us know how you would want to respond to it. Regards, Sarmad -----Original Message----- From: <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp < <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> [ <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:49 AM To: Mats Dufberg < <mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se> mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se> < <mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se> mats.dufberg@iis.se> Cc: Sarmad Hussain < <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> < <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana < <mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org> mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org> < <mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org> 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_news_anno> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_anno uncement-2D2018-2D05-2D10-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms 7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=zptC-TxcZW1PmY1jJ5 LzXVqPvD3ZlsiKvb4agfECycQ&s=wxk9m-mdZnan6Q2PmV36GLfLEXk6eKFuZRXMIFdZLeg&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 <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp < <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> mailto: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. _______________________________________________ Idngwg mailing list <mailto:Idngwg@icann.org> Idngwg@icann.org < <mailto:Idngwg@icann.org> mailto:Idngwg@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg
I'm fine with the response On 16/5/18 7:10 pm, Sarmad Hussain wrote:
Thank you Edmon.
I will wait for a day or so to make sure there is no additional feedback from other WG members. Please let me know if you need more time to review.
If there is no further feedback, I will forward to JPRS this Friday around 0600 UTC.
Regards, Sarmad
-----Original Message----- From: Edmon [mailto:edmon@dot.asia] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 2:01 PM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; Edmon <edmon@registry.asia>; 'Kal Feher' <icann@feherfamily.org>; idngwg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you
looks good. Edmon
-------- Original Message -------- From: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> Sent: 16 May 2018 1:30:45 AM GMT-07:00 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia>, Edmon <edmon@registry.asia>, 'Kal Feher' <icann@feherfamily.org>, "idngwg@icann.org" <idngwg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you
Dear All,
Please find below a suggested response to JPRS. Please let us know your feedback or edits. Once finalized and approved, I will send this across to JPRS.
Regards, Sarmad
===================
Dear Yoshitaka Okuno,
Thank you for your emails. The IDN Guidelines WG appreciates continued input from JPRS, and had discussed the input at multiple WG meetings and 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 guidelines, which are currently implemented (see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...). The existing guidelines state:
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_reports_...>. 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."
In the proposed version 4.0, for more clarity 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_reports_...). 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 WG has made some finer clarifications without changing the intention of the original guideline.
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 guideline, 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: Edmon [mailto:edmon@dot.asia] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:39 AM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; Edmon <edmon@registry.asia>; 'Kal Feher' <icann@feherfamily.org>; idngwg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you
thx. sounds good.
edmon
-------- Original Message --------
From: Sarmad Hussain < <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> sarmad.hussain@icann.org>
Sent: 15 May 2018 11:14:38 PM GMT-07:00
To: Edmon < <mailto:edmon@registry.asia> edmon@registry.asia>, 'Kal Feher' < <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> icann@feherfamily.org>, " <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org" < <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you
Thank you Edmon.
Ok, I will draft an email response and share back on this list for you all to review. Once you approve, I can forward to Yoshitaka on behalf of the IDNGWG.
Regards,
Sarmad
From: Edmon [ <mailto:edmon@registry.asia> mailto:edmon@registry.asia]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:05 AM
To: Sarmad Hussain < <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; 'Kal Feher' < <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> icann@feherfamily.org>; <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org
Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you
I think we should communicate to Yoshitaka what you have outlined, especially letting him know that we did take the suggestion into consideration. And get from him, with the explanation, whether he still has a concern with the existing language.
Edmon
From: Idngwg [ <mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 2:25 AM
To: Kal Feher < <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org%20%3cmailto:icann@feherfamily.org> icann@feherfamily.org <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> >; <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org < <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> mailto:idngwg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you
Dear All,
Kindly also note that Guideline 16 is part of the existing implemented “version 3.0” of the guidelines. The existing guideline says:
1. “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_reports_...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_...> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_... [unicode.org]>. 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.
In the proposed version 4.0 this guideline has been divided into two parts. Guideline 15 addresses the first (unhighlighted) part. Guideline 16 covers the highlighted part.
We now have:
1. 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_reports_...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_...> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_... [unicode.org]). 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.
2. 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.
Regards,
Sarmad
From: Idngwg [ <mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 11:11 AM
To: Kal Feher < <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org%20%3cmailto:icann@feherfamily.org> icann@feherfamily.org <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> >; <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org < <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> mailto:idngwg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you
Dear Kal, All,
The communication was forwarded to IDN Guidelines WG when it was received (see attached email). This comment is in continuation of the comment submitted by JPRS < <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-idn-guidelines-19oct17/2017q4/000003...> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-idn-guidelines-19oct17/2017q4/000003...> during the public comment.
The WG had a discussion around the input received by JPRS at multiple meetings. The final discussion took place on 19 April and the changes proposed were reviewed and agreed on 26 April (see notes at <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis... [community.icann.org] < <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> ). The summary of the discussion and changes to incorporate the JPRS feedback is as follows:
1. The WG discussed that changes should be made in Guideline 15 and not 16.
2. The WG considered that the use of “script” is ambiguous and so changed the text to refer to “Unicode script” as defined in the Unicode script property.
