[gnso-idn-wg] single script adherence across labels

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

As mentioned in the call, I do not believe that the blanket enforcement for 
"single script adherence across all labels" is a good approach, as I do not 
believe this is the end user expectation, nor is it prudent for an IDN TLD or 
LDH TLD registry to arbitrarily determine.  Certain registries may decide to 
actually enforce it by their means, and that may be a model they can pursue.  
However, enforcing it across all IDN TLDs (and non-IDN TLDs for that matter) 
would not in my mind be appropriate.

 

To give a few examples:

 

1. LDH TLD with IDN 2LD:

This is a rather obvious case.  Users today expect IDN.LDH.

 

2. IDN TLD with LDH 2LD:

http://dominio.espaÃa is a perfectly sensible "single script" domain.  
However, in general IDN implementations an LDH-only domain is not usually 
associated with a specific IDN-script/language-tag.  This means that the 
registry would treat the domain as having mixed script.  Of course this can be 
remedied by forcing registrants to associate a tag for LDH-only domains as 
well, or the registry can try to intelligently guess that they are supposed to 
be of the same script/language, but personally, I think it is better that we 
allow such registration as a practically mixed script registration.

 

3. IDN TLD with IDN 2LD (and 3LD)

- http:// <http://èÂQ.CafÃ;> èæ.Cafà  --[chinese.french]

- http://ExposÃ;. <http://ExposÃ.ååå;> ååå  --[french.chinese]

- http:// <http://ÂÂÂÃ.ÂRãÂq.CafÃ;> éæ.æãæ.Cafà  
--[chinese.japanese.french]

 

All of the above make a lot of sense to me and are in themselves useful urls 
and domains.  They also are not abusive cases.

 

Furthermore, as also mentioned in the call, I believe it could be a good model 
for certain TLDs in the future to serve the same zone for all its "matching" 
IDN TLDs.  Taking the above example for a ".CafÃ" TLD:

- http://ExposÃ;. <http://ExposÃ.ååå;> ååå

- http://ExposÃ.CafÃ; 

- http://ExposÃ;. <http://ExposÃ.åèå;> åèå 

 

This would be a very interesting and good model I believe to explore.  Although 
of course this is not a necessary model (or perhaps an appropriate one for that 
matter) for all TLDs.

 

I therefore think rather than suggest or enforce a single script adherence 
across labels, the focus should be on guidelines and policies for curbing 
phishing attacks and other abusive registrations by variant policies and other 
measures.  For example, it is not impossible for a TLD to adopt a policy where 
the Greek letter <Alpha> is a variant of the English letter <A>.

 

Edmon

 

 

 

 

 

From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Tan, William




I think there are two issues whenever we discuss the topic of "single-script 
adherence" and I asked for clarification on the last teleconference. However, I 
suspect we still have not grounded the discussions on one or the other. To be 
clear, there are two possible way one can interpret "single-script adherence 
across all labels":

1. Every label in a domain name string is composed of characters from a single 
script. However, one label may belong to a different script than another. E.g. 
ããã.espaÃa - there are two labels with one containing only Katakana and 
the containing only Latin.

2. All characters in every label of a domain name string is composed of 
characters from a single script. The example above ããã.espaÃa would be 
violating this policy. OTOH, ããã.ããããã would be ok since both 
labels are Katakana.

We need to make it clear in our recommendations if we mean either 1 or 2 above.


#1 above has already been somewhat covered by the ICANN IDN Guidelines. I don't 
think anyone would argue against this. Whether it could/should be enforced as a 
contractual requirement for new TLDs is up for discussion.

#2 is what I believe we have been discussing on the call and the list. I am of 
the view that restrictions should be applied using "SHOULD" language, just so 
as to discourage abuse. I'm sitting on the fence as far as whether we should 
enforce it.


Best regards,

=wil