Public Comment

Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.

Name: Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG)
Date: 3 Mar 2023
1. Overall, do the Reference LGRs meet their goal of defining Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) labels for the language or script that are suitable for the second level?
Yes

If no, please explain why.

Yes. The RySG says yes to support the process that creates the LGRs, not because we are evaluating the accuracy or efficacy of any specific LGR. An important part of the process is the use of subject matter experts, individuals who are proficient with a specific script and corresponding language. We appreciate that ICANN explicitly seeks such experts and engages with them to ensure that production of reference LGRs is made with a certain level of quality.

2. In your view, are there any technical changes required for any specific Reference LGRs? Please list the script or language LGR with the changes needed, reasoning why.

The Latin Script reference LGR introduces a sequence composed of three code points 006c 00b7 006c to represent Ela Geminada used in the Catalan orthography. Fundacio PuntCAT registry (.CAT) also offers such code point sequence as part of its Catalan Language IDN Table since 2006. Other registries, such as .EUS, .GAL and .MADRID use .CAT’s registry implementation of Ela Geminada. As far as variant rules, ICANN’s proposed LGR defines a variant relationship between the sequences ‘006c 00b7 006c’ and ‘006c 006c’, whereas .CAT variant rule defines the relationship between the sequences ‘006c 00b7 006c’ and ‘006c 002d 006c’. 

As a stakeholder group we don’t advocate for any specific implementation. Provided IDN tables comply with current IETF standards and ICANN IDN guidelines (per our registry agreements), we stand by our long standing position that registry operators can have different design choices to meet their customer needs. That being said, we would like to understand whether ICANN’s design choice is going to adversely affect the existing approved tables or the existing second level registrations.

3. Do you have any additional observations or suggested changes?

None related to the tables being reviewed.  More generally, please continue to expand the portfolio of accepted scripts and languages.

Summary of Submission

The RySG supports the process that creates the LGRs .

The RySG would like to understand whether ICANN’s design choice is going to adversely affect the existing approved tables or the existing second level registrations.