Comment on Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM
It occurred to me that the Registry Service request from the registry operator, VeriSign, Inc. (hereinafter the 'Request') is in conflict with ICANN's Final Proposed Draft v. 4.0 of the IDN Guidelines (hereinafter the 'Guidelines') as published at the following uri < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-guidelines-10may18-en.pdf>. Specifically, section 2.5.3 of the Guidelines mentions that : " TLD registries are encouraged to apply additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables as determined by Unicode Technical Report #36: Unicode Security Considerations ( http://unicode.org/reports/tr36) and Unicode Technical Standard #39: Unicode Security Mechanisms (http://unicode.org/reports/tr39). " In fact, the single character domain name proposed in the Request, o.com (Latin script), is Whole-Script Confusable with xn--0xa.com (Greek Script) and xn--n1a.com (Cyrillic Script). At the time of this comment, the latter two are registered in the .com namespace and have been for over 14 years. Given the above, I would welcome clarifications on the below points for the benefit of the entire ICANN community : (i) What is each stakeholder's position on the matter. I note neither the Request nor ICANN's Review of the Request discuss the issue of Whole-Script Confusables. Moreover, there is no published policy on Whole-Script Confusables for the .com namespace at this time. (ii) Assuming both the Guidelines and the Amendment to the .com Registry Agreement are adopted contemporaneously, will Verisign be required to update its .com IDN policy to reflect the Guidelines prior to proceeding with it's plan to release any single character domain name. (iii) What are the "additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables" envisioned by Verisign. (iv) In which scenario(s) can the domain name proposed in the Request, o.com (Latin script), be safely released in accordance with the Guidelines. Many thanks, Jean-Sebastien Lascary cc idngwg@icann.org
This is a very interesting observation. I suppose you have already made the same observation to the public comment for the RSEP previously? I wonder if Sarmad has any insight into why ICANN concluded that there were no security/stability issues? https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-kane-07dec17... It seems to me that perhaps an RSTEP is in order here? Edmon From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of JS Lascary Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 10:24 AM To: comments-o-com-single-char-10may18@icann.org Cc: idngwg@icann.org Subject: [Idngwg] Comment on Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM It occurred to me that the Registry Service request from the registry operator, VeriSign, Inc. (hereinafter the 'Request') is in conflict with ICANN's Final Proposed Draft v. 4.0 of the IDN Guidelines (hereinafter the 'Guidelines') as published at the following uri <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-guidelines-10may18-en.pdf>. Specifically, section 2.5.3 of the Guidelines mentions that : " TLD registries are encouraged to apply additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables as determined by Unicode Technical Report #36: Unicode Security Considerations (http://unicode.org/reports/tr36) and Unicode Technical Standard #39: Unicode Security Mechanisms (http://unicode.org/reports/tr39). " In fact, the single character domain name proposed in the Request, o.com <http://o.com> (Latin script), is Whole-Script Confusable with xn--0xa.com <http://xn--0xa.com> (Greek Script) and xn--n1a.com <http://xn--n1a.com> (Cyrillic Script). At the time of this comment, the latter two are registered in the .com namespace and have been for over 14 years. Given the above, I would welcome clarifications on the below points for the benefit of the entire ICANN community : (i) What is each stakeholder's position on the matter. I note neither the Request nor ICANN's Review of the Request discuss the issue of Whole-Script Confusables. Moreover, there is no published policy on Whole-Script Confusables for the .com namespace at this time. (ii) Assuming both the Guidelines and the Amendment to the .com Registry Agreement are adopted contemporaneously, will Verisign be required to update its .com IDN policy to reflect the Guidelines prior to proceeding with it's plan to release any single character domain name. (iii) What are the "additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables" envisioned by Verisign. (iv) In which scenario(s) can the domain name proposed in the Request, o.com <http://o.com> (Latin script), be safely released in accordance with the Guidelines. Many thanks, Jean-Sebastien Lascary cc idngwg@icann.org <mailto:idngwg@icann.org>
My initial email is a public comment submission to which I cc’d the IDN WG. I would imagine it will be published in the next few days. JS On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:34 PM Edmon <edmon@registry.asia> wrote:
This is a very interesting observation.
I suppose you have already made the same observation to the public comment for the RSEP previously?
I wonder if Sarmad has any insight into why ICANN concluded that there were no security/stability issues?
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-kane-07dec17...