3. In the context of “unicode script”, Japanese writing system uses Hiragana, Katakana and Han. Therefore, the WG agreed to qualify Japanese case as a known exception of script mixing. However, it was agreed that this be done as an Additional Note and not in the text of the guideline (latter to remain generic).
4. Additional Note V was added and says 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.
5. Additional Note VII allows additional letters like digits and hyphen to be mixed in scripts, where relevant.
The Additional Notes V and VII added are covering the concerns raised by JPRS to pre-qualify script-mixing in Japanese writing system. It still puts the Japanese case in the “exception” category because the point of reference is the “Unicode script”, which the JPRS had suggested be reviewed. The WG considered it and decided to use the “Unicode script” so that part of the comment was perhaps not addressed per the expectation of the JPRS. Also, there are two separate guidelines – no. 14 for within-script cases and no. 16 for cross-script cases. Therefore, no. 16 was not altered.
Please let me know how you would like to proceed.
Regards,
Sarmad
From: Idngwg [ <mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kal Feher
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 9:50 PM
To: <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org < <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> mailto:idngwg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you
Hello Sarmad,
I don't recall the communication. Was it discussed in one of our meetings and were there any action points from that discussion that we have failed to take?
On 11/5/18 10:37 pm, Sarmad Hussain wrote:
Dear All,
We received the following communication from JPRS today. Please let us know how you would want to respond to it.
Regards,
Sarmad
-----Original Message-----
From: <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp < <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> [ <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:49 AM
To: Mats Dufberg < <mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se> mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se> < <mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se> mats.dufberg@iis.se>
Cc: Sarmad Hussain < <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> < <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana < <mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org> mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org> < <mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org> 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_news_anno> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_anno
uncement-2D2018-2D05-2D10-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms
7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=zptC-TxcZW1PmY1jJ5
LzXVqPvD3ZlsiKvb4agfECycQ&s=wxk9m-mdZnan6Q2PmV36GLfLEXk6eKFuZRXMIFdZLeg&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
<mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp < <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> mailto: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.
_______________________________________________
Idngwg mailing list
<mailto:Idngwg@icann.org> Idngwg@icann.org < <mailto:Idngwg@icann.org> mailto:Idngwg@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg
-- Kal Feher @kalfeher
Looks good to me, too. Thanks, Sarmad. On 5/16/18, 5:41 AM, "Idngwg on behalf of Kal Feher" <idngwg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@feherfamily.org> wrote: I'm fine with the response On 16/5/18 7:10 pm, Sarmad Hussain wrote: > Thank you Edmon. > > I will wait for a day or so to make sure there is no additional feedback from other WG members. Please let me know if you need more time to review. > > If there is no further feedback, I will forward to JPRS this Friday around 0600 UTC. > > Regards, > Sarmad > > -----Original Message----- > From: Edmon [mailto:edmon@dot.asia] > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 2:01 PM > To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; Edmon <edmon@registry.asia>; 'Kal Feher' <icann@feherfamily.org>; idngwg@icann.org > Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you > > looks good. > Edmon > > > -------- Original Message -------- > From: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> > Sent: 16 May 2018 1:30:45 AM GMT-07:00 > To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia>, Edmon <edmon@registry.asia>, 'Kal Feher' <icann@feherfamily.org>, "idngwg@icann.org" <idngwg@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you > > Dear All, > > > > Please find below a suggested response to JPRS. Please let us know your feedback or edits. Once finalized and approved, I will send this across to JPRS. > > > > Regards, > Sarmad > > > > =================== > > > > Dear Yoshitaka Okuno, > > > > Thank you for your emails. The IDN Guidelines WG appreciates continued input from JPRS, and had discussed the input at multiple WG meetings and 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 guidelines, which are currently implemented (see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...). The existing guidelines state: > > > > 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_reports_...>. 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." > > > > In the proposed version 4.0, for more clarity 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_reports_...). 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 WG has made some finer clarifications without changing the intention of the original guideline. > > > > 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 guideline, 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: Edmon [mailto:edmon@dot.asia] > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:39 AM > To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; Edmon <edmon@registry.asia>; 'Kal Feher' <icann@feherfamily.org>; idngwg@icann.org > Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you > > > > thx. sounds good. > > edmon > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > From: Sarmad Hussain < <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> sarmad.hussain@icann.org> > > Sent: 15 May 2018 11:14:38 PM GMT-07:00 > > To: Edmon < <mailto:edmon@registry.asia> edmon@registry.asia>, 'Kal Feher' < <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> icann@feherfamily.org>, " <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org" < <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org> > > Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you > > > > Thank you Edmon. > > > > > > Ok, I will draft an email response and share back on this list for you all to review. Once you approve, I can forward to Yoshitaka on behalf of the IDNGWG. > > > > > > Regards, > > Sarmad > > > > > > From: Edmon [ <mailto:edmon@registry.asia> mailto:edmon@registry.asia] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:05 AM > > To: Sarmad Hussain < <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; 'Kal Feher' < <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> icann@feherfamily.org>; <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org > > Subject: RE: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you > > > > > > I think we should communicate to Yoshitaka what you have outlined, especially letting him know that we did take the suggestion into consideration. And get from him, with the explanation, whether he still has a concern with the existing language. > > > > Edmon > > > > > > > > From: Idngwg [ <mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain > > Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 2:25 AM > > To: Kal Feher < <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org%20%3cmailto:icann@feherfamily.org> icann@feherfamily.org <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> >; <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org < <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> mailto:idngwg@icann.org> > > Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > Kindly also note that Guideline 16 is part of the existing implemented “version 3.0” of the guidelines. The existing guideline says: > > > > > > 1. “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_reports_...