Lightning Talk #111 Universal Acceptance and Idn World Report 2025

Summary

This lightning talk focused on Universal Acceptance and Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), presented by Regina Filipova Fuchsova from the .eu registry and Esteve Sanz from the European Commission. The discussion centered on the importance of enabling internet users worldwide to navigate online entirely in their local languages, moving beyond ASCII-only domain names to support various scripts including Cyrillic, Greek, Chinese, and Arabic characters. Universal Acceptance refers to the principle that all domain names and email addresses should be treated equally by internet-enabled applications, devices, and systems, regardless of the script or characters used.

Sanz emphasized that multilingualism is fundamental to EU identity, with the bloc’s motto being “united in diversity” across 24 official languages. He highlighted that 88% of European country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) technically support IDNs, yet adoption remains slow due to limited user awareness. The speakers presented findings from the freshly published IDN World Report 2025, which revealed concerning trends including flat or negative growth in IDN registrations, high market concentration among a few top-level domains, and persistent technical barriers.

The report found an estimated 4.4 million IDNs worldwide, with 70% under ccTLDs, but showed negative growth rates of nearly 1% for ccTLDs and 5.5% for generic TLDs. Technical challenges persist, with over half of registries not supporting Unicode email addresses and three-fourths not permitting Unicode symbols in contact emails. The main barriers to adoption were identified as technical compatibility issues, low public awareness, and entrenched habits of using ASCII characters. The presenters concluded with a call for action to share IDN stories and expand data collection to better understand and promote multilingual internet adoption.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Universal Acceptance and Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs)**: The core focus on enabling domain names and email addresses in non-ASCII scripts (like Cyrillic, Greek, Arabic, Chinese) to work seamlessly across all internet applications and systems, allowing users to navigate the internet entirely in their local languages.

– **European Union’s Multilingual Digital Policy**: Discussion of how the EU’s “united in diversity” motto translates into digital infrastructure, with 24 official languages requiring support, and how regulations like the Digital Services Act incorporate provisions for linguistic diversity online.

– **IDN World Report 2025 Findings**: Presentation of key research results showing concerning trends including negative growth rates for IDNs (-1% for ccTLDs, -5.5% for gTLDs), high market concentration (top 10 TLDs account for 75% of all IDNs), and significant technical barriers to adoption.

– **Technical and Adoption Barriers**: Identification of major obstacles including compatibility issues with browsers and email services, low public awareness, entrenched habits of using ASCII/English domains, and insufficient promotion by registries and registrars due to limited business cases.

– **Cultural Preservation and Digital Inclusion**: Emphasis on preserving linguistic heritage online, with examples like Sámi language and the concept that local language internet access could potentially reduce internet shutdowns by increasing user connection to digital spaces.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion aimed to raise awareness about Universal Acceptance and IDN implementation in Europe, present research findings on the current state of multilingual internet infrastructure, and advocate for better support of linguistic diversity online to ensure digital inclusion for all language communities.

**Overall Tone:**

The tone was professional and educational throughout, with speakers maintaining an informative and collaborative approach. The presenters demonstrated expertise while acknowledging challenges and limitations in their research. The tone remained constructive even when discussing concerning trends like negative growth rates, and concluded with an encouraging call-to-action for community involvement and cooperation.

Speakers

– **Regina Filipova Fuchsova**: Works for the .eu registry, involved in Universal Acceptance and IDN (Internationalized Domain Names) research and advocacy

– **Esteve Sanz**: Works for the European Commission, focuses on EU digital priorities and multilingual internet policies, from Catalonia region of Spain

– **Tapani Tarvainen**: From Electronic Frontier Finland, also a non-commercial stakeholder group member in ICANN, expertise in internet governance and minority language digital rights

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the speakers names list.

# Universal Acceptance and Internationalized Domain Names Discussion

## Introduction and Context

This lightning talk session focused on Universal Acceptance and Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), featuring presentations by Regina Filipova Fuchsova from the .eu registry and Esteve Sanz from the European Commission. The session centered on enabling internet users worldwide to navigate online in their local languages, moving beyond ASCII-only domain names to support diverse scripts including Cyrillic, Greek, Chinese, and Arabic characters. The discussion included questions from audience members, notably Tapani Tarvainen of Electronic Frontier Finland and ICANN’s non-commercial stakeholder group.

## Core Technical Concepts

### Universal Acceptance Framework

Regina Filipova Fuchsova explained that Universal Acceptance refers to the principle whereby all domain names and email addresses should be treated equally by internet-enabled applications, devices, and systems, regardless of the script or characters used. This framework enables domain names to utilize special characters and different scripts beyond ASCII. Unicode versions have to be transferred via so-called Punicode to ASCII characters for DNS processing.

However, significant technical barriers remain. Over half of registries do not support Unicode addresses in email servers, while three-fourths of registries do not permit Unicode symbols as contact emails in their registry database. These limitations represent fundamental obstacles to achieving Universal Acceptance.

## European Union’s Multilingual Digital Policy

### Policy Foundation

Esteve Sanz emphasized that multilingualism forms the cornerstone of EU identity, with the bloc’s motto “united in diversity” encompassing 24 official languages. The European Commission requires all official EU content to be available in every official language, demonstrating institutional commitment to digital linguistic equality.

Sanz noted that the Digital Services Act includes provisions that incentivize platforms to promote linguistic diversity. He also highlighted that most European domains technically support IDNs, with 88% of European ccTLDs able to register names with local characters according to the latest statistics.

## IDN World Report 2025: Key Findings

### Market Statistics and Trends

Regina Filipova Fuchsova presented findings from the IDN World Report 2025, a recurring research project produced by URID (the .eu registry) with partners including UNESCO since 2011. The report, which has evolved from PDF format to a website, revealed concerning trends in the global IDN landscape.