It seems to me that perhaps an RSTEP is in order here?
Edmon
*From:* Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *JS Lascary *Sent:* Tuesday, June 5, 2018 10:24 AM *To:* comments-o-com-single-char-10may18@icann.org *Cc:* idngwg@icann.org *Subject:* [Idngwg] Comment on Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM
It occurred to me that the Registry Service request from the registry operator, VeriSign, Inc. (hereinafter the 'Request') is in conflict with ICANN's Final Proposed Draft v. 4.0 of the IDN Guidelines (hereinafter the 'Guidelines') as published at the following uri < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-guidelines-10may18-en.pdf
.
Specifically, section 2.5.3 of the Guidelines mentions that :
" TLD registries are encouraged to apply additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables as determined by Unicode Technical Report #36: Unicode Security Considerations ( http://unicode.org/reports/tr36) and Unicode Technical Standard #39: Unicode Security Mechanisms (http://unicode.org/reports/tr39). "
In fact, the single character domain name proposed in the Request, o.com (Latin script), is Whole-Script Confusable with xn--0xa.com (Greek Script) and xn--n1a.com (Cyrillic Script). At the time of this comment, the latter two are registered in the .com namespace and have been for over 14 years.
Given the above, I would welcome clarifications on the below points for the benefit of the entire ICANN community :
(i) What is each stakeholder's position on the matter. I note neither the Request nor ICANN's Review of the Request discuss the issue of Whole-Script Confusables. Moreover, there is no published policy on Whole-Script Confusables for the .com namespace at this time.
(ii) Assuming both the Guidelines and the Amendment to the .com Registry Agreement are adopted contemporaneously, will Verisign be required to update its .com IDN policy to reflect the Guidelines prior to proceeding with it's plan to release any single character domain name.
(iii) What are the "additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables" envisioned by Verisign.
(iv) In which scenario(s) can the domain name proposed in the Request, o.com (Latin script), be safely released in accordance with the Guidelines.
Many thanks,
Jean-Sebastien Lascary
cc idngwg@icann.org
Ah I see. Still hoping Sarmad could enlighten us. But meanwhile, regardless of why ICANN staff decided that there is no stability & security concern, a related but separate question is perhaps whether this group should do anything… JS, do you have anything in mind you think this group should do? - Respond to the public comments? (it feels strange and potentially out of scope, but perhaps should not rule it out completely as the updated IDN guidelines are not in full force yet… I suppose if there is something in this interim that should be brought up there should be nothing against this group raising it) - Update the IDN guidelines? On first look, I think the updated guidelines should cover what you mentioned and in the way you have mentioned, so it doesn’t seem like something we need to work on. Edmon From: JS Lascary [mailto:jslascary@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 12:00 PM To: Edmon <edmon@registry.asia> Cc: idngwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Idngwg] Comment on Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM My initial email is a public comment submission to which I cc’d the IDN WG. I would imagine it will be published in the next few days. JS On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:34 PM Edmon <edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia> > wrote: This is a very interesting observation. I suppose you have already made the same observation to the public comment for the RSEP previously? I wonder if Sarmad has any insight into why ICANN concluded that there were no security/stability issues? https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-kane-07dec17... It seems to me that perhaps an RSTEP is in order here? Edmon From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of JS Lascary Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 10:24 AM To: comments-o-com-single-char-10may18@icann.org <mailto:comments-o-com-single-char-10may18@icann.org> Cc: idngwg@icann.org <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: [Idngwg] Comment on Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM <http://O.COM> It occurred to me that the Registry Service request from the registry operator, VeriSign, Inc. (hereinafter the 'Request') is in conflict with ICANN's Final Proposed Draft v. 4.0 of the IDN Guidelines (hereinafter the 'Guidelines') as published at the following uri <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-guidelines-10may18-en.pdf>. Specifically, section 2.5.3 of the Guidelines mentions that : " TLD registries are encouraged to apply additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables as determined by Unicode Technical Report #36: Unicode Security Considerations (http://unicode.org/reports/tr36) and Unicode Technical Standard #39: Unicode Security Mechanisms (http://unicode.org/reports/tr39). " In fact, the single character domain name proposed in the Request, o.com <http://o.com> (Latin script), is Whole-Script Confusable with xn--0xa.com <http://xn--0xa.com> (Greek Script) and xn--n1a.com <http://xn--n1a.com> (Cyrillic