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_...> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_... [unicode.org]>. 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. > > > > > > In the proposed version 4.0 this guideline has been divided into two parts. Guideline 15 addresses the first (unhighlighted) part. Guideline 16 covers the highlighted part. > > > > > > We now have: > > > > > > 1. 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_reports_...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_...> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unicode.org_reports_... [unicode.org]). 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. > > > > > > 2. 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. > > > > > > Regards, > > Sarmad > > > > > > From: Idngwg [ <mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain > > Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 11:11 AM > > To: Kal Feher < <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org%20%3cmailto:icann@feherfamily.org> icann@feherfamily.org <mailto:icann@feherfamily.org> >; <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org < <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> mailto:idngwg@icann.org> > > Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you > > > > > > Dear Kal, All, > > > > > > The communication was forwarded to IDN Guidelines WG when it was received (see attached email). This comment is in continuation of the comment submitted by JPRS < <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-idn-guidelines-19oct17/2017q4/000003...> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-idn-guidelines-19oct17/2017q4/000003...> during the public comment. > > > > > > The WG had a discussion around the input received by JPRS at multiple meetings. The final discussion took place on 19 April and the changes proposed were reviewed and agreed on 26 April (see notes at <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis... [community.icann.org] < <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> ). The summary of the discussion and changes to incorporate the JPRS feedback is as follows: > > > > > > 1. The WG discussed that changes should be made in Guideline 15 and not 16. > > 2. The WG considered that the use of “script” is ambiguous and so changed the text to refer to “Unicode script” as defined in the Unicode script property. > > 3. In the context of “unicode script”, Japanese writing system uses Hiragana, Katakana and Han. Therefore, the WG agreed to qualify Japanese case as a known exception of script mixing. However, it was agreed that this be done as an Additional Note and not in the text of the guideline (latter to remain generic). > > 4. Additional Note V was added and says 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. > > 5. Additional Note VII allows additional letters like digits and hyphen to be mixed in scripts, where relevant. > > > > > > The Additional Notes V and VII added are covering the concerns raised by JPRS to pre-qualify script-mixing in Japanese writing system. It still puts the Japanese case in the “exception” category because the point of reference is the “Unicode script”, which the JPRS had suggested be reviewed. The WG considered it and decided to use the “Unicode script” so that part of the comment was perhaps not addressed per the expectation of the JPRS. Also, there are two separate guidelines – no. 14 for within-script cases and no. 16 for cross-script cases. Therefore, no. 16 was not altered. > > > > > > Please let me know how you would like to proceed. > > > > > > Regards, > > Sarmad > > > > > > > > From: Idngwg [ <mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kal Feher > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 9:50 PM > > To: <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> idngwg@icann.org < <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> mailto:idngwg@icann.org> > > Subject: Re: [Idngwg] FW: [Ext] haven't received any response from you > > > > > > Hello Sarmad, > > > > I don't recall the communication. Was it discussed in one of our meetings and were there any action points from that discussion that we have failed to take? > > > > > > On 11/5/18 10:37 pm, Sarmad Hussain wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > We received the following communication from JPRS today. Please let us know how you would want to respond to it. > > Regards, > > Sarmad > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp < <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> [ <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp] > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:49 AM > > To: Mats Dufberg < <mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se> mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se> < <mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se> mats.dufberg@iis.se> > > Cc: Sarmad Hussain < <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> < <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana < <mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org> mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org> < <mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org> 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_news_anno> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_anno > > uncement-2D2018-2D05-2D10-2Den&d=DwICJg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms > > 7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=zptC-TxcZW1PmY1jJ5 > > LzXVqPvD3ZlsiKvb4agfECycQ&s=wxk9m-mdZnan6Q2PmV36GLfLEXk6eKFuZRXMIFdZLeg&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 > > <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp < <mailto:yoshitaka@jprs.co.jp> mailto: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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Idngwg mailing list > > <mailto:Idngwg@icann.org> Idngwg@icann.org < <mailto:Idngwg@icann.org> mailto:Idngwg@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg > > > > > -- Kal Feher @kalfeher _______________________________________________ Idngwg mailing list Idngwg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg
participants (5)
-
Edmon -
Edmon -
Kal Feher -
Sarmad Hussain -
Tan Tanaka, Dennis