Re: [Idngwg] Update draft + PC2 call + ICANN 60 presentations
Sarmad, I did minor edits to the version enclosed, then I noticed there was another version with the added PC2 paragraph (i.e. nic chile and “x” question). I’m good with this addition. Thank you, Dennis From: <idngwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> Date: Monday, October 16, 2017 at 4:44 AM To: "idngwg@icann.org" <idngwg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Idngwg] Update draft + PC2 call + ICANN 60 presentations Dear All, In drafting the explanation for “uniform” in Guideline 13 in the Additional Note II, we should consider another scenario not yet captured but needed in the uniform treatment of variants across the IDN Tables. Thus, I have suggested additional text in the Additional Note II (ii) in the updated version 2.9-redline attached. As an explanation, consider the scenario: Suppose a registry creates two IDN Tables, one exclusively for Traditional Chinese and other exclusively for Simplified Chinese. If the additional text is not there the registry could potentially allocate the TC and SC versions of labels to different registrants. With the proposed text, the variant code points will need to be reviewed for both SC and TC together so even with such IDN Tables, the variant labels for SC and TC will go to the same registrant. The same case can occur in Arabic script. If we have Arabic Kaf (‘k’ ك U+0643) in Arabic language table and Persian Kaf (‘k’ ک U+06A9) in Persian language table, then the identical labels کتاب and كتاب (kitab – book) could be allocated to different registrants. If these are harmonized to be uniform, as described, such cases will be prevented. This case does not seem to be captured elsewhere in the guidelines. I think this was originally intended, but when we specified the definition of “uniform”, we did not capture this part. Kindly see if this version 2.9 is agreeable to proceed (with any further edits suggested) or should we take version 2.8 further. Regards, Sarmad From: idngwg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 1:11 PM To: idngwg@icann.org Subject: [Idngwg] Update draft + PC2 call + ICANN 60 presentations Dear All, Thank you for the amazing work all of you have done in finalizing the Guidelines document! As discussed, we will conduct a second public comment on this document. Following the IDNGWG meeting on 12 October, please find attached the following: 1. Call for second public comment (PC2) 2. Updated draft of the guidelines (updated redline version + PC2 clean version) 3. Updated ICANN 60 presentations (detailed for 90 min session on 29 Oct. + short for 7 minute update on 1 Nov.) (corresponding PDF versions also attached on request) I have added only two specific questions at the top of the guidelines document: one on scope and other on value of X. Kindly confirm that these are Ok, and please share if you would like to add any additional specific questions? As discussed, second public comment call and corresponding document will be sent in for publication on 18 October, so please share any feedback before 0500 UTC 18 Oct (please make changes directly in the documents). It will be useful to get your confirmation even if you do not have any suggested changes. As usual, the recording of the call is available at the wiki page https://community.icann.org/display/IDN/IDN+Implementation+Guidelines[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_IDN_IDN-2BImplementation-2BGuidelines&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=psZrPi04OpZy2zYuUYGSomCxurkdBugJeqIN31z4UUc&s=SRrRz2lBwei_6_lLDzFWZdrAv06f9FrzPDZr-kbBOqg&e=> and the notes will also be available there soon. Regards, Sarmad
Thank you Dennis and sorry for the confusion caused due to the two versions. I have taken the version with your feedback and added the PC2 paragraph in the beginning to represent the complete document. I am attaching the latest version which we will take forward. I will incorporate any feedback sent in by others on this or any of the earlier versions circulated. Looking forward to any final feedback. Regards, Sarmad From: Tan Tanaka, Dennis [mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:17 AM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; idngwg@icann.org Subject: [Ext] Re: [Idngwg] Update draft + PC2 call + ICANN 60 presentations Sarmad, I did minor edits to the version enclosed, then I noticed there was another version with the added PC2 paragraph (i.e. nic chile and “x” question). I’m good with this addition. Thank you, Dennis From: <idngwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>> Date: Monday, October 16, 2017 at 4:44 AM To: "idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>" <idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Idngwg] Update draft + PC2 call + ICANN 60 presentations Dear All, In drafting the explanation for “uniform” in Guideline 13 in the Additional Note II, we should consider another scenario not yet captured but needed in the uniform treatment of variants across the