Script). At the time of this comment, the latter two are registered in the .com namespace and have been for over 14 years. Given the above, I would welcome clarifications on the below points for the benefit of the entire ICANN community : (i) What is each stakeholder's position on the matter. I note neither the Request nor ICANN's Review of the Request discuss the issue of Whole-Script Confusables. Moreover, there is no published policy on Whole-Script Confusables for the .com namespace at this time. (ii) Assuming both the Guidelines and the Amendment to the .com Registry Agreement are adopted contemporaneously, will Verisign be required to update its .com IDN policy to reflect the Guidelines prior to proceeding with it's plan to release any single character domain name. (iii) What are the "additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables" envisioned by Verisign. (iv) In which scenario(s) can the domain name proposed in the Request, o.com <http://o.com> (Latin script), be safely released in accordance with the Guidelines. Many thanks, Jean-Sebastien Lascary cc idngwg@icann.org <mailto:idngwg@icann.org>
I have very limited expertise in all things ICANN. My hope is that the WG will know how best to proceed. I believe in the past ALAC wrote a letter to the board during the DAG comment period (inviting the board to consider priority batching for IDN TLDs). Perhaps a letter would be more appropriate than a public comment at this point. I agree with you Edmon that the issue is merely theoretical until the IDN Guidelines are in full force and the .COM agreement is amended. I also agree that, at first glance, the IDN Guidelines do not need to be further updated. I personally can imagine a scenario where Verisign releases o.com(Latin) in accordance with the IDN Guidelines, which would be for Verisign to first update the .com IDN policy, wait for the confusable strings to expire, then release o.com. Although possible, I find it highly improbable this is how Verisign intended to proceed. My fear is that Verisign and ICANN are unintentionally heading down a path where the IDN Guidelines would be ignored. This would set an unfortunate precedent that IDNs are lesser domains and/or that ICANN does not always give full effect to its own guidelines. The latter especially is a significant cause of concern in my opinion. JS 2018-06-05 3:10 GMT-04:00 Edmon <edmon@registry.asia>:
Ah I see.
Still hoping Sarmad could enlighten us.
But meanwhile, regardless of why ICANN staff decided that there is no stability & security concern, a related but separate question is perhaps whether this group should do anything…
JS, do you have anything in mind you think this group should do?
- Respond to the public comments? (it feels strange and potentially out of scope, but perhaps should not rule it out completely as the updated IDN guidelines are not in full force yet… I suppose if there is something in this interim that should be brought up there should be nothing against this group raising it)
- Update the IDN guidelines? On first look, I think the updated guidelines should cover what you mentioned and in the way you have mentioned, so it doesn’t seem like something we need to work on.
Edmon
*From:* JS Lascary [mailto:jslascary@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 5, 2018 12:00 PM *To:* Edmon <edmon@registry.asia> *Cc:* idngwg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Idngwg] Comment on Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM
My initial email is a public comment submission to which I cc’d the IDN WG. I would imagine it will be published in the next few days.
JS
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:34 PM Edmon <edmon@registry.asia> wrote:
This is a very interesting observation.
I suppose you have already made the same observation to the public comment for the RSEP previously?
I wonder if Sarmad has any insight into why ICANN concluded that there were no security/stability issues?
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ atallah-to-kane-07dec17-en.pdf
It seems to me that perhaps an RSTEP is in order here?
Edmon
*From:* Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *JS Lascary *Sent:* Tuesday, June 5, 2018 10:24 AM *To:* comments-o-com-single-char-10may18@icann.org *Cc:* idngwg@icann.org *Subject:* [Idngwg] Comment on Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM
It occurred to me that the Registry Service request from the registry operator, VeriSign, Inc. (hereinafter the 'Request') is in conflict with ICANN's Final Proposed Draft v. 4.0 of the IDN Guidelines (hereinafter the 'Guidelines') as published at the following uri <https://www.icann.org/en/ system/files/files/idn-guidelines-10may18-en.pdf>.
Specifically, section 2.5.3 of the Guidelines mentions that :
" TLD registries are encouraged to apply additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables as determined by Unicode Technical Report #36: Unicode Security Considerations ( http://unicode.org/reports/tr36) and Unicode Technical Standard #39: Unicode Security Mechanisms (http://unicode.org/reports/tr39). "
In fact, the single character domain name proposed in the Request, o.com (Latin script), is Whole-Script Confusable with xn--0xa.com (Greek Script) and xn--n1a.com (Cyrillic Script). At the time of this comment, the latter two are registered in the .com namespace and have been for over 14 years.
