Can I suggest that UASG publishes one document at a time, perhaps one week apart, so that it gives us time to review? Thanks, -Dennis From: <ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jovenet Consulting <contact@jovenet.email> Date: Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:45 AM To: Don Hollander <don.hollander@icann.org> Cc: "UA-discuss@icann.org" <ua-discuss@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [UA-discuss] Pending Documents for Publication Can someone get back to me and confirms: 1. What to publish (a hyperlink to a website)? 2. When to publish? On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Don Hollander <don.hollander@icann.org<mailto:don.hollander@icann.org>> wrote: Please find attached documents for final comments before we publish: 04a – A review of popular browsers for UA Readiness – Spoiler alert – most are OK, but few handle the open dot or IDNs as we expect them to. Some browser developers may see this as a feature and not a bug. 04c – a look at the issues that have been raised through our UA Complaints process and their resolution. Short answer, not too many raised and even fewer resolved by the website developer 04d – A look at Websites and how UA Ready they are. Good news – 7% accepted all names and just 7% accepted none of our sample set. Bad news, just 7% accepted all names. 04g – UASG Programming Language Evaluation Criteria 06a – Revised UASG010 – Quick Guide to Linkification 06b – Revised UASG014 – Quick Guide to EAI Don -- [mage removed by sender.] Jean Guillon contact@jovenet.email Phone: +33.631109837 www.jovenet.consulting<http://www.jovenet.consulting>

Going with Dennis; I think the idea is putting it out in appropriately-sized chunks, where chunk-size includes one or more documents. Richard Merdinger VP, Domains - GoDaddy rmerdinger@godaddy.com<mailto:rmerdinger@godaddy.com> From: <ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Don Hollander <don.hollander@icann.org> Date: Friday, September 1, 2017 at 3:11 PM To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Cc: "ua-discuss@icann.org" <ua-discuss@icann.org> Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] [Ext] Pending Documents for Publication Thanks Dennis. The Comms folks are suggesting we publish at least the Browser Review and the Website review at the same time to give media more ‘meat’ at one time. Most of the documents have been circulating for comment in a vanilla form for some time. Don On 2/09/2017, at 7:44 AM, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com<mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>> wrote: Can I suggest that UASG publishes one document at a time, perhaps one week apart, so that it gives us time to review? Thanks, -Dennis From: <ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jovenet Consulting <contact@jovenet.email<mailto:contact@jovenet.email>> Date: Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:45 AM To: Don Hollander <don.hollander@icann.org<mailto:don.hollander@icann.org>> Cc: "UA-discuss@icann.org<mailto:UA-discuss@icann.org>" <ua-discuss@icann.org<mailto:ua-discuss@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [UA-discuss] Pending Documents for Publication Can someone get back to me and confirms: 1. What to publish (a hyperlink to a website)? 2. When to publish? On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Don Hollander <don.hollander@icann.org<mailto:don.hollander@icann.org>> wrote: Please find attached documents for final comments before we publish: 04a – A review of popular browsers for UA Readiness – Spoiler alert – most are OK, but few handle the open dot or IDNs as we expect them to. Some browser developers may see this as a feature and not a bug. 04c – a look at the issues that have been raised through our UA Complaints process and their resolution. Short answer, not too many raised and even fewer resolved by the website developer 04d – A look at Websites and how UA Ready they are. Good news – 7% accepted all names and just 7% accepted none of our sample set. Bad news, just 7% accepted all names. 04g – UASG Programming Language Evaluation Criteria 06a – Revised UASG010 – Quick Guide to Linkification 06b – Revised UASG014 – Quick Guide to EAI Don -- Jean Guillon contact@jovenet.email<mailto:contact@jovenet.email> Phone: +33.631109837 www.jovenet.consulting[jovenet.consulting]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jovenet.consulting&d...> Don Hollander Universal Acceptance Steering Group Skype: don_hollander