IDN Tables. Thus, I have suggested additional text in the Additional Note II (ii) in the updated version 2.9-redline attached. As an explanation, consider the scenario: Suppose a registry creates two IDN Tables, one exclusively for Traditional Chinese and other exclusively for Simplified Chinese. If the additional text is not there the registry could potentially allocate the TC and SC versions of labels to different registrants. With the proposed text, the variant code points will need to be reviewed for both SC and TC together so even with such IDN Tables, the variant labels for SC and TC will go to the same registrant. The same case can occur in Arabic script. If we have Arabic Kaf (‘k’ ك U+0643) in Arabic language table and Persian Kaf (‘k’ ک U+06A9) in Persian language table, then the identical labels کتاب and كتاب (kitab – book) could be allocated to different registrants. If these are harmonized to be uniform, as described, such cases will be prevented. This case does not seem to be captured elsewhere in the guidelines. I think this was originally intended, but when we specified the definition of “uniform”, we did not capture this part. Kindly see if this version 2.9 is agreeable to proceed (with any further edits suggested) or should we take version 2.8 further. Regards, Sarmad From: idngwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 1:11 PM To: idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: [Idngwg] Update draft + PC2 call + ICANN 60 presentations Dear All, Thank you for the amazing work all of you have done in finalizing the Guidelines document! As discussed, we will conduct a second public comment on this document. Following the IDNGWG meeting on 12 October, please find attached the following: 1. Call for second public comment (PC2) 2. Updated draft of the guidelines (updated redline version + PC2 clean version) 3. Updated ICANN 60 presentations (detailed for 90 min session on 29 Oct. + short for 7 minute update on 1 Nov.) (corresponding PDF versions also attached on request) I have added only two specific questions at the top of the guidelines document: one on scope and other on value of X. Kindly confirm that these are Ok, and please share if you would like to add any additional specific questions? As discussed, second public comment call and corresponding document will be sent in for publication on 18 October, so please share any feedback before 0500 UTC 18 Oct (please make changes directly in the documents). It will be useful to get your confirmation even if you do not have any suggested changes. As usual, the recording of the call is available at the wiki page https://community.icann.org/display/IDN/IDN+Implementation+Guidelines[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_IDN_IDN-2BImplementation-2BGuidelines&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=psZrPi04OpZy2zYuUYGSomCxurkdBugJeqIN31z4UUc&s=SRrRz2lBwei_6_lLDzFWZdrAv06f9FrzPDZr-kbBOqg&e=> and the notes will also be available there soon. Regards, Sarmad
Dear WG members, We have not heard back from other members. Please advise if we are ready to proceed with the public comment announcement or you would need more time for review. Regards, Sarmad From: idngwg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:45 AM To: Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com>; idngwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Idngwg] [Ext] Re: Update draft + PC2 call + ICANN 60 presentations Thank you Dennis and sorry for the confusion caused due to the two versions. I have taken the version with your feedback and added the PC2 paragraph in the beginning to represent the complete document. I am attaching the latest version which we will take forward. I will incorporate any feedback sent in by others on this or any of the earlier versions circulated. Looking forward to any final feedback. Regards, Sarmad From: Tan Tanaka, Dennis [mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:17 AM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>>; idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Idngwg] Update draft + PC2 call + ICANN 60 presentations Sarmad, I did minor edits to the version enclosed, then I noticed there was another version with the added PC2 paragraph (i.e. nic chile and “x” question). I’m good with this addition. Thank you, Dennis From: <idngwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>> Date: Monday, October 16, 2017 at 4:44 AM To: "idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>" <idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Idngwg] Update draft + PC2 call + ICANN 60 presentations Dear All, In drafting the explanation for “uniform” in Guideline 13 in the Additional Note II, we should consider another scenario not yet captured but needed in the uniform treatment of variants across the IDN Tables. Thus, I have suggested additional text in the Additional Note II (ii) in the updated version 2.9-redline attached. As an explanation, consider the scenario: Suppose a registry creates two IDN Tables, one