Given the above, I would welcome clarifications on the below points for the benefit of the entire ICANN community :
(i) What is each stakeholder's position on the matter. I note neither the Request nor ICANN's Review of the Request discuss the issue of Whole-Script Confusables. Moreover, there is no published policy on Whole-Script Confusables for the .com namespace at this time.
(ii) Assuming both the Guidelines and the Amendment to the .com Registry Agreement are adopted contemporaneously, will Verisign be required to update its .com IDN policy to reflect the Guidelines prior to proceeding with it's plan to release any single character domain name.
(iii) What are the "additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables" envisioned by Verisign.
(iv) In which scenario(s) can the domain name proposed in the Request, o.com (Latin script), be safely released in accordance with the Guidelines.
Many thanks,
Jean-Sebastien Lascary
cc idngwg@icann.org
Thank you Jean-Sebastien for informing this group of your comment. I encourage you to engage in future ICANN community IDN efforts. Your analysis shows a keen interest in the topic. To the IDNGWG members, I do not believe it is in scope or appropriate for this group to submit comments to any forum outside our own. Naturally we can comment as individuals or members of other groups if that is appropriate. Kal
On 5 Jun 2018, at 23:13, JS Lascary <jslascary@gmail.com> wrote:
I have very limited expertise in all things ICANN. My hope is that the WG will know how best to proceed.
I believe in the past ALAC wrote a letter to the board during the DAG comment period (inviting the board to consider priority batching for IDN TLDs). Perhaps a letter would be more appropriate than a public comment at this point.
I agree with you Edmon that the issue is merely theoretical until the IDN Guidelines are in full force and the .COM agreement is amended. I also agree that, at first glance, the IDN Guidelines do not need to be further updated.
I personally can imagine a scenario where Verisign releases o.com(Latin) in accordance with the IDN Guidelines, which would be for Verisign to first update the .com IDN policy, wait for the confusable strings to expire, then release o.com. Although possible, I find it highly improbable this is how Verisign intended to proceed.
My fear is that Verisign and ICANN are unintentionally heading down a path where the IDN Guidelines would be ignored. This would set an unfortunate precedent that IDNs are lesser domains and/or that ICANN does not always give full effect to its own guidelines. The latter especially is a significant cause of concern in my opinion.
JS
2018-06-05 3:10 GMT-04:00 Edmon <edmon@registry.asia>:
Ah I see.
Still hoping Sarmad could enlighten us.
But meanwhile, regardless of why ICANN staff decided that there is no stability & security concern, a related but separate question is perhaps whether this group should do anything…
JS, do you have anything in mind you think this group should do?
- Respond to the public comments? (it feels strange and potentially out of scope, but perhaps should not rule it out completely as the updated IDN guidelines are not in full force yet… I suppose if there is something in this interim that should be brought up there should be nothing against this group raising it)
- Update the IDN guidelines? On first look, I think the updated guidelines should cover what you mentioned and in the way you have mentioned, so it doesn’t seem like something we need to work on.
Edmon
From: JS Lascary [mailto:jslascary@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 12:00 PM To: Edmon <edmon@registry.asia> Cc: idngwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Idngwg] Comment on Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM
My initial email is a public comment submission to which I cc’d the IDN WG. I would imagine it will be published in the next few days.
JS
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:34 PM Edmon <edmon@registry.asia> wrote:
This is a very interesting observation.
I suppose you have already made the same observation to the public comment for the RSEP previously?
I wonder if Sarmad has any insight into why ICANN concluded that there were no security/stability issues?
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-kane-07dec17...
It seems to me that perhaps an RSTEP is in order here?
Edmon
From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of JS Lascary Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 10:24 AM To: comments-o-com-single-char-10may18@icann.org Cc: idngwg@icann.org Subject: [Idngwg] Comment on Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM
It occurred to me that the Registry Service request from the registry operator, VeriSign, Inc. (hereinafter the 'Request') is in conflict with ICANN's Final Proposed Draft v. 4.0 of the IDN Guidelines (hereinafter the 'Guidelines') as published at the following uri <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-guidelines-10may18-en.pdf>.