One thing that I think is both positive and newsworthy is https://мвд.рф<https://%D0%BC%D0%B2%D0%B4.%D1%80%D1%84> which has an Alexa ranking of #8184. This is very good for an IDN. Such a good ranking does indicate high usage of the IDN. There may be other IDNs that have good Alexa rankings. ...and... I have just noticed that the ASCII https://mvd.ru redirects to the IDN https://МВД.рф<https://%D0%9C%D0%92%D0%94.%D1%80%D1%84> which is newsworthy and a positive for IDNs. As you are all aware it is frequently the case that an IDN redirects to an ASCII Anyone know of an IDN with a better Alexa ranking? André On 1 Sep 2017, at 22:48, Tex Texin <textexin@xencraft.com<mailto:textexin@xencraft.com>> wrote: The reports are very good. However, the reports are not newsworthy by themselves without context. What will the comms folks say about the significance of the reports? Simply saying that sites and emails do not support IDN is not news, unless we indicate that the problems have a social or business impact. The reports do not comment on that. For example, we identify two issues with email validation- inconsistency across implementations and inaccuracy (or non-compliant) against the standards. On paper this seems like a problem. However, the validation can reflect limitations of the backend. Making the validation consistent with the standard only makes sense if the backend can support that data. So the problem with email validation may not be ignorance of the developers just that it is a symptom of the deficiencies of the backend which take much longer to correct. We need to be careful to categorize the problems correctly for the media. A “meaty” issue is the ambiguity of open dot. A URL that works on one browser and not another is a problem for users and businesses and it is significant if no one can correctly say what the right answer is. That said, maybe we shouldn’t bite the sponsor’s hand since making noise about standards problems seems self-destructive. We can instead quietly encourage the standards to be clarified. So I come back to a few questions: 1) Who is the audience that UASG is targeting? (Or who is comms targeting?) 2) What kind of media attention are we looking for? 3) What will we say about the significance of these reports? 4) Should the reports have conclusions that also include the impact of these discoveries on society and industry or simply remain as they are now a summary of findings and leave the significance to other documents? tex From: ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Richard Merdinger Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 1:18 PM To: Don Hollander; Dennis Tan Tanaka Cc: ua-discuss@icann.org<mailto:ua-discuss@icann.org> Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] [Ext] Pending Documents for Publication Going with Dennis; I think the idea is putting it out in appropriately-sized chunks, where chunk-size includes one or more documents. Richard Merdinger VP, Domains - GoDaddy rmerdinger@godaddy.com<mailto:rmerdinger@godaddy.com> From: <ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Don Hollander <don.hollander@icann.org<mailto:don.hollander@icann.org>> Date: Friday, September 1, 2017 at 3:11 PM To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com<mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>> Cc: "ua-discuss@icann.org<mailto:ua-discuss@icann.org>" <ua-discuss@icann.org<mailto:ua-discuss@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] [Ext] Pending Documents for Publication Thanks Dennis. The Comms folks are suggesting we publish at least the Browser Review and the Website review at the same time to give media more ‘meat’ at one time. Most of the documents have been circulating for comment in a vanilla form for some time. Don On 2/09/2017, at 7:44 AM, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com<mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>> wrote: Can I suggest that UASG publishes one document at a time, perhaps one week apart, so that it gives us time to review? Thanks, -Dennis From: <ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jovenet Consulting <contact@jovenet.email<mailto:contact@jovenet.email>> Date: Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:45 AM To: Don Hollander <don.hollander@icann.org<mailto:don.hollander@icann.org>> Cc: "UA-discuss@icann.org<mailto:UA-discuss@icann.org>" <ua-discuss@icann.org<mailto:ua-discuss@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [UA-discuss] Pending Documents for Publication Can someone get back to me and confirms: 1. What to publish (a hyperlink to a website)? 2. When to publish? On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Don Hollander <don.hollander@icann.org<mailto:don.hollander@icann.org>> wrote: Please find attached documents for final comments before we publish: 04a – A review of popular browsers for UA Readiness – Spoiler alert – most are OK, but few handle the open dot or IDNs as we expect them to. Some browser developers may see this as a feature and not a bug. 04c – a look at the issues that have been raised through our UA Complaints process and their resolution. Short answer, not too many raised and even fewer resolved by the website developer 04d – A look at Websites and how UA Ready they are. Good news – 7% accepted all names and just 7% accepted none of our sample set. Bad news, just 7% accepted all names. 04g – UASG Programming Language Evaluation Criteria 06a – Revised UASG010 – Quick Guide to Linkification 06b – Revised UASG014 – Quick Guide to EAI Don -- Jean Guillon contact@jovenet.email<mailto:contact@jovenet.email> Phone: +33.631109837 www.jovenet.consulting[jovenet.consulting]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jovenet.consulting&d...> Don Hollander Universal Acceptance Steering Group Skype: don_hollander

We did have some engagement with Mozilla facilitated by Jothan. But their response was for us to file a bug report. Don

On 1/09/2017, at 12:27 AM, chaals is Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex.ru> wrote:

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 02:18:54 +0200, Don Hollander <don.hollander@icann.org> wrote:

...

04a – A review of popular browsers for UA Readiness – Spoiler alert – most are OK, but few >handle the open dot or IDNs as we expect them to. Some browser developers may see this >as a feature and not a bug.

The document says there is no W3C document talking about open dot. I am pretty sure you are right about that - in general W3C defers to IETF RFCs for URL definitions, having abandoned its own work on them a few years ago.