exclusively for Traditional Chinese and other exclusively for Simplified Chinese. If the additional text is not there the registry could potentially allocate the TC and SC versions of labels to different registrants. With the proposed text, the variant code points will need to be reviewed for both SC and TC together so even with such IDN Tables, the variant labels for SC and TC will go to the same registrant. The same case can occur in Arabic script. If we have Arabic Kaf (‘k’ ك U+0643) in Arabic language table and Persian Kaf (‘k’ ک U+06A9) in Persian language table, then the identical labels کتاب and كتاب (kitab – book) could be allocated to different registrants. If these are harmonized to be uniform, as described, such cases will be prevented. This case does not seem to be captured elsewhere in the guidelines. I think this was originally intended, but when we specified the definition of “uniform”, we did not capture this part. Kindly see if this version 2.9 is agreeable to proceed (with any further edits suggested) or should we take version 2.8 further. Regards, Sarmad From: idngwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 1:11 PM To: idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: [Idngwg] Update draft + PC2 call + ICANN 60 presentations Dear All, Thank you for the amazing work all of you have done in finalizing the Guidelines document! As discussed, we will conduct a second public comment on this document. Following the IDNGWG meeting on 12 October, please find attached the following: 1. Call for second public comment (PC2) 2. Updated draft of the guidelines (updated redline version + PC2 clean version) 3. Updated ICANN 60 presentations (detailed for 90 min session on 29 Oct. + short for 7 minute update on 1 Nov.) (corresponding PDF versions also attached on request) I have added only two specific questions at the top of the guidelines document: one on scope and other on value of X. Kindly confirm that these are Ok, and please share if you would like to add any additional specific questions? As discussed, second public comment call and corresponding document will be sent in for publication on 18 October, so please share any feedback before 0500 UTC 18 Oct (please make changes directly in the documents). It will be useful to get your confirmation even if you do not have any suggested changes. As usual, the recording of the call is available at the wiki page https://community.icann.org/display/IDN/IDN+Implementation+Guidelines[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_IDN_IDN-2BImplementation-2BGuidelines&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=psZrPi04OpZy2zYuUYGSomCxurkdBugJeqIN31z4UUc&s=SRrRz2lBwei_6_lLDzFWZdrAv06f9FrzPDZr-kbBOqg&e=> and the notes will also be available there soon. Regards, Sarmad
I'm fine with the latest version. Kal Feher Neustar Inc. Level 8, 10 Queens Road, Melbourne, Australia VIC 3004 Office +61 3 9866 3710 / kal.feher@team.neustar / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> Follow Neustar: [http://neunet.neustar.biz/sites/default/files/295/New%20Picture.png] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [http://neunet.neustar.biz/sites/default/files/295/New%20Picture%20(1)(1).png] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> [http://neunet.neustar.biz/sites/default/files/295/New%20Picture%20(2).png] Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustarinc> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: <idngwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, 19 October 2017 at 07:56 To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com<mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>>, "idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>" <idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Idngwg] [Ext] Re: Update draft + PC2 call + ICANN 60 presentations Dear WG members, We have not heard back from other members. Please advise if we are ready to proceed with the public comment announcement or you would need more time for review. Regards, Sarmad From: idngwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:45 AM To: Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com<mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>>; idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Idngwg] [Ext] Re: Update draft + PC2 call + ICANN 60 presentations Thank you Dennis and sorry for the confusion caused due to the two versions. I have taken the version with your feedback and added the PC2 paragraph in the beginning to represent the complete document. I am attaching the latest version which we will take forward. I will incorporate any feedback sent in by others on this or any of the earlier versions circulated. Looking forward to any final feedback. Regards, Sarmad From: Tan Tanaka, Dennis [mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:17 AM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>>; idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Idngwg] Update draft + PC2 call + ICANN 60 presentations Sarmad, I did minor