Public Comment CloseStatement


Assigned Working Group


Call for
Comments Open
Call for
Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number

05 May 2022

No Statement



Hide the information below, please click here 


The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. 


The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.


The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins. The Draft should be preceded by the name of the person submitting the draft and the date/time. If, during the discussion, the draft is revised, the older version(S) should be left in place and the new version along with a header line identifying the drafter and date/time should be placed above the older version(s), separated by a Horizontal Rule (available + Insert More Content control).

1 Comment

  1. By way of background,

    •  A set of label generation rules ("LGR") for a zone governs the set of labels that may be allocated and eventually delegated in a given Zone. The Root Zone LGR (RZ-LGR) provides this determination with respect to IDN labels for the Root.
    • Each script community, which in some cases encompasses many languages, has its own script-specific LGR which is developed by the relevant script Generation Panel ("GP"). The GP process is a bottom-up process with community participation. Examples of such script LGRs are those for Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Devanagari, etc, 
    • In very simple terms, IDNs are represented by / translated into a series of Unicode code points for them to be machine-readable.
    • Logically, any LGR contains four parts: “the rules that define allowable Unicode code points (the repertoire), any code point variants that can be substituted to form a variant (the variant rules), the disposition of any resulting label (whether it may be allocated, or is automatically blocked), and a set of optional whole-label evaluation rules that determine whether the output of the previous three portions is still an acceptable label in the root zone.” – In other words, by using an LGR, one is able to determine which "strings" are valid, and which variant labels for valid "strings" are allocatable or blocked;  "allocatable" here in means capable of being delegated into the root and "blocked" means not allowed to be delegated into the root.
    • Because the Root Zone caters to many scripts, each of which will have script-specific rules, a Common LGR is needed to manage interaction of labels across scripts (such as blocked cross-script variants). The process of creating this Common LGR is called “integration”. The Procedure defines a two-stage process, in which the community-based GPs propose LGRs specific to a given script, which are then reviewed and integrated by the Integration Panel ("IP"), following a set procedure. 
    • A Common LGR has existed for some time now, with version 1 (i.e. RZ-LGR-1) having been issued back in 2015.
    • The present prevailing Common LGR is version 4 (i.e. RZ-LGR-4) which builds on RZ-LGR-1, RZ-LGR-2 and RZ-LGR-3, each version incorporating more scripts for the IDN Program. A total of 18 scripts is available in RZ-LGR-4.

    Subject matter of this Public Comment Proceeding

    • The Overview and Summary document is essentially the proposed version 5 of the Common LGR (i.e. RZ-LGR-5) and is the result of the IP, having following the set procedures, proposing to incorporate 7 new script LGRs (for Armenian, Cyrillic, Greek, Japanese, Korean, Latin and Myanmar) to the 18 scripts in RZ-LGR-4, making a total of 25 scripts available for the IDN program moving forward.
    • Since, the Latin LGR is one of the 7 new script LGRs being proposed to be incorporate, I also reviewed the report of the Latin LGR 2021 public comment proceedings and the Latin GP's responses to comments from that public comment, since the ALAC and 2 other members of the At-Large community (Bill Jouris and Eduardo Diaz) had submitted comments to the said Latin LGR public comment proceedings. 
    • My conclusion is that:-
      • (a) the Latin GP had considered all the comments it received through the said Latin LGR public comment proceedings, providing responses and explanations and has taken requisite action where it deemed appropriate; and
      • (b) there was nothing that compelled the ALAC to make a comment to this Public Comment Proceeding on the proposed RZ-LGR-5.