Specifically, section 2.5.3 of the Guidelines mentions that :
" TLD registries are encouraged to apply additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables as determined by Unicode Technical Report #36: Unicode Security Considerations (http://unicode.org/reports/tr36) and Unicode Technical Standard #39: Unicode Security Mechanisms (http://unicode.org/reports/tr39). "
In fact, the single character domain name proposed in the Request, o.com (Latin script), is Whole-Script Confusable with xn--0xa.com (Greek Script) and xn--n1a.com (Cyrillic Script). At the time of this comment, the latter two are registered in the .com namespace and have been for over 14 years.
Given the above, I would welcome clarifications on the below points for the benefit of the entire ICANN community :
(i) What is each stakeholder's position on the matter. I note neither the Request nor ICANN's Review of the Request discuss the issue of Whole-Script Confusables. Moreover, there is no published policy on Whole-Script Confusables for the .com namespace at this time.
(ii) Assuming both the Guidelines and the Amendment to the .com Registry Agreement are adopted contemporaneously, will Verisign be required to update its .com IDN policy to reflect the Guidelines prior to proceeding with it's plan to release any single character domain name.
(iii) What are the "additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables" envisioned by Verisign.
(iv) In which scenario(s) can the domain name proposed in the Request, o.com (Latin script), be safely released in accordance with the Guidelines.
Many thanks,
Jean-Sebastien Lascary
cc idngwg@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Idngwg mailing list Idngwg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg
Dear Edmon, I will inquire further and get back. Regards, Sarmad From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Edmon Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 8:35 AM To: 'JS Lascary' <jslascary@gmail.com>; comments-o-com-single-char-10may18@icann.org Cc: idngwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Idngwg] Comment on Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM This is a very interesting observation. I suppose you have already made the same observation to the public comment for the RSEP previously? I wonder if Sarmad has any insight into why ICANN concluded that there were no security/stability issues? https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-kane-07dec17... [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> It seems to me that perhaps an RSTEP is in order here? Edmon From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of JS Lascary Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 10:24 AM To: comments-o-com-single-char-10may18@icann.org <mailto:comments-o-com-single-char-10may18@icann.org> Cc: idngwg@icann.org <mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: [Idngwg] Comment on Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM It occurred to me that the Registry Service request from the registry operator, VeriSign, Inc. (hereinafter the 'Request') is in conflict with ICANN's Final Proposed Draft v. 4.0 of the IDN Guidelines (hereinafter the 'Guidelines') as published at the following uri <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-guidelines-10may18-en.pdf [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...>
.
Specifically, section 2.5.3 of the Guidelines mentions that : " TLD registries are encouraged to apply additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables as determined by Unicode Technical Report #36: Unicode Security Considerations (http://unicode.org/reports/tr36 [unicode.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__unicode.org_reports_tr36...> ) and Unicode Technical Standard #39: Unicode Security Mechanisms (http://unicode.org/reports/tr39 [unicode.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__unicode.org_reports_tr39...> ). " In fact, the single character domain name proposed in the Request, o.com [o.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__o.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3P...> (Latin script), is Whole-Script Confusable with xn--0xa.com [xn--0xa.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__xn-2D-2D0xa.com&d=DwMFaQ...> (Greek Script) and xn--n1a.com [xn--n1a.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__xn-2D-2Dn1a.com&d=DwMFaQ...> (Cyrillic Script). At the time of this comment, the latter two are registered in the .com namespace and have been for over 14 years. Given the above, I would welcome clarifications on the below points for the benefit of the entire ICANN community : (i) What is each stakeholder's position on the matter. I note neither the Request nor ICANN's Review of the Request discuss the issue of Whole-Script Confusables. Moreover, there is no published policy on Whole-Script Confusables for the .com namespace at this time. (ii) Assuming both the Guidelines and the Amendment to the .com Registry Agreement are adopted contemporaneously, will Verisign be required to update its .com IDN policy to reflect the Guidelines prior to proceeding with it's plan to release any single character domain name. (iii) What are the "additional constraints on registrations that minimize Whole-Script Confusables" envisioned by Verisign. (iv) In which scenario(s) can the domain name proposed in the Request, o.com [o.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__o.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3P...> (Latin script), be safely released in accordance with the Guidelines. Many thanks, Jean-Sebastien Lascary cc idngwg@icann.org <mailto:idngwg@icann.org>
participants (4)
-
Edmon -
JS Lascary -
Kal -
Sarmad Hussain