edits to the version enclosed, then I noticed there was another version with the added PC2 paragraph (i.e. nic chile and “x” question). I’m good with this addition. Thank you, Dennis From: <idngwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>> Date: Monday, October 16, 2017 at 4:44 AM To: "idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>" <idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Idngwg] Update draft + PC2 call + ICANN 60 presentations Dear All, In drafting the explanation for “uniform” in Guideline 13 in the Additional Note II, we should consider another scenario not yet captured but needed in the uniform treatment of variants across the IDN Tables. Thus, I have suggested additional text in the Additional Note II (ii) in the updated version 2.9-redline attached. As an explanation, consider the scenario: Suppose a registry creates two IDN Tables, one exclusively for Traditional Chinese and other exclusively for Simplified Chinese. If the additional text is not there the registry could potentially allocate the TC and SC versions of labels to different registrants. With the proposed text, the variant code points will need to be reviewed for both SC and TC together so even with such IDN Tables, the variant labels for SC and TC will go to the same registrant. The same case can occur in Arabic script. If we have Arabic Kaf (‘k’ كU+0643) in Arabic language table and Persian Kaf (‘k’ کU+06A9) in Persian language table, then the identical labels کتابandكتاب (kitab – book) could be allocated to different registrants. If these are harmonized to be uniform, as described, such cases will be prevented. This case does not seem to be captured elsewhere in the guidelines. I think this was originally intended, but when we specified the definition of “uniform”, we did not capture this part. Kindly see if this version 2.9 is agreeable to proceed (with any further edits suggested) or should we take version 2.8 further. Regards, Sarmad From:idngwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 1:11 PM To: idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: [Idngwg] Update draft + PC2 call + ICANN 60 presentations Dear All, Thank you for the amazing work all of you have done in finalizing the Guidelines document! As discussed, we will conduct a second public comment on this document. Following the IDNGWG meeting on 12 October, please find attached the following: 1. Call for second public comment (PC2) 2. Updated draft of the guidelines (updated redline version + PC2 clean version) 3. Updated ICANN 60 presentations (detailed for 90 min session on 29 Oct. + short for 7 minute update on 1 Nov.) (corresponding PDF versions also attached on request) I have added only two specific questions at the top of the guidelines document: one on scope and other on value of X. Kindly confirm that these are Ok, and please share if you would like to add any additional specific questions? As discussed, second public comment call and corresponding document will be sent in for publication on 18 October, so please share any feedback before 0500 UTC 18 Oct (please make changes directly in the documents). It will be useful to get your confirmation even if you do not have any suggested changes. As usual, the recording of the call is available at the wiki page https://community.icann.org/display/IDN/IDN+Implementation+Guidelines[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_IDN_IDN-2BImplementation-2BGuidelines&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=psZrPi04OpZy2zYuUYGSomCxurkdBugJeqIN31z4UUc&s=SRrRz2lBwei_6_lLDzFWZdrAv06f9FrzPDZr-kbBOqg&e=> and the notes will also be available there soon. Regards, Sarmad
I am ok with the latest version. satish On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Feher, Kal via Idngwg <idngwg@icann.org> wrote:
I'm fine with the latest version.
*Kal Feher*
*Neustar Inc.* Level 8, 10 Queens Road, Melbourne, Australia VIC 3004
*Office* +61 3 9866 3710 / kal.feher@team.neustar / www.neustar.biz
*Follow Neustar:* [image: http://neunet.neustar.biz/sites/default/files/295/New%20Picture.png] *Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc>* *[image: http://neunet.neustar.biz/sites/default/files/295/New%20Picture%20(1)(1).png]* *LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349>* *[image: http://neunet.neustar.biz/sites/default/files/295/New%20Picture%20(2).png]* *Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/neustarinc>* ------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: <idngwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Sarmad Hussain < sarmad.hussain@icann.org> Date: Thursday, 19 October 2017 at 07:56 To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com>, "idngwg@icann.org" < idngwg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Idngwg] [Ext] Re: Update draft + PC2 call + ICANN 60 presentations
Dear WG members,
We have not heard back from other members.
Please advise if we are ready to proceed with the public comment announcement or you would need more time for review.