The reference for Mozilla seems to have been unchanged in 8 years, which is a long time. Do you know if anyone at Mozilla has actually looked at the issue since then? In particular, I tried changing the settings as described there, to allow the open dot, and it didn't.

cheers

-- Chaals is Charles McCathie Nevile find more at http://yandex.com

Don Hollander Universal Acceptance Steering Group Skype: don_hollander

Please don't take the following as a response from Mozilla, as I do not represent them or speak on their behalf, but I can 99% forecast next steps here and make some suggestions based upon the time I have invested in being a volunteer with them...

The reference for Mozilla seems to have been unchanged in 8 years, which is a long time. Do you know if anyone at Mozilla has actually looked at the issue since then? In particular, I tried changing the settings as described there, to allow the open dot, and it didn't.

@Chaals as a member of the community, would you update that stale wiki to align it with how it currently works? Clearly, it is likely the wiki has not been updated in a while due to resourcing or prioritization, and it obviously has older information that has become incorrect with the evolution of the actual function/behaviour. I'm on Mozilla's Policy Advisory Board, @Christian I am impressed with how many hats you wear. What do you NOT do in this industry, man? Thank you for all you do. We're all better off for it. if you want me to try to escalate it. We just need to narrow things down to

a simple, discrete ask.

I agree that narrowing things down to simple discrete ask can help - * I think resourcing Mozilla would be even more effective towards goal.* *The best path forward would most likely be ICANN-employed UA developers participating by supplying developers to projects as members of mozilla community and tackling these issues from within. * (Perhaps coordination with Gerv Markham, who I connected Don with, and your PAB affiliations would allow that to evolve?) Next best (current suggested) is conforming our 'ask' process using their ticketing system to submit issues into the appropriate conduits for attention from the community volunteers and developers - this is how they do business and manage these tens of thousands of development volunteers globally. if you could work your politically-smooth mojo in a way that brings the ask in a different conduit than I have been using... I suspect it will still flow into the same ultimate constraint point and system that currently have any tickets that have been submitted - or will be directed to do so.. I would just recommend to be cognizant of coming across as over-assertive in our asks if we're flowing it through >1 management chain into the same (current) constrained resource(s). I don't think the effect would be a punitive reaction, but it could be counterproductive if the matter moves from its current state of 'we know this is important to do and have an eye to do it when possible' over to a 'into the bucket with everything else'. It is a common theme within the development community at large - certainly irritating to volunteers to have yet more pressure/work while under-resourced to be reminded of it again by yet another "manager" - help them help you (hence the resourcing suggestion). Their ticketing system takes time to understand and work with, and you do not always get what you asked for, but it is the mechanism in place to flow the myriad of requests for a myriad of bugfix/feature requests to be submitted to a myriad of geometrically distributed volunteer developers. Just like humans have to work the paid workers at the DMV for their process for their drivers license or have to follow ICANN's mixture of paid staff/volunteer resourced flow and process for new TLDs or other needs, so unto us is the Mozilla ticket system for having their majority-volunteer-resources address things. Jothan Frakes Tel: +1.206-355-0230 On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Christian Dawson <dawson@i2coalition.com> wrote:

I'm on Mozilla's Policy Advisory Board, if you want me to try to escalate it. We just need to narrow things down to a simple, discrete ask.

Christian Dawson *Executive Director* Internet Infrastructure Coalition (i2C) c: 703 623 2612 http://i2coalition.com

PGP: 22DF5493 Fingerprint: 7C95 A3BE 1E10 4864 8417 DCED B9E1 C8FD 22DF 5493

On Aug 31, 2017, at 3:50 PM, Don Hollander <don.hollander@icann.org> wrote:

We did have some engagement with Mozilla facilitated by Jothan. But their response was for us to file a bug report.

Don

On 1/09/2017, at 12:27 AM, chaals is Chaals McCathie Nevile < chaals@yandex.ru> wrote:

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 02:18:54 +0200, Don Hollander <don.hollander@icann.org> wrote:

04a – A review of popular browsers for UA Readiness – Spoiler alert – most are OK, but few >handle the open dot or IDNs as we expect them to. Some browser developers may see this >as a feature and not a bug.

The document says there is no W3C document talking about open dot. I am pretty sure you are right about that - in general W3C defers to IETF RFCs for URL definitions, having abandoned its own work on them a few years ago.

The reference for Mozilla seems to have been unchanged in 8 years, which is a long time. Do you know if anyone at Mozilla has actually looked at the issue since then? In particular, I tried changing the settings as described there, to allow the open dot, and it didn't.

cheers

--

Chaals is Charles McCathie Nevile

find more at http://yandex.com

Don Hollander Universal Acceptance Steering Group Skype: don_hollander