[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Second Public Comment on IDN Guidelines

Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Sun Dec 10 11:00:11 EET 2017


Hi Ayden,

Thanks for the question, it seems that when it comes to a matter related to
technical aspects (they are using IETF terminology), "must" is often used
while "encourage" (6 occurrences )is more for informational matter and
urging registries to cooperate for example.  knowing how much IDNs are
facing as problems to be implemented and not necessarily seen as a good
business opportunity for many registrars except for some non-latin scripts,
I would think the guidelines should be implementable and less onerous in
order to provide registrants more choice.
we can put a note anyway saying that we think that we prefer the term
"shall" or "should" at least which is probably stronger "encourage".
btw the staff is keen to give us an extension and asking when we can
submit. I would suggest to them that we can submit by this Friday.

Best,

Rafik

2017-12-10 6:40 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> I don't have a strong opinion on this issue or on our comment, however, in
> the source document
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-idn-guidelines-03mar17-en.pdf>,
> the word "encourage" is used frequently. i.e. "Encourage registrars to
> notify registrants of non-conforming registered domain names".
>
> Do we think this terminology is appropriate? I prefer words like "must" -
> they give registrants more clarity over what they can expect from
> registrars - but I could be persuaded otherwise.
>
> — Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Second Public Comment on IDN
> Guidelines
> Local Time: 9 December 2017 5:37 AM
> UTC Time: 9 December 2017 05:37
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> hi all,
>
> the deadline for submission is 10th December, I will try to ask for few
> days extension. I would like to ask you review the draft for endorsement or
> not.
> after that, we can focus on several public comments which deadline is
> around 5th January.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>
> Date: 2017-12-05 0:38 GMT+09:00
> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Second Public Comment on IDN Guidelines
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> In October 2017, ICANN called for a second public comment on the version
> 4.0 of IDN Guidelines. Actually, following the first round of comments most
> of the concerns addressed by the community were taken into account.
> Nevertheless, two questions remain open and some people here may think it
> is useful to discuss them. Please check what we drafted
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L6Fj41rkku6g44FkDbvmUc12MAxv99szaRz8OSmnSbE/edit#>
> so far and make your suggestions, if any. Otherwise, we won't have a
> significant comment on this report and just endorse it.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
> @__f_f__
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171210/53bc5a0c/attachment.html>


More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list