Re: [I18ndir] Study Group on Use of Emoji as Second Level Domain

Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Mon, 18 March 2019 10:10 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: i18ndir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i18ndir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C1C12AF7F for <i18ndir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 03:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.923
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.923 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UA7C4i7x2S3I for <i18ndir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 03:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from JPN01-OS2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr1410135.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.141.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AC3A129532 for <i18ndir@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 03:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-it-aoyama-ac-jp; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=R73j8Gy7DyNHJyXSO/ijtbhiIXyijVHgOz4EuG7MrZY=; b=BqjtF/c5t1m+gxb1I16c1bp310DzrM9fi6D4xWDUMPpeC8FP2JW/BVBrEjnh5A731yOeZGYoS2nUcQ6iQ04sRVnz0aD6uio/sInF4WnOhmuFIaVwxkkUMWwhHpPu8dnfTyAQ+jj/VciePG3/CobEl1pBVQ3mxl1nL90QdG/B87A=
Received: from TYAPR01MB5149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (20.179.187.18) by TYAPR01MB2320.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (52.133.180.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1709.13; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 10:10:01 +0000
Received: from TYAPR01MB5149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::98b6:d90e:9ae7:302]) by TYAPR01MB5149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::98b6:d90e:9ae7:302%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1709.015; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 10:10:01 +0000
From: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
CC: IETF I18N Directorate <i18ndir@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [I18ndir] Study Group on Use of Emoji as Second Level Domain
Thread-Index: AQHU1Zfpp7c/tj1Se0mcnAfxWC8gxQ==
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 10:10:01 +0000
Message-ID: <e263aee0-a8bf-9121-7cc0-66f2823a0280@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <1d07e7ef-7c2f-e98a-4ff8-a1de5a8102dc@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <BE6E95E6-8E4D-4331-BE85-33C4EFD6A76C@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <BE6E95E6-8E4D-4331-BE85-33C4EFD6A76C@frobbit.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-clientproxiedby: TYXPR01CA0044.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:403:a::14) To TYAPR01MB5149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:404:12e::18)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [133.2.210.64]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e3d9c6a0-3b46-4c08-7383-08d6ab89e217
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(7021145)(8989299)(4534185)(7022145)(4603075)(4627221)(201702281549075)(8990200)(7048125)(7024125)(7025125)(7027125)(7023125)(5600127)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:TYAPR01MB2320;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: TYAPR01MB2320:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <TYAPR01MB2320F30E0B50881275D3A7B8CA470@TYAPR01MB2320.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 098076C36C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(979002)(39840400004)(136003)(376002)(396003)(366004)(346002)(189003)(199004)(6916009)(486006)(2616005)(31696002)(446003)(476003)(11346002)(5660300002)(256004)(14444005)(97736004)(8936002)(85182001)(8676002)(81156014)(81166006)(2906002)(86362001)(71190400001)(305945005)(68736007)(7736002)(71200400001)(6512007)(6306002)(6436002)(186003)(53546011)(66574012)(386003)(6506007)(229853002)(6486002)(4326008)(53936002)(6116002)(3846002)(106356001)(85202003)(52116002)(74482002)(14454004)(99286004)(76176011)(966005)(316002)(508600001)(786003)(6246003)(105586002)(102836004)(31686004)(26005)(66066001)(25786009)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:TYAPR01MB2320; H:TYAPR01MB5149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:0;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: it.aoyama.ac.jp does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: umaPKJYuKZOv8jM46pWb79D/9RYyy+QwmSFCej+WOmQKDXPL3JkJ7g6SSrSyWRorFeuOO0RhzccChJJFa85O8p7+EXwitOd/dL5PFt5AKo+bu1CLivKxkRoT6F+LAcWmigJrVjOZtRcPGalDCy0q+9ZttFuOvFB95J0aNZaH5jG7Eji9KiVregUfoyWKPQaKsDrsTC5YLJ1TYAWZNdf5Tp15PR6wWdGwrzlKHiq6lO/dKoo3TcT3YWQTfqFwPiMzesQEZomQHvjhrvKR6Gt56KfGcYOEhXSTsPNOeImYsZXsHGBSPFO26HqozB9LKaL3xM99yh9/IS2uaJ7yYSv3qVNAsuZtdF7setqDjiSx7tUHin9YyS5eimc2wGE1nVUJIjmEu1El2+yZdH/+gQJKPLZPzAoRhdAJsOIOwaFoRRA=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <1C714B0C98203B4D8DB2A73FEE66C15D@jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: it.aoyama.ac.jp
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e3d9c6a0-3b46-4c08-7383-08d6ab89e217
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Mar 2019 10:10:01.3392 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: e02030e7-4d45-463e-a968-0290e738c18e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: TYAPR01MB2320
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i18ndir/iXshrZlQ9s4ukpdsDwFmVYmt4dM>
Subject: Re: [I18ndir] Study Group on Use of Emoji as Second Level Domain
X-BeenThere: i18ndir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internationalization Directorate <i18ndir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i18ndir>, <mailto:i18ndir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i18ndir/>
List-Post: <mailto:i18ndir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i18ndir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18ndir>, <mailto:i18ndir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 10:10:07 -0000

Hello Patrik, others,

I would like to thank you and others very much for answers to my mail on 
this subject. I was very glad to see that the subject is in best hands 
when I got the answers. I want to apologize again for interrupting our 
main work.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2019/03/08 22:16, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> On 8 Mar 2019, at 11:15, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> 
>> Dear I18N Directorate members,
>>
>> I don't want to interrupt Harald's important work on our review, and would like the topic of this mail to be treated as a separate topic, with less priority.
>>
>> Because ICANN meets next week (starting already tomorrow my time, i.e.
>> already this Friday for some of you) in Kobe, Japan, I at one point was considering attending. I had to abandon that plan because of other committments, but as a result of looking at the schedule carefully, I found the following:
>>
>> https://64.schedule.icann.org/meetings/962146
>> ccNSO: Study Group on Use of Emoji as Second Level Domain
>>
>> I'm wondering whether anybody (maybe Patrik?) will be attending. I may be able to dial in with Adobe Connect, but probably not for the whole 1.5 hours.
> 
> Yes, I am participating.
> 
> What should be known is that this initiative by ccNSO is triggered by some work by many, including SSAC that issued a report on security issues with emojis (or non-conformant to IDNA2008). ICANN Board took up the baton and said in some words "one should be conformant to IDNA2008" but at the same time identified some issues in some gTLDs and some ccTLDs, and asked gNSO and ccNSO to look in to the issues, and liaise with SSAC.
> 
> The gTLD work more or less concluded that all contracted parties do have conformance with IDNA2008 in the contract (although I personally comment that there might be some issues with domain names registered before that contract was signed).
> 
> In ccNSO it is more complicated as there is no contractual agreements. Just coordination.
> 
> There is a draft document from the ccNSO working group that is to be discussed, and that describes the situation.
> 
>> Any hints on which direction to contribute would be appreciated. I can imagine any of the following (and more):
>>
>> - Don't worry, they'll never get anywhere anyway
>> - Tell them in clear words that they aren't allowed to do that
>> - Don't bother to tell them, they won't listen and care only about money
>> - Ask whether they are serious, and what protocol changes they may need
>> - Tell them about the 'minor' technical points they may not be aware of
>> - Don't bother with dialing in, the session will be available as a video
> 
> Unclear to me. I will be there on site.
> 
>> As for a summary of the technical situation as far as I know it:
>>
>> While IDNA 2003 allowed some symbol characters that are now considered emoji, IDNA 2008 doesn't allow such characters. I haven't had time to check UTR 46 or browsers and other applications. I'm not sure what the group plans to discuss.
>>
>> The LDH principle would exclude emoji the same way it would exclude $%#@& and friends. I'm sure I (as well as others) have in the past made arguments against Unicode symbols based on the difficulty of entering them; in many environments, in particular smart phones, that's no longer the case.
>>
>> Emoji also would present a proofing ground for context-related registration restrictions and techniques such as linking and blocking.
>> As an example, many things that appear to the user as a single emoji are encoded as a sequence of several code points, but not all such sequences produce reasonable results. One of the experiences of the Unicode Consortium over the last few years is that certain technologies (from things such as surrogate pairs upwards) get adopted much more quickly when they are needed for emoji than when they are needed for some minority language or script.
>>
>> Similarity is also in the eye of the beholder. As an example, I'd guess most people wouldn't have big difficulties to distinguish two emoji where one has a "light skin tone" modifier and the other has a "dark skin tone" modifier (see
>> https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Diversity). But distinguishing between "medium-light skin tone" and "medium skin tone", in particular when only seeing one of the pair, will be very difficult. Also, to keep all the different variations of smileys apart is a very tough job (at least for me, YMMV).
> 
> Thanks, Patrik
>