Regards, Sarmad
*From:* idngwg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org <idngwg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Sarmad Hussain *Sent:* Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:45 AM *To:* Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com>; idngwg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Idngwg] [Ext] Re: Update draft + PC2 call + ICANN 60 presentations
Thank you Dennis and sorry for the confusion caused due to the two versions.
I have taken the version with your feedback and added the PC2 paragraph in the beginning to represent the complete document.
I am attaching the latest version which we will take forward.
I will incorporate any feedback sent in by others on this or any of the earlier versions circulated.
Looking forward to any final feedback.
Regards, Sarmad
*From:* Tan Tanaka, Dennis [mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com <dtantanaka@verisign.com>] *Sent:* Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:17 AM *To:* Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; idngwg@icann.org *Subject:* [Ext] Re: [Idngwg] Update draft + PC2 call + ICANN 60 presentations
Sarmad,
I did minor edits to the version enclosed, then I noticed there was another version with the added PC2 paragraph (i.e. nic chile and “x” question). I’m good with this addition.
Thank you,
Dennis
*From: *<idngwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Sarmad Hussain < sarmad.hussain@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, October 16, 2017 at 4:44 AM *To: *"idngwg@icann.org" <idngwg@icann.org> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [Idngwg] Update draft + PC2 call + ICANN 60 presentations
Dear All,
In drafting the explanation for “uniform” in Guideline 13 in the Additional Note II, we should consider another scenario not yet captured but needed in the uniform treatment of variants across the IDN Tables.
Thus, I have suggested additional text in the Additional Note II (ii) in the updated version 2.9-redline attached.
As an explanation, consider the scenario:
Suppose a registry creates two IDN Tables, one exclusively for Traditional Chinese and other exclusively for Simplified Chinese. If the additional text is not there the registry could potentially allocate the TC and SC versions of labels to different registrants. With the proposed text, the variant code points will need to be reviewed for both SC and TC together so even with such IDN Tables, the variant labels for SC and TC will go to the same registrant.
The same case can occur in Arabic script. If we have Arabic Kaf (‘k’ كU+0643) in Arabic language table and Persian Kaf (‘k’ کU+06A9) in Persian language table, then the identical labels کتابandكتاب (kitab – book) could be allocated to different registrants. If these are harmonized to be uniform, as described, such cases will be prevented.
This case does not seem to be captured elsewhere in the guidelines. I think this was originally intended, but when we specified the definition of “uniform”, we did not capture this part.
Kindly see if this version 2.9 is agreeable to proceed (with any further edits suggested) or should we take version 2.8 further.
Regards, Sarmad
*From:*idngwg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org <idngwg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Sarmad Hussain *Sent:* Sunday, October 15, 2017 1:11 PM *To:* idngwg@icann.org *Subject:* [Idngwg] Update draft + PC2 call + ICANN 60 presentations
Dear All,
Thank you for the amazing work all of you have done in finalizing the Guidelines document!
As discussed, we will conduct a second public comment on this document.
Following the IDNGWG meeting on 12 October, please find attached the following:
1. Call for second public comment (PC2)
2. Updated draft of the guidelines (updated redline version + PC2 clean version)
3. Updated ICANN 60 presentations (detailed for 90 min session on 29 Oct. + short for 7 minute update on 1 Nov.)
(corresponding PDF versions also attached on request)
I have added only two specific questions at the top of the guidelines document: one on scope and other on value of X. Kindly confirm that these are Ok, and please share if you would like to add any additional specific questions?
As discussed, second public comment call and corresponding document will be sent in for publication on 18 October, so please share any *feedback before 0500 UTC 18 Oct* (please make changes directly in the documents). It will be useful to get your confirmation even if you do not have any suggested changes.
As usual, the recording of the call is available at the wiki page 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...> and the notes will also be available there soon.
Regards, Sarmad
_______________________________________________ Idngwg mailing list Idngwg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idngwg
participants (4)
-
Feher, Kal -
Sarmad Hussain -
Satish Babu -
Tan Tanaka, Dennis