The report estimated 4.4 million IDNs worldwide, with 70% operating under country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs). However, the market shows negative growth rates, with almost minus 1% yearly growth for ccTLDs and minus 5.5% for generic TLDs.

The IDN market exhibits high concentration, with the top 10 TLDs accounting for 75% of all IDNs globally. For the .eu registry specifically, IDN adoption remains at approximately 1% of total registrations, despite technical support being available.

### Technical Implementation Status

The report identified that 67% of Whois services display both Unicode and Punicode versions of domain names. However, significant gaps remain in email infrastructure support, with many registries unable to handle Unicode addresses or contact emails.

## Barriers to IDN Adoption

Three primary barriers hinder IDN adoption:

– Technical compatibility issues with browsers and email services

– Low public awareness of IDN capabilities

– Entrenched habits favoring ASCII/English domains

Additionally, insufficient promotion by registries and registrars, often due to unclear business cases, contributes to low adoption rates.

## Cultural Preservation and Minority Languages

### Indigenous Language Concerns

The discussion emphasized multilingual internet access as crucial for digital inclusion and cultural heritage preservation. Tapani Tarvainen raised specific concerns about minority language support, referencing the Sámi song performed at Monday’s opening ceremony at the town hall and questioning ICANN’s policies regarding IDN top-level domains.

Tarvainen highlighted that small minority languages face particular challenges, noting that characters like the Sámi letter Eng may become less usable due to lack of advocacy, observing that “nobody out there cares” about very small minority languages.

Regina Filipova Fuchsova acknowledged that IDN variant tables, last updated in 2008, require updating to better support special characters used in minority languages.

### Digital Rights Perspective

Esteve Sanz shared an interesting perspective he had heard from others about the connection between local language internet access and internet shutdowns. He explained: “We’re very worried about Internet shutdowns… And very intelligent people that know the local characteristics of these shutdowns, they tell us that if the Internet was in our local language, we would not see a shutdown. Because people would really feel the Internet as themselves, and politicians could not perform that shutdown.”

## Call to Action

Regina Filipova Fuchsova made specific requests for expanding IDN research and awareness:

– More TLDs to participate in IDN World Report data collection

– Communities to share their IDN stories and case studies for publication on the IDN World Report website

– Help reaching out to more ccTLDs to participate in annual research surveys

She also committed to follow-up discussion on Sámi language character support in IDN policies, addressing the minority language concerns raised during the session.

## Conclusion

The discussion highlighted both the technical capabilities and practical challenges of implementing Universal Acceptance and IDN adoption. While strong policy support exists, particularly within the EU framework, significant barriers remain in technical implementation, commercial incentives, and user awareness. The specific concerns raised about minority language support demonstrate how technical governance decisions can impact linguistic diversity and cultural preservation online.

Moving forward, bridging the gap between policy intentions and practical implementation will require coordinated efforts across technical, commercial, and advocacy domains to ensure that Universal Acceptance principles benefit all language communities.

Regina Filipova Fuchsova: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this lightning talk on Universal Acceptance and IDN Word Report. My name is Regina Fucsova, I work for the .eu registry and together with Esteve Sanz from the European Commission, we will try our best to put this topic in the European context and also provide you with some exclusive insights in the freshly published IDN Word Report 2025. Before we dive into the world of IDNs and Universal Acceptance, let me just shortly put us in the place where we speak about in the context of Internet infrastructure. You can see an example of a web address leading to also quite freshly published report on the digital decade by the European Commission. And if we start from the right hand side, you can see .eu, which we refer to as top level domain, and to the left hand side, Europa. This Europa is referred to as second level domain. Together, Europa.eu is what we commonly refer to as a domain name. And this is also something what you read as the ccTLD registries. The top level domain doesn’t need to have only two letters. We have .org, .net, or maybe you saw around a booth with, for example, .post, one of the new gTLDs. To have it a bit more complicated even, this domain name doesn’t need to be in ASCII codes only. It can have special characters, such as this O in Lilleström, or it can be in a completely different script, Chinese, Arabic, or if we speak about the official European Union languages, Cyrillic or Greek. Another example you can see on the slide is a favorite salty snack, soleti.eu in a Bulgarian language. This soleti.eu in Cyrillic is referred to as Unicode version of the domain name. But for the DNS system to process it, it has to be transferred via so-called Punicode to ASCII characters, and you can see that it starts with xn and two dashes. This will be important for some of the findings of the report later on. In any case, IDNs are necessary for multilingual Internet. The concept of universal acceptance goes a bit further. It says that all domain names and also email addresses should be treated equally and used by all Internet-enabled applications, devices, and systems, regardless of the script or characters. The point is that users around the world should be able to navigate the Internet entirely in their local language. It has a big relevance to IGF and the WSIS. For example, on Tuesday in one of the sessions, it was among the two most voted WSIS-related initiatives. Universal acceptance included Internet infrastructure as for the initiatives which need more support. It was considered as the way how to attract the next billion of Internet users, and throughout this week, you might have repeatedly heard in the sessions the words like linguistic accessibility, digital inclusion, part of a concept that nobody is left behind, both in Internet governance and usage of the Internet, and it has also a strong link to sustainable development goals. Do you remember this lady from our Monday opening ceremony at the town hall? Just to illustrate that multilingualism has a face, we enjoyed a very beautiful song sung in a Sámi language. It’s very important for Norway because most of the Sámi population lives in Norway. It’s actually the only indigenous peoples in the EU, and I bet that you would agree with me that even for enjoying songs in English, it’s a very nice experience. It would be a big pity not to be able to enjoy the one which we heard on Monday. And since the offline and online world are more and more interconnected, then it’s just a logical thