JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs · between the ccNSO and the GNSO on IDNs (Internationalized Domain Names), especially IDN TLDs. The participants of the JIG are listed

JIGFinalReportonSingleCharacterIDNTLDsDate:8March2011ThisisaFinalReportfromtheJIGontherecommendationsfortheintroductionofSingleCharacterIDNTLDs.ThedocumentincorporatesthefindingsfromtheInitialReportandDraftFinalReportalongwiththepubliccommentsreceivedrespectivelytoproposerecommendationsfortheimplementationofSingleCharacterIDNTLDsforIDNgTLDsandIDNccTLDs:

• InitialReportpublishedforpubliccomments:July27,2010o http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig‐initial‐report‐26jul10‐en.pdf

• PublicCommentperiodconducted:July27–September9,2010o http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement‐2‐27jul10‐en.htm

• SummaryofComments:October6,2010o http://forum.icann.org/lists/jig‐initial‐report/pdfaul7JXcqaa.pdf

• DraftFinalReportpublishedforpubliccomments:December4,2010o http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig‐draft‐final‐report‐04dec10‐en.pdf

• PublicCommentperiodconducted:December4,2010–January12,2011o http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement‐04dec10‐en.htm

• SummaryofComments:February18,2011o http://forum.icann.org/lists/jig‐draft‐final‐report/pdfQxF383O30Q.pdf

TheJIG(JointccNSO‐GNSOIDNWorkingGroup)wascreatedtodiscussissuesofcommoninterestbetweentheccNSOandtheGNSOonIDNs(InternationalizedDomainNames),especiallyIDNTLDs.TheparticipantsoftheJIGarelistedinAnnexBofthisreport.TheJIGhasidentified3issuesofcommoninteresttodate:

1. SingleCharacterIDNTLDs2. IDNTLDVariants3. UniversalAcceptanceofIDNTLDs

Thisreportisspecifictoissue1.SingleCharacterIDNTLDs.ThisFinalReportissubmittedtotheccNSOcouncilandtheGNSOcouncilrespectivelyfortheirconsiderationandadoptionaccordingtoitsownrulesandprocedures.

TableofContents1. Introduction&Background ..................................................................................................................2

2. PolicyAspectsofSingleCharacterIDNTLDs ........................................................................................4

3. ImplementationRecommendationsonSingleCharacterIDNTLDs .....................................................4

4. SuggestedchangestoIDNccTLDFastTrackImplementationPlan ......................................................5

5. SuggestedEditstoNewgTLDApplicantGuidebook ............................................................................6

AppendixA:ViewpointsontheIdentifiedIssues: ........................................................................................8

AppendixB:WorkingGroupMembers: .....................................................................................................17

AppendixC:Summary&ResponsesonPublicCommentsforInitialReport .............................................18

AppendixD:Summary&ResponsesonPublicCommentsforDraftFinalReport .....................................20

WG‐DRAFT JIGFinalReportonSingleCharacterIDNTLDs

2011‐03‐08 Page2of21

1. Introduction&BackgroundTheworkonSingleCharacterIDNTLDsattheJIGbuildsonthefindingsdescribedintheIDN‐ImplementationWorkingTeam–FinalReport(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new‐gtlds/idn‐implementation‐working‐team‐report‐final‐03dec09‐en.pdf).Recommendation3oftheFinalReportspecifiesthat:3.1Theteamdoesnotrecommendthebanningofone‐charactergTLDs.3.2TheteamrecommendsthatfurtherramificationsofthisissuebeaddressedbypolicybodiessuchastheccNSOandGNSO.IntermsofdefiningStringLength,thereportalsospecifiedthat:Theteamsuggestsusingtheterm“graphemecluster”whereacombiningsequenceofabasecharacterandcombiningmark(s)appearstobeasinglecharacter,usingthedefinitionofan“extendedgraphemecluster”fromsection3ofUnicodeStandardAnnex#29.1Thereportalsoestablishedthat:Thereseemtobenotechnicalreasonsforrestrictingone‐characterIDNTLDlabels.DuringthedeliberationsoftheNewgTLDPDP,aGNSOIDNWGwasformedinNovember2006(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/idn‐tlds/idn_working_group‐18nov06.htm)toaddresspolicyissuesthatmayarisefromtheintroductionofInternationalizedDomainNamesatthetoplevel(IDNTLDs).TheIDNWGproducedafinalOutcomesReport(http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn‐wg‐fr‐22mar07.htm)inMarch2007.RecommendationsfromtheOutcomesReportwereeventuallyincorporatedintotheGNSOFinalReportontheIntroductionofNewgTLDs(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new‐gtlds/pdp‐dec05‐fr‐parta‐08aug07.htm).TheReservedNamesworkinggroup(formedaspartoftheNewgTLDPDP)alsodeliberatedonissuesrelevanttotheintroductionofIDNgTLDs.TheReservedNamesWGFinalReport(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new‐gtlds/final‐report‐rn‐wg‐23may07.htm)wasalsoincorporatedintotheGNSOFinalReportontheIntroductionofNewgTLDs.OntheissueofSingleCharacterIDNTLDs,therelevantrecommendationsinclude:5.SingleandTwoCharacterIDNs:Singleandtwo‐characterU‐labelsonthetoplevelandsecondlevelofadomainnameshouldnotberestrictedingeneral.Atthetoplevel,requestedstringsshouldbeanalyzedonacase‐by‐casebasisinthenewgTLDprocessdependingonthescriptandlanguageusedinordertodeterminewhetherthestringshouldbegrantedforallocationintheDNSwithparticularcautionappliedtoU‐labelsinLatinscript(seeRecommendation10below).6.SingleLetters2:Werecommendreservationofsinglelettersatthetoplevelbasedontechnicalquestionsraised.Ifsufficientresearchatalaterdatedemonstratesthatthetechnicalissuesandconcernsareaddressed,thetopicofreleasingreservationstatuscanbereconsidered.

1Forthepurposesofthisreport,theconceptof“SingleCharacter”isdefinedasoneextendedgraphemeclusterfromsection3ofUnicodeStandardAnnex#29.2Withinthecontextofthisdiscussion“letters”refertothe“L”in“LDH(Letter‐Digit‐Hyphen)”(orASCIIcharacters)becauseSingleDigitTLDisnotallowedbasedonitspossibleconfusionwithIPaddresses,whileSingleHyphenTLDisnotallowedbasedontherulethataHyphenshouldnotbeallowedasthefirstorlastcharacterofadomainlabel.


2011‐03‐08 Page3of21

8.SingleandTwoDigits:Atop‐levellabelmustnotbeaplausiblecomponentofanIPv4orIPv6address.(e.g.,.3,.99,.123,.1035,.0xAF,.1578234)10.TwoLetters2:Werecommendthatthecurrentpracticeofallowingtwoletternamesatthetoplevel,onlyforccTLDs,remainsatthistime.Examplesinclude.AU,.DE,.UK.InconsideringanIDNccTLDFastTrack,theccNSOcouncilputforwardacharter(http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc‐charter.htm),whichwasapprovedbytheICANNboardattheLosAngelesmeetinginOctober2007,fortheestablishmentoftheIDNCWorkingGroup,comprisedofmembersoftheGNSO,ccNSO,GAC,ALAC,SSAC,representativeofthetechnicalcommunity,andICANNstaff.TheIDNCproducedaFinalReport(andBoardProposal)ontheFastTrackProcessforIDNccTLDsinJune2008(http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc‐wg‐board‐proposal‐25jun08.pdf).OntheissueofSingleCharacterIDNTLDs,therelevantrecommendationsfromtheFinalReportinclude:D:FastTrackonlyfornon‐Latinscripts:ThepossibilityofIDNccTLDsbeingdelegatedinLatinscriptisamatterthatwillbeconsideredaspartoftheccPDP.Accordingly,intheFastTrack,thescripthastobeanon‐Latinscripttoavoidpre‐emptingtheoutcomeoftheccPDP.MeaningfulnessRequirement:ForpurposesoftheFastTrackthestringusedmustbemeaningfulintheOfficialLanguage.TechnicalRequirements[#8]:Nonamesthatareshorterthantwocharactersinnon‐ASCIIareused.TheJIGacceptstheresultsoftheabovepriorworksasabasisforitsworkonSingleCharacterIDNTLDs.BesidestheIDN‐ImplementationWorkingTeamFinalReport,theGNSOFinalReportontheIntroductionofNewgTLDs,andtheFinalReportofIDNCWorkingGroup,inconductingitswork,theJIGisalsoguidedbythefollowing:

• TheoverarchingrequirementtopreservethesecurityandstabilityoftheDNS;• CompliancewiththeIDNAprotocolsandICANNIDNGuidelines;• InputandadvicefromthetechnicalcommunityinrespecttotheimplementationofIDNs;• ProposedNewgTLDApplicantGuidebook(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new‐gtlds/draft‐rfp‐

clean‐12nov10‐en.pdf)andsubsequentversionsastheybecomeavailable,alongwithcorrespondingcommentsreceived;and,

• IDNccTLDFastTrackFinalImplementationPlan(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast‐track/idn‐cctld‐implementation‐plan‐16nov09‐en.pdf)andrelevantsubsequentupdates.

Furthermore,theJIGreferstotheongoingIDNccPDP,theccNSOPolicyDevelopmentProcess(ccPDP)forthelongtermimplementationofIDNccTLDs,andthetwoworkinggroupsformed:ccNSOIDNPDPWorkingGroup1(http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idn‐pdp‐wg1‐charter.pdf),toreportonandidentifyafeasiblepolicyfortheselectionanddelegationofIDNccTLDsassociatedwiththeterritorieslistedintheISO3166‐1;and,ccNSOIDNPDPWorkingGroup2(http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idn‐pdp‐wg2‐charter‐23mar10‐en.pdf),toreportonchangestoArticleIXandrelevantAnnexesintheICANNBylawstoincludeIDNccTLD'sasfullmembersintheccNSOonequalfootingasthecurrentmembers.


2011‐03‐08 Page4of21

2. PolicyAspectsofSingleCharacterIDNTLDsTheJIGhasidentifiedthefollowingpolicyconsiderationstobeaddressedfortheimplementationofSingleCharacterIDNTLDs:

1. PossibleconfusionwithreservedsinglecharacterASCIITLDstrings2. Whetherspecialfinancialconsiderationsshouldbeconsidered3. Whetherduetotherelativelysmallerpoolofpossiblenamesthatspecialallocationmethods

shouldbeconsidered4. Whetherduetotherelativelyshorterstring,itmaybeeasierforuserstomakemistakes,and

thatspecialpoliciesshouldbeconsidered5. WhatshouldbethepolicyfordistinguishingbetweenaSingleCharacterIDNccTLDandaSingle

CharacterIDNgTLD6. WhetherspecialpoliciesarerequiredtoaddressusabilityofSingleCharacterIDNTLDsgiven

existingapplicationenvironmentsAmoredetaileddiscussionoftheviewpointscollectedontheabovepolicyaspectsisincludedinAppendixAbelow.SummaryandresponsesonpubliccommentsreceivedfortheInitialReportisincludedinAppendixCandsummaryandresponsesonpubliccommentsreceivedfortheDraftFinalReportisincludedinAppendixD.

3. ImplementationRecommendationsonSingleCharacterIDNTLDsTheJIGmakesthefollowingrecommendationsregardingtheimplementationofSingleCharacterIDNTLDs:

A. SingleCharacterIDNTLDsshouldbeacceptableundertheIDNccTLDFastTrackProcessandaspartoftherecommendationsforoverallpolicyinIDNccPDP,takingintoaccountthefindingsfromthisreport

B. TheGNSOpolicyrecommendationintheFinalReportfortheIntroductionofNewGenericTop‐LevelDomainsforSingleCharacterIDNTLDsshouldbeimplemented.3

C. Thedefinitionofan“extendedgraphemecluster”fromsection3ofUnicodeStandardAnnex#29,whereacombiningsequenceofabasecharacterandcombiningmark(s)appearstobeasinglecharacter,shouldbeusedtodefinetheconceptofa“SingleCharacterIDN”TLD/Label/String.

D. RequestedSingleCharacterIDNTLDstringsshouldbeanalyzedonacase‐by‐casebasisinthenewgTLDprocessdependingonthescriptandlanguage.SingleCharacterIDNTLDsshouldbe

3http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new‐gtlds/pdp‐dec05‐fr‐parta‐08aug07.htm“Singleandtwo‐characterU‐labelsonthetoplevelandsecondlevelofadomainnameshouldnotberestrictedingeneral.Atthetoplevel,requestedstringsshouldbeanalyzedonacase‐by‐casebasisinthenewgTLDprocessdependingonthescriptandlanguageusedinordertodeterminewhetherthestringshouldbegrantedforallocationintheDNSwithparticularcautionappliedtoU‐labelsinLatinscript.”


2011‐03‐08 Page5of21

acceptable,butmustnotbeconfusinglysimilartosingleortwocharacterASCIITLDs.ForalphabeticscriptSingleCharacterIDNTLDs,othertechnicalaspectsofconfusabilitymaybetakenintoconsideration,suchasthelikelihoodofuserslipwithrelevancetokeyboardlayouts.

Otherrestrictions,qualificationsandrequirementsforASCIIandtwo‐or‐morecharacterIDNTLDstringsshouldequallyapplytoSingleCharacterIDNTLDstrings,includingbutnotlimitedtoconsiderationsofgeographicalnames,similarityandconfusability,intellectualpropertyrights,etc.

4. SuggestedchangestoIDNccTLDFastTrackImplementationPlanInordertoimplementtheaboverecommendations,theJIGmakesthefollowingeditorialsuggestionstoamendtheFinalImplementationPlanforIDNccTLDFastTrackProcess(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast‐track/idn‐cctld‐implementation‐plan‐16nov09‐en.pdf).

I. ThefollowingeditsaresuggestedforModule3TLDStringCriteriaandRequirements,Section3.1GeneralStringCriteria,firstbulletpoint:1.thestringmustbeaminimumoftwoonecharacterlong(U‐label),

II. AfourthbulletissuggestedforModule5RequestSubmissionforStringEvaluation,Section5.5StringConfusionandContention:StringconfusionissuescaninvolvetwoormorestringsthatareidenticaloraresoconfusinglysimilarthattheycannotcoexistintheDNS,suchas:

• RequestedIDNccTLDstringsagainstexistingTLDsandreservednames;

• RequestedIDNccTLDstringsagainstotherrequestedIDNccTLDstrings;and

• RequestedIDNccTLDstringsagainstapplied‐forgTLDstrings.;and

• RequestedIDNccTLDstringsagainstany2‐characterASCIIstring(toprotectpossiblefutureASCIIccTLDdelegations)

III. Thefollowingissuggestedtobeaddedafterthe2bulletpoints(i.andii.)inModule5,Section

5.6.3DNSStabilityEvaluation:Reviewofsingle‐characterIDNstrings—Inadditiontotheabovereviews,anapplied‐forIDNccTLDstringthatisasinglecharacterIDNstringisreviewedbytheDNSStabilityTechnicalPanelforvisualsimilarityto:a)Anyone‐characterlabelinASCII,andb)Anypossibletwo‐characterASCIIcombination.Anapplied‐forccTLDstringthatisfoundtobetoosimilartoa)orb)abovewillnotpassthisreview.Inadditiontovisualsimilarity,forSingle‐characterIDNstringsinalphabeticscripts,the


2011‐03‐08 Page6of21

DNSStabilityTechnicalPanelmaytakeintoconsiderationotheraspectsofconfusabilityintheirassessment,suchasthelikelihoodofuserslipwithrelevancetokeyboardlayouts.

Theaboveareonlysuggestionstoassistintheimplementationoftherecommendations.Boardandstaffmayconsideralternativeeditsaswellasothereditorialadjustmentsrequiredwhereappropriate.

5. SuggestedEditstoNewgTLDApplicantGuidebookInordertoimplementtheaboverecommendations,theJIGmakesthefollowingeditorialsuggestionstoamendtheNewgTLDApplicantGuidebook(atthetimeofwritingthelatestavailableversionwas:http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new‐gtlds/draft‐rfp‐clean‐12nov10‐en.pdf):

I. ThefollowingeditsaresuggestedforthefourthbulletinModule2,Section2.2.1.1.1:Applied‐forsingleand2‐characterIDNgTLDstringsagainst:

o Everyothersinglecharacter.4o Any2‐characterASCIIstring(toprotectpossiblefutureccTLDdelegations).

II. ThefollowingeditissuggestedforModule2,Section2.2.1.1.1,underthesubheading“Review

of2‐characterIDNstrings”:Reviewof2‐characterIDNstrings—Inadditiontotheabovereviews,anapplied‐forgTLDstringthatisa2‐characterIDNstringisreviewedbytheStringSimilarityPanelforvisualsimilarityto:a)Anyone‐characterlabelinASCII(inanyscript)3,andb)Anypossibletwo‐characterASCIIcombination.Anapplied‐forgTLDstringthatisfoundtobetoosimilartoa)orb)abovewillnotpassthisreview.

III. AnewsectionissuggestedforModule2,Section2.2.1.1.1,underthesubheading“ReviewofsinglecharacterIDNstrings”:

4ThecurrentversionofthedraftApplicantGuidebookdoesnotalreadyallowSingleCharacterIDNTLDs,thereforeallSingleCharacterIDNstringsareessentiallyconsidered“reserved”.Assuch,followingthelogicthatanewgTLDstringshouldnotbeconfusinglysimilartoareservedname,theApplicantGuidebooksuggeststhatall2(ormore)charactergTLDstringsshouldnotbeconfusinglysimilartoaSingleCharacterIDNstring.However,becauseoftheworkofthisdocumenttointroduceSingleCharacterIDNs,upontheacceptancethattherecouldbeSingleCharacterIDNTLDs,ratherthanrequiringthatTLDstringsnotbeconfusinglysimilartoonecharacterlabel“inanyscript”,allreferencestothatshouldbeupdatedto“one‐characterlabelinASCII”topreservethelogicthatanewgTLDstringshouldnotbeconfusinglysimilartoareservedname;thereuponalso,theotherrequirementsthatanewgTLDstringshouldnotbeconfusinglysimilartoanyexistingTLDstringandthecontentmechanismsforconfusinglysimilarstringswithinthesameroundofapplicationswouldapplytoevaluationsforSingleCharacterIDNTLDsaswell.


2011‐03‐08 Page7of21

Reviewofsingle‐characterIDNstrings—Inadditiontotheabovereviews,anapplied‐forgTLDstringthatisasinglecharacterIDNstringisreviewedbytheStringSimilarityPanelforvisualsimilarityto:a)Anyone‐characterlabelinASCII,andb)Anypossibletwo‐characterASCIIcombination.Anapplied‐forgTLDstringthatisfoundtobetoosimilartoa)orb)abovewillnotpassthisreview.

IV. Anewsub‐section2.3issuggestedforModule2,Section2.2.1.3.2StringRequirements,PartII(underSection2.2.1.3DNSStabilityReview):InadditiontotheStringSimilarityReviewaslaidoutinSection2.2.1.1above,forSingle‐characterIDNstringsinalphabeticscripts,theDNSStabilityPanelmaytakeintoconsiderationotheraspectsofconfusabilityintheirassessment,suchasthelikelihoodofuserslipwithrelevancetokeyboardlayouts.

IV. ThefollowingeditsaresuggestedforModule2,Section2.2.1.3.2StringRequirements,PartIII3.2:Applied‐forgTLDstringsinIDNscriptsmustbecomposedofonetwoormorevisuallydistinctcharactersinthescript,asappropriate.Note,however,thatasingleortwo‐characterIDNstringwillnotbeapprovedif:

V. ThefollowingeditsaresuggestedforModule2,Section2.2.1.3.2StringRequirements,PartIII3.2.1:Itisvisuallysimilartoanyone‐characterASCIIlabel(inanyscript)3;or

Theaboveareonlysuggestionstoassistintheimplementationofthepolicyrecommendations.BoardandstaffmayconsideralternativeeditsaswellasothereditorialadjustmentsintheApplicantGuidebookwhereappropriate.


2011‐03‐08 Page8of21

AppendixA:ViewpointsontheIdentifiedIssues:TheJIGhasalsoidentifiedthat,whiletheaboveareissuesofcommoninterestbetweenIDNccTLDsandIDNgTLDs,certainissuesmaylenditselftopolicyimplementationsthatcouldbeappliedacrossbothIDNccTLDsandIDNgTLDs,whileothersmayrequiredifferentimplementations.Amongthe6issuesidentified,issues1,5and6seemstolenditselftopolicyimplementationthatcouldbeappliedacrossbothIDNccTLDsandIDNgTLDs,whileissues2and3seemstorequiredifferentimplementationapplication.Issue4seemstobeonewhichasimilarapproachcanbetaken,whilespecificimplementationmaybedifferent.Eachissuewillbefurtherdescribedbelow,alongwithsomepreliminaryviewpointsonpossiblewaystoaddresstheissuesandfurthercommentsontheissueitself.For“possiblewaystoaddresstheissue”,commonalityaswellaswheredifferentpolicyimplementationmaybeusefularefurtherexplained.

Issue1. PossibleconfusionwithreservedsinglecharacterASCIITLDstrings

DescriptionofIssue:

BasedontheGNSOnewgTLDpolicyrecommendationsaswellasthegeneralASCIIccTLDframeworkoffollowingthe2charactercodeoftheISO3166‐1list,singlecharacterASCIITLDsarereserved.WhileitisunderstoodthattherecleardifferencesbetweenASCIITLDsandIDNTLDs,theintroductionofSingleCharacterIDNTLDswhichmayconflictwiththesetofASCIIreservednamesmaypotentiallyintroduceTLDscontrarytotherecommendedpolicies.

CommonApproach:PossibleWaystoAddressIssue:

• ApolicymaybedevelopedthatissimilartothehandlingoftwocharacterIDNTLDsasspecifiedinversion4oftheDraftApplicantGuidebook(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new‐gtlds/draft‐rfp‐clean‐28may10‐en.pdf)inSection2.2.1.3.1DNSStability:StringReviewProcedure,underPartIII‐PolicyRequirementsforGenericTop‐LevelDomains.Morespecifically,thataSingleCharacterIDNTLDstringwillnotbeapprovedifitisvisuallysimilartoanypossibleonecharacterASCIIstring.

• ApolicymaybedevelopedthatissimilartothatfortheIDNccTLDFastTrackwhereonlycertainscriptsareallowed(ornotallowed)forapplyingforSingleCharacterIDNTLDs.Forexample,itmaybepossibletospecifythatonlyideographicalscriptsareacceptableforSingleCharacterIDNTLDs.

• Acombinationoftheabovemayalsobepossible.Forexample,apolicymayspecifythatSingleCharacterIDNTLDsbasedoncharactersfromtheLatin,Greek,andCyrillicscriptblocksareintrinsicallyconfusablewithpossiblesinglecharacterASCIITLDswhicharereserved.Therefore,applied‐forstringsthatconsistofsingleGreek,Cyrillic,orLatincharactersarebydefaultpresumedtobeconfusableunlessexceptionsaremadeinspecificcases.Furthermorethatasetofrankingcriteriatobesetuptoguideexpertsonthestringevaluationpanel,suchas:[3]thecharacterisvisuallyidenticaltoanASCIIcharacter,[2]thecharacterisvisuallyconfusabletoanASCIIcharacter,[1]thecharacterisvisuallydistinctfromanASCIIcharacter.


2011‐03‐08 Page9of21

OtherComments:

BasedontheGNSOnewgTLDpolicyrecommendations,singleletter(i.e.A‐z)ASCIITLDsarerecommendedtobereserved,whilesingledigitASCIITLDs(i.e.0‐9)arereservedbasedontherecommendationwhichspecifiesthatatop‐levellabelmustnotbeaplausiblecomponentofanIPv4orIPv6address.Asinglehyphen(“‐“)isalsonotallowedbasedonthegeneralrulethatadomainlabelnotbeginorendwithahyphen.BasedontheIDNccTLDFastTrack(IDNCFinalReport),aselectedIDNccTLDstringmustnotbeshorterthan2non‐ASCIIcharacters.TheremaybeinteresttoconsiderrevisingtheIDNccTLDFastTrackpolicies.TheIDNccPDPisongoingandhasnotyetdiscussedanyrestrictionsonthelengthoftheTLDstring.GNSOReservedNamesworkinggroupreport,ratifiedintotheGNSONewgTLDRecommendationsspecifiedallowingsinglecharacterIDNTLDs:Singleandtwo‐characterU‐labelsonthetoplevelandsecondlevelofadomainnameshouldnotberestrictedingeneral.Atthetoplevel,requestedstringsshouldbeanalyzedonacase‐by‐casebasisinthenewgTLDprocessdependingonthescriptandlanguageusedinordertodeterminewhetherthestringshouldbegrantedforallocationintheDNSwithparticularcautionappliedtoU‐labelsinLatinscript.ThefinalreportfromtheJIGshouldaddresshowsuch“case‐by‐case”considerationcouldbeimplemented.ConsideringthattwoletterASCIITLDsarerecommendedtobereservedforpotentialccTLDs,thepossibleconfusionofasinglecharacterIDNtoapossibletwoletterASCIITLDshouldalsobeconsidered.TheIDNImplementationWorkTeamFinalReportalsoexplained(inSection4.1.2)that:Rule1:One‐characterIDNTLDlabelsshouldberestrictedpendingfurtheranalysis.1a.Analysisisrequiredofthepotentialimpactofrelaxingtherestrictionontheallocationofone‐characterIDNTLDlabels.1b.Untilsuchanalysisisconducted,theimpactunderstood,andappropriatereviewscompleted,one‐characterIDNTLDlabelsshouldberestricted.Rule2:Theprecedingruleshouldapplytolabelscontainingtwoormorecharactersthatarevisuallyconfusablewithasingle‐character(forexample:alabelcomposedofonecharacter+oneormorecombiningmarks).Version4oftheDraftApplicantGuidebookfornewgTLDsalreadytakesintoconsiderationRule2.ThefinalreportfromtheJIGshouldaddresstheissue.Thisdocumentisapreliminarycollectionofissuesofpotentialimpactandasolicitationfromthecommunityonimpactforsuchanalysis.

Issue2. Whetherspecialfinancialconsiderationsshouldbeconsidered

DescriptionofIssue:

SingleCharacterIDNgTLDsmaybeconsidered“premiumrealestate”duetothegeneraldesirabilityofshorterdomainnames.Thequestioniswhetherspecialfinancialconsiderations,suchasadditionalapplicationfee,specialICANNfeesorspecialcontentionresolutionmechanismsshouldbeusedforsuchapplications.


2011‐03‐08 Page10of21

IDNgTLDConsiderations: IDNccTLDConsiderations:PossibleWaystoAddressIssue:

• ForIDNgTLDs,sinceitshouldfollowthenewgTLDprocess,thereisalreadysubstantialconsiderationforapplicationfees(Module1oftheDraftApplicantGuidebook)aswellasforcontentionresolution(Module4oftheDraftApplicantGuidebook)throughanauctionmechanism.Therefore,thesameprocesscanbeusedforSingleCharacterIDNgTLDs.

• Section2.2.1.4.1ofversion4oftheDraftApplicantGuidebookfornewgTLDsintroducestheprohibitionofnamesconsideredtobearepresentationofacountryorterritoryname:“Applicationsforstringsthatarecountryorterritorynameswillnotbeapproved,astheyarenotavailableundertheNewgTLDPrograminthisapplicationround.”SingleCharacterIDNccTLDsthatmeettheparticularcriteriawillthereforenotbeavailablebasedonthenewgTLDprocess.

• FortheIDNccTLDFastTrack,theselectedIDNccTLDstringmustmeetthemeaningfulnessrequirement,whichmeansthattheTLDstringmustbeameaningfulrepresentationofacountry/territorynameinanofficiallanguageoftheparticularcountry/territory.TheGACInterimPrinciplesonIDNccTLDs(http://gac.icann.org/system/files/Nairobi_Communique_0.pdf–AnnexI)specifiesthat:19.Competingorconfusinglysimilarrequestsshouldbedealtwithonacasebycasebasisandresolvedinconsultationwithallconcernedstakeholders;20.Policiesfordealingwithmultipleapplications,objectionstoapplicationsordisputesthatarecurrentlyappliedforASCIIccTLDsshouldbeequallyappliedtoIDNccTLDs.Furthermore,Section5.4(http://gac.icann.org/web/home/ccTLD_Principles.rtf)underthesectionfor“ROLEOFGOVERNMENTORPUBLICAUTHORITY”oftheGACccTLDprinciplesstatesthat:TherelevantgovernmentorpublicauthorityshouldensurethatDNSregistrationintheccTLDbenefitsfromeffectiveandfairconditionofcompetition,atappropriatelevelsandscaleofactivity.Assuch,theissueoffinancialconsiderationwouldperhapsbestbeconsideredbyconsultationwithgovernmentsconcernedonacase‐by‐casebasis.

OtherComments:

TheIDNImplementationWorkingTeam–FinalReportpositsthat“therearesignificanteconomicconsiderationsassociatedwiththeintroductionofone‐characterTLDs.”TheIDNccPDPWG1mayneedtofurtherconsiderthematteroffinancialandeconomicimpactforSingleCharacterIDNccTLDs.PrincipleCoftheIDNCWGFinalReportspecifiesthatthepurposeoftheFastTrackbetomeetpressingdemand,thereforeitcouldbeunderstoodthattherecouldbesignificanteconomicimpactagainstnotallowingsuchIDNTLDs.PrincipleEoftheFinalReportmeanwhilespecifiesthattheproposedstringanddelegationrequestshouldbenon‐contentious.Itcanthereforebeallegedthatshouldtherebecontention,including


2011‐03‐08 Page11of21

matteroffinancialoreconomicimpact,theywouldhavetobeaddressedbytheapplicant.PrinciplesCandEoftheIDNCWGFinalReportforreference:C:ThepurposeoftheFastTrackistomeetpressingdemandTheFastTrackshouldonlybeavailablewherethereisapressingdemandintheterritory.ThisisevidencedbythereadinessoftheselecteddelegateandrelevantstakeholdersintheterritorytomeettherequirementstointroduceanIDNccTLDundertheFastTrack.E:Theproposedstringanddelegationrequestshouldbenon‐contentiouswithintheterritoryDelegationofanIDNccTLDshouldonlybepossibleintheFastTrackwheretheIDNccTLDstringisnon‐contentiouswithintheterritoryandthedesignationoftheselecteddelegateisnon‐contentiouswithintheterritory.Thisisevidencedbythesupport/endorsementoftherelevantstakeholdersintheterritoryfortheselectedstringasameaningfulrepresentationofthenameoftheterritoryandfortheselecteddelegate.

Issue3. Whetherduetotherelativelysmallerpoolofpossiblenamesthatspecialallocationmethodsshouldbeconsidered

DescriptionofIssue:

BecausetherearearelativelyfewertotalnumberofpossibleSingleCharacterIDNTLDs,ascomparedwithtwoormorecharacterIDNTLDs,thequestioniswhethersuchascarcitymeritsspecialconsiderationforadifferentallocationmechanismthanfortwoormorecharacterIDNTLDs.

IDNgTLDConsiderations: IDNccTLDConsiderations:PossibleWaystoAddressIssue:

• Besidestheutilizationofanauctionmechanismforcontentionresolution,underModule4:StringContentionProceduresoftheDraftApplicantGuidebook,anextensivemechanismforCommunityPriorityEvaluationisalsoincorporatedinSection4.2togiveprioritytoCommunity‐basednewgTLDs.WhiletheauctionmechanismaddressesthefinancialconsiderationandeconomicimpactofSingleCharacterIDNgTLDs,theCommunityPriorityEvaluationprocessaddressesthesocialconsiderationsfortheallocationofTLDsasascarceresource.

• ForIDNccTLDFastTrack,thesameconditionsasdescribedinIssue2applies.Morespecifically:themeaningfulnessrequirement;thepressingdemandtest(PrincipleC),thenon‐contentioncondition(PrincipleE);theGACccTLDPrinciplesoncompetition;and,theGACInterimIDNccTLDPrinciplesaddressingcontention;togetherprovidesaframeworkforaddresstheissueofsocialandeconomicimpactofallocatingSingleCharacterIDNccTLDs.

OtherComments:

WhiletheabsolutenumberofpossibleSingleCharacterIDNTLDsisclearlysmallerthantheabsolutenumberofpossibletwoormorecharacterIDNTLDs,thequestionofscarcity,anditscorrespondingvalue,ofTLDstringsmaybetterbedescribedbasedontheuniquenessrequirement.Asanexample,thescarcityofthepossibilityofhavinga“.com”TLDandthescarcityofa“.中国”TLDandthescarcityofa“.名”TLDareessentiallythesame(i.e.theyareequallyscarcebecausetherecanexistonlyone“.com”


2011‐03‐08 Page12of21

andtherecanexistonlyone“.中国”,etc.respectively).TheIDNImplementationWorkingTeamFinalReportalsomakestheobservationthat“limitingIDNTLDlabelstoaminimumoftwo‐characterseliminatesalargenumberofmeaningfulwordsinsomelanguagessuchasChineseinwhichalmosteverysinglecharacterisameaningfulword.”Furthermore,theargumentthatsmallerpoolofpossiblenamesrequiredifferentpoliciesappeartobeflawedinthat,shouldthereasoninghold,thenitwouldrequirethatpoliciesfor3characterTLDsdifferfromthosefor4characters,whichinturnneedstobedifferentfor5characters,andsoon,becauseeach“pool”(3character/4character/5character…)wouldbedifferentinsize.

Issue4. Whetherduetotherelativelyshorterstring,itmaybeeasierforuserstomakemistakes,andthatspecialpoliciesshouldbeconsidered

DescriptionofIssue:

AconcernwasraisedforSingleCharacterIDNTLDsinthatbecausethereisasmallernumberofpossiblesinglecharacterIDNTLDs(ascomparedtotwoormorecharacterIDNTLDs),thereisahigherchanceforausertomistypetheSingleCharacterIDNTLDwhichcoincideswithanotherSingleCharacterIDNTLD.ThequestioniswhetherduetosuchadditionalpotentialuserconfusionthatspecialpoliciesneedtobeinplaceforSingleCharacterIDNTLDs.NOTEthatthereisasubtlebutcriticaldifferencebetweentheprobabilityofmistypingaTLDstringversustheprobabilityofmistypingaTLDstringbutendingupaccessinganotherexistingdomainunderadifferentTLD.

CommonApproach:

• Theissuepertainstocausinguserconfusion,andthereforeshouldbeaddressedbasedonpoliciesestablishedtoavoidsuchconfusion.BoththepoliciesfornewgTLDsaswellasIDNccTLDsalreadyincludesextensiveconsiderationsforavoidingdetrimentallyconfusinglysimilarstringstobeintroduced.

IDNgTLDConsiderations: IDNccTLDConsiderations:

PossibleWaystoAddressIssue:

• TheGNSOnewgTLDpolicyrecommendationsspecifiedinRecommendation2that:Stringsmustnotbeconfusinglysimilartoanexistingtop‐leveldomainoraReservedName.TheIRT(ImplementationRecommendationTeam)FinalReport(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new‐gtlds/irt‐final‐report‐trademark‐protection‐29may09‐en.pdf)andtheSTI(SpecialTrademarkIssues)ReviewTeamRecommendations(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti‐wt‐recommendations‐11dec09‐en.pdf)

• Section5.5:StringConfusionandContentionunderModule5oftheFinalImplementationPlanforIDNccTLDFastTrackProcess(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast‐track/idn‐cctld‐implementation‐plan‐16nov09‐en.pdf)safeguardsagainstStringconfusionissuesinvolvingtwoormorestringsthatareidenticaloraresoconfusinglysimilarthattheycannotcoexistintheDNS,suchas:RequestedIDNccTLDstringsagainstexistingTLDsandreservednames;RequestedIDNccTLDstringsagainstotherrequestedIDNccTLD


2011‐03‐08 Page13of21

alsocontainedsignificantrecommendationstoguardagainstuserconfusioncausedbytheintroductionofnewgTLDs.SuchconsiderationsareequallyapplicabletoSingleCharacterIDNgTLDs,andmanyofwhichhavebeenincorporatedintotheDraftApplicantGuidebooktoappropriatelyaddressuserconfusionissuesthatappliesequallytoSingleCharacterIDNgTLDs.Furthermore,Module3oftheDraftApplicantGuidebookallowsforraisinganobjectionbasedonStringConfusion–thattheapplied‐forgTLDstringisconfusinglysimilartoanexistingTLDortoanotherappliedforgTLDstringinthesameroundofapplications.SuchwouldsafeguardagainstalsoanyabusiveapplicationofagTLDforthepurposesof“catching”trafficintendedforanotherTLDbasedonatechniquecommonlyknownas“typo‐squatting”.Thissafeguardagainsttypo‐squattingwouldapplytoSingleCharacterIDNgTLDsaswell.TheTrademarkPostDelegationDisputeResolutionProcedure(TrademarkPDDRP)furtherextendsthissafeguardfortrademarkholderstobeabletoinitiateadisputeagainstaTLDregistrythatis:(a)takingunfairadvantageofthedistinctivecharacterorthereputationofthecomplainant'smark;or(b)unjustifiablyimpairingthedistinctivecharacterorthereputationofthecomplainant'smark;or(c)creatinganimpermissiblelikelihoodofconfusionwiththecomplainant'smark.

strings;and,RequestedIDNccTLDstringsagainstapplied‐forgTLDstrings.Furthermore,asdescribedinIssue2.above,TheGACInterimPrinciplesonIDNccTLDs(http://gac.icann.org/system/files/Nairobi_Communique_0.pdf–AnnexI)specifiesthat:19.Competingorconfusinglysimilarrequestsshouldbedealtwithonacasebycasebasisandresolvedinconsultationwithallconcernedstakeholders;20.Policiesfordealingwithmultipleapplications,objectionstoapplicationsordisputesthatarecurrentlyappliedforASCIIccTLDsshouldbeequallyappliedtoIDNccTLDs.

OtherComments:

TheargumentthatashorterIDNTLDstringwouldresultinhigherprobabilityofausermistypingtheIDNTLDandendingupaccessinganotherIDNTLDisflawed.Firstofall,itcouldequallybearguedthatthepossibilityofmakinganerrorwouldbegreaterformultiple‐characterIDNTLDsthansinglecharacterIDNTLDs,andthereforeopenuptomorepossibilitiesfor"typoattacks”(i.e.ifanIDNTLDis2characterswrongthereisahighernumberoftotalpossiblemistypesofthatIDNTLDthanaSingleCharacterIDNTLDwouldhave).Secondly,thepresuppositionthatsincethereisasmallernumberofpossibleSingleCharacterIDNTLDstheprobabilityofamistypecoincidingwithoneishigherispurelyspeculative,assuchcoincidingSingleCharacterIDNTLDmustalreadybe


2011‐03‐08 Page14of21

delegatedandthusmusthavetopassthroughtheconfusabletests.PossibilityforabusiveoperationofaSingleCharacterIDNTLDforsuchpurposeisthereforenogreaterthanmulti‐characterIDNTLDs.ThereisaviewthatforthelanguagesforwhichSingleCharacterIDNTLDswouldbemostusefularelanguagesforwhichtheinputofaSingleCharacterislikelytoinvolvemultiplekeystrokes.ForexampleChineseandKorean.

Issue5. WhatshouldbethepolicyfordistinguishingbetweenaSingleCharacterIDNccTLDandaSingleCharacterIDNgTLD

DescriptionofIssue:

BeforetheintroductionofIDNccTLDs,thereexistedadistinguishingfeaturebetweenccTLDsandgTLDsinthatccTLDswere2ASCIIcharactersinlength,whilegTLDsconsistedof3ormoreASCIIcharacters.TheIDNccTLDFastTrackintroducedthepossibilityforIDNccTLDstobemorethan2characters,whilethenewgTLDprocesswillallowIDNgTLDsshorterthan3characters.ThequestioniswhetheritisappropriatetoadopttheemergingdistinguishingfactorsforIDNccTLDandIDNgTLDfortheintroductionofSingleCharacterIDNTLDs.


• TheIDNccTLDFastTrackrequiresthataselectedstringbeameaningfulrepresentationofthecountryorterritorynameinanofficiallanguageofthecountryorterritorycorrespondingtoanISO3166‐1codeusedforaccTLD.TherequirementthatanIDNccTLDbeameaningfulrepresentationofthecountryorterritorynamecorrespondingtoanISO3166‐1codeusedforaccTLDwouldprovideanappropriatedistinctionforanIDNccTLDingeneral,includingSingleCharacterIDNccTLDsshouldtheybeintroduced.

• AnotherdistinguishingfactorwouldbetheprocessthroughwhichanIDNTLDisallocated.AnIDNTLDallocatedbasedontheIDNccTLDFastTrackprocess,oranIDNccTLDprocessoncetheIDNccPDPiscompleteandimplemented,wouldbeconsideredanIDNccTLD.AnIDNTLDallocatedbasedonthenewgTLDprocesswouldbeconsideredanIDNgTLD.

• TheIANARootZonedatabaseshouldcorrectlyidentifySingleCharacterIDNccTLDsasIDNccTLDsandSingleCharacterIDNgTLDsasIDNgTLDs.

OtherComments:

DuringthediscussionoftheIDNccTLDFastTrack,itwasquicklyunderstoodthatforIDNccTLDs,the2characterlimitationmaynolongerbeappropriate.IDNccTLDscouldpossiblybemorethan2characterslong,whichmeansthatusingTLDstringlengthasaconditionforconsiderationthedistinctionbetweenIDNccTLDsandIDNgTLDswouldnotbeappropriateforIDNTLDs.Theinclusionofaccepting2CharacterIDNgTLDsintothenewgTLDprocess(basedonversion4oftheDraftApplicantGuidebook)alsofurtherexplainsthattheTLDstringlengthbasedapproachtodistinguishingbetweenIDNccTLDsandIDNgTLDswouldbecomeinappropriateforIDNTLDs.

Issue6. WhetherspecialpoliciesarerequiredtoaddressusabilityofSingleCharacterIDNTLDsgivenexistingapplicationenvironments


2011‐03‐08 Page15of21

DescriptionofIssue:

CertainapplicationsanddatabasesmaybedesignedtorecognizedomainnameswithTLDlengthof2ormorecharacters.Forexampleregistrationsystems,spamfilters,auto‐completefeaturesandotherservicesmayinadvertentlydisallowornotrecognizedomainnameswithSingleCharacterIDNTLDs.Thequestionishowifanyspecialpoliciescanbeconsideredtoaddresssuchanissue.


• Thisisanissuerelatedtothe“UniversalAcceptanceofAllTop‐LevelDomains”(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/TLD‐acceptance/).SincetheintroductionofnewgTLDsthatislongerthan3characters,theissuehasbeenidentifiedasonewhichwouldrequirecommunity‐wideeffortstoaddress.ThesamewouldapplyforSingleCharacterIDNTLDs(andequallyforIDNccTLDsandIDNgTLDs).PoliciestopromotetheuniversalacceptanceofallTLDsbasedontheauthoritativerootzoneshouldbeencouraged,butsuchundertakingsshouldnotimpedetheintroductionofSingleCharacterIDNTLDs.

OtherComments:

Inastatementissuedon18October2004,ICANNhadunderstoodthat“SomeTLDnames(strings)arerejectedbysomeserviceprovidersorapplicationsbecausethestringsexceedthreecharactersinlength(e.g..museumor.aero)ordonotmeetsomeotherformattingcriteria.Tofacilitateandfostercorporationamongregistryoperators,ISPs,andotherwhodealwithdomainnamesonaregularbasis,adiscussionforumhasbeenopenedonthistopic<http://forum.icann.org/lists/tld‐acceptance/>.”Furtherasexpressedatthedescriptionoftheforum(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/TLD‐acceptance/),itisalsounderstoodthat:“InorderforthefullresourcesoftheInternettobegloballyavailableforallusers,serviceandapplicationprovidersmustmakeuseofthecompleterangeoftop‐leveldomains(TLDs)…RejectionofsomeTLDstringsduetooutdatedlengthparametersorothererroneousformattingcriteriacanbeavoidedbyrelianceonauthoritativeinformation.AsdescribedinSupportofNewTop‐LevelDomainsbyInternetInfrastructureOperatorsandApplicationProviders(2003),andEvaluationofNewgTLDs(2004),severaltechnicalacceptanceissueswereassociatedwiththegTLDsintroducedin2000‐2001.ThiswasparticularlytrueforTLDsofmorethan3characters.”AsdescribedinSupportofNewTop‐LevelDomainsbyInternetInfrastructureOperatorsandApplicationProviders(http://forum.icann.org/mtg‐cmts/stld‐rfp‐comments/general/doc00004.doc):AlthoughtheimplementationofthenewTLDsbeganin2001,compatibilityproblemswerefoundwiththeinstalledbaseofsoftwareusedbyInternetinfrastructureoperators(includingInternetServiceProviders(ISPs)andcorporatenetworkoperators)andapplicationproviders(suchaswebhostingcompanies,ecommercewebsites,andemailservices).TheunderlyingDNSprotocolscaneasilysupporttheintroductionofnewTLDsintothetop‐levelzonefiles.However,someofthesoftwarewrittentousedomainnameswaswrittenwithouttakingintoaccounttheadditionofnewTLDs.ThisincludesDNSresolvers,provisioningsoftware(e.g.,tofacilitatethecreationofwebsitesoremail


2011‐03‐08 Page16of21

services),andend‐userapplicationsoftware(e.g.,emailprogramsandwebforms).Sometimes,asinthecaseofmanyDNSresolvers,aconfigurationchangeisallthatisneededtosupportthenewTLDs.Othertimes,asinthecaseofcheckinguserinputagainstexpectedbehavior,thereareproblemsbecauseafixedlistofTLDsisusedorTLDsarepresumedtobeatmostthreecharactersinlength.Somewebapplicationsusealgorithmsthatguessorattempttoautomaticallycompletedomainnameentries(e.g.,searchengines,directories,browsers)whenafullyqualifieddomainnameisnotsupplied.ProblemsarisewhentheseapplicationsuseanoutdatedlistofTLDs,orattempttoredirectuserstoadifferentTLDwhentheuser’sintentwastolookuponeofthenewTLDs.TherearemanypiecesofsoftwareusedintheInternetthatmakeuseofdomainnames.TheproblemofcheckingallexistingsoftwareforsupportofnewTLDsisasimilarproblemtothatofcheckingsoftwarefortheabilitytohandledatesbeyond2000.TheissueforSingleCharacterIDNTLDswouldbetwo‐fold:

1. AsaU‐Label(initsnative/Unicodeform),aSingleCharacterIDNTLDwouldbeshorterthan2characterswhichwouldbeanissuesimilarbutinreversetothosedescribedaboveforTLDswhicharelongerthananticipatedbyproblematicapplications.

2. AsanA‐Label(initsASCIICompatibleEncodingform),aSingleCharacterIDNTLDhastobelongerthan3charactersbydefinitionoftheIDNAprotocol,whichspecifiesa4‐characterlongprefixof“xn‐‐”forIDNlabels(i.e.anIDNTLDstringmustbemorethan4characterslong).ThiswouldmeanthatSingleCharacterIDNTLDs(orforthatmatter,allIDNTLDs)wouldfallintotheissuesidentifiedabovewhentheissueofUniversalAcceptanceofTLDsisdiscussed.

ThisisalsooneoftheitemsidentifiedbytheJIGtobeanissueofcommoninterestbetweentheccNSOandtheGNSO,asbothIDNccTLDsandIDNgTLDsareaffectedequally.


2011‐03‐08 Page17of21

AppendixB:WorkingGroupMembers:ccNSORepresentatives:

• FahdBatayneh,.jo• ChamaraDisanayake,.lk• ChrisDisspain,.au(ccNSOChair)• AndreiKolesnikov,.ru• Young‐EumLee,.kr(ccNSOVice‐Chair)• DoronShikmoni,.il• JianZhang,NomComAppointee,Co‐Chair

GNSORepresentatives:• EdmonChung,Co‐Chair(RySG)• RafikDammak(NCSG)NonCommercialStakeholderGroup,Technical/Research• TerryDavis(NomComAppointee)• KarenAnneHayne(CSG)• JuneSeo(RySG)• StéphanevanGelder(GNSOChair)

Observers:• AvriDoria(NCSG)–Originallyanex‐officiomemberasGNSOCouncilChair• ChuckGomes(RySG)–Originallyanex‐officiomemberasGNSOCouncilChair• SarmadHussain,NationalUniversityofComputer&EmergingSciences,Pakistan• ErickIriarte,LACTLD• HanChuan,Lee,.sg• YeoYeeLing,.my• ZhaoWei(Wendy),.cn• ICANNBoardMembers:

o RamMohan,Afiliaso SusanneWoolf,ISC


2011‐03‐08 Page18of21

AppendixC:Summary&ResponsesonPublicCommentsforInitialReportTheJIGposteditsInterimReportonthepolicyaspectsoftheintroductionofSingleCharacterIDNTLD’son27July2010(http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig‐initial‐report‐26jul10‐en.pdf).ThefullSummaryReportofPublicCommentscanbefoundathttp://forum.icann.org/lists/jig‐initial‐report/pdfzDk88UdRCw.pdf.ThissectionprovidesasetofresponsesfromtheJIGtothepubliccommentsreceivedfortheInitialReportonSingleCharacterIDNTLDs.Issue1:TheissueofstringconfusionwhetherbetweenIDNandASCIIstringorwithinspecificscriptswillbefurtherconsideredbytheWG.TheworkinggroupnotesthatitsscopeislimitedtoIDN’s,andthereforedoesnotconsiderASCIIcharacterstrings.Inresponsetothecommentsreceivedandadvicereceivedfromthetechnicalcommunity,theJIGmakestherecommendationtogenerallyacceptSingleCharacterIDNTLDstrings,withspecialconsiderationsforSingleCharacterIDNTLDstringsinalphabeticscriptsforothertechnicalconfusability,suchasthelikelihoodofuserslipwithrelevancetokeyboardlayouts.Issue2:Thecommentisnoted,howevertheissueraisedisaddressedinotherICANNfora,forexampletheJointSO/ACWorkingGrouponNewgTLDApplicantSupport(JASWG).Nofurthercomment.ThechairsofJIGwillinformthechairofJASWGofthecommentreceived.Issue3:Thecommentsarenoted,howeversomerelatetootherarea’softhenewgTLDandIDNccTLD’sprocesses,forexampletopicsoftheDraftApplicationGuidebookversion4.Theworkinggroupnotesthatthediscussionsinthesearea’saretakingplaceinotherICANNforaandhavenotbeenconcludedtodateandthereforeshouldberaisedthere.Inresponsetothecommentsreceived,theJIGespeciallyemphasizesinitspolicyimplementationrecommendationthatrestrictions,qualificationsandrequirementsincludingconsiderationsofgeographicalnames,similarityandconfusability,etc.mustbeappliedtoSingleCharacterIDNTLDstringsaswell.Issue4.Itisunclearthatmerelytypingonecharacterinfactleadstomoreerrorsthantypingcomplexwordsorcombinationsofwordswhichiscommonlydonetodayatthesecondlevel.Thecommentisnoted,andwillbetakenintoconsiderationbytheworkinggroup.Inresponsetothecommentsreceived,theJIGmakestherecommendationtosuggestevaluationpanelliststoconsiderotherfactorsofconfusabilityintheirassessment,suchasthelikelihoodofuserslipwithrelevancetokeyboardlayouts.Issue5:CommentnotedthatthecurrentdistinctionbetweenIDNccTLDsandIDNgTLDshouldbemaintainedanditisassumedthatunderthecurrentrulesandproceduresthecriteriaaresufficienttoqualifyastring.


2011‐03‐08 Page19of21

SameasresponsetocommentsreceivedforIssue3above.Issue6:ItissuggestedtoinitiatemoreoutreachtoapplicationcommunitiestobringmoreawarenessandimproveTLD/domainsvalidationorrelatedconcernsinordertopromoteacceptabilityofIDN’s.Thecommentisnoted.AsindicatedinthepublicannouncementsolicitingpubliccommentsandinputontheuniversalacceptanceofIDNTLDsisconsideredoneofthemaintopicareasoftheJIG.ThesuggestionmadewillbeconsideredinthecontextoftheWGdiscussionsofthattopicarea.TheJIGtakesnoteofthecommentsreceivedandwillproceedintoworkingontheidentifiedissueofcommoninterest:“UniversalAcceptanceofIDNTLDs”immediatelyafterthecompletionofourworkonthefirst2issues:1.SingleCharacterIDNTLDs;and,2.IDNTLDVariants.


2011‐03‐08 Page20of21

AppendixD:Summary&ResponsesonPublicCommentsforDraftFinalReportTheJIGpostedaDraftFinalReportontheintroductionofSingleCharacterIDNTLDson4December2010(http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig‐draft‐final‐report‐04dec10‐en.pdf).ThefullSummaryReportofthePublicCommentsreceivedcanbefoundathttp://forum.icann.org/lists/jig‐draft‐final‐report/pdfQxF383O30Q.pdf.ThissectionprovidesasetofresponsesfromtheJIGtothepubliccommentsreceivedfortheDraftFinalReportonSingleCharacterIDNTLDs.Ingeneral,“AllcommentsindicateanappreciationoftheworkbytheworkinggroupandindicatesupportoftheintroductionofSingleCharacterIDN’sandrecommendationsoftheWorkinGroup…SomecommentsrelatetoongoingworkoftheJIGanddiscussiontakingplaceinotherarea’softhenewgTLDandIDNccTLD’sprocesses...Theworkinggroupnotesthattotheextentthediscussionsinthesearea’saretakingplaceinotherICANNforaandhavenotbeenconcludedtodate,theissuesshouldberaisedthere.”Moreimportantly,sincenoadditionalnewareasofpolicyaspectswasraisedfromthecommentsreceived,itseemstoindicatethatthepolicyaspectsidentifiedbytheJIGprovideacomprehensiveconsiderationforpoliciesfortheintroductionofSingleCharacterIDNTLDs.GeneralComments:AllcommentsreceivedsupporttheintroductionofSingleCharacterIDN’singeneral,andthegeneralthrustoftherecommendationsoftheJIG.TheJIGnotesthatsomeofthecommentatorsadvisethatsinglecharacterIDNsshouldbeintroducedaftertheIDNvariantmanagementissuesareresolved,includingthepolicyaspectshavebeenresolved.TheJIGacknowlegesthisanimportantissue,howeverintheviewoftheJIGthevariantmanagementissueisnotlimitedtosinglecharacterIDNTLDandshouldberesolvedassoonasfeasibleforbothsingleandmultiplecharactersIDNTLDs.NotethatpolicyaspectsofvariantmangementisthenexttopicontheagendaoftheJIGaswellasdiscussedinotherfora.TheJIGalsonotesthatsomecommentatorsrefertotheintroductionofSingleCharacterIDNsatthesecondlevel.IntheviewoftheJIGthisisnotamatterfortheJIG,butisdiscussedandshouldberaisedinotherfora.Inresponsetothecomments,theJIGislookingtoaccelerateitsworkonIDNVariantsaswellastoincreaseitsinteractionwithothergroupsworkingontheissue.Mostimportantly,theJIGwillworkcloselywiththeICANNBoardandstaffontheStudyofIssuesRelatedtotheDelegationofIDNVariantTLDs(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new‐gtlds/idn‐variant‐tlds‐delegation‐21feb11‐en.pdf),suchthatIDNVariantmanagementattheTLDlevelcouldbeimplementedassoonaspossible.ForissuesnotdirectlyrelatedtoSingleCharacterIDNTLDs,theJIGco‐chairswillpassalongthecommentsreceivedtothevariousgroupsworkingonthespecificissues.SpecificcommentsonJIGImplementationRecommendationsonSingleCharacterIDNTLDsTheJIGWGnotesthegeneralsupportfortherecommendationthatSingleCharacterIDNTLDstringsshouldbeanalyzedonacase‐by‐casebasisinthenewgTLDprocessandtakingintoaccountthespecificsofthescriptandlanguage.


2011‐03‐08 Page21of21

Withregardtothecommentsthatthecase‐by‐caseanalysesshouldalsoapplytotheIDNFastTrackprocess,itistheunderstandingoftheJIGthatthesuggestedanalysisisalreadyimplementedintheFastTrackprocessaspartofthetechnicalevaluationofthestring(seeFinalImplementationPlansection5.6.3)TotheextenttheFastTrackwillincludesinglecharacterIDNs,theanalysisshouldapplyaswell.WithregardtothesuggestiontoanIDNEvaluationPaneltoreviewapplicationsforSingleCharacterorTwoCharactersIDNstheworkinggroupnotesthatthediscussionsinthesearea’saretakingplaceinotherICANNforaandhavenotbeenconcludedtodateandthereforeshouldberaisedthereforexampleinthenewgTLDImplementationprocessandtheIDNccpolicydevelopmentprocess.TheJIGnotesthecommentsthatsomesingleChinesecharactersandpossiblysomeinotherscriptsaswellareusedasacronymstorefertogeographicalnamesorotherspecificnounphrases.RegardingthisissuetheJIGWGreiteratesitsviewthatotherrestrictions,qualificationsandrequirementsforASCIIandtwo‐or‐morecharacterIDNTLDstringsshouldequallyapplytoSingleCharacterIDNTLDstrings,includingbutnotlimitedtoconsiderationsofgeographicalnames,similarityandconfusability,intellectualpropertyrights,etc.TheWGnotesthatdiscussionsregardingtherestrictions,qualificationsandrequirementsforIDNTLDstringsingeneralaretakingplaceinotherICANNforaandhavenotbeenconcludedtodateandthereforeshouldberaisedthere.Inresponsetothecomments,theJIGconcludesthattheyconfirmtheproposedapproachasdescribedbytherecommendationsintheDraftFinalReport.Furthermore,theJIG,throughitsco‐chairswillmakesuggestionsthroughtherespectivechannelstopositthesuggestionforanIDNEvaluationPaneltobeintroducedaswellastoemphasizethespecificissueofconfusionwithgeographicalnamesorotherstringswithSingleCharacterIDNTLDs.SpecificcommentsonotheraspectsofthereportThereferencedsection(Section1:Introduction&Background)inthedraftFinalReportisadirectquotefromtheReservedNamesWGFinalReportandcanthereforenotbechanged.Thisbeingsaidthepointiswell‐taken.Inresponsetothecomments,afootnoteisaddedtotheparticularquoteofthesectionintheFinalReport.CommentsonSection6SuggestedEditstoNewgTLDApplicantGuidebookThecurrentwordingintheDraftApplicantGuidebookwaswrittenwiththecontextthatallone‐characterlabelsarereserved,andtherefore,therequirementwaswrittentofollowtheprinciplethatnewgTLDstringsshouldnotbeconfusinglysimilartoareservedstring.Thesuggestedchangeisnecessaryasitanticipatessingle‐characterIDNTLDstobeallowed,therefore,theconsiderationforconfusabilitybetweenanytwo‐character(ormoreforthatmatter)stringswithone‐characterIDNstringsshouldbenodifferentthanthecontentionbetweenanyexistingTLDoranyappliedforTLDstrings.Inresponsetothecomments,afootnoteisaddedtotheparticularsectionintheFinalReport.

Documents

JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs · between the ccNSO and the GNSO on IDNs (Internationalized Domain Names), especially IDN TLDs. The participants of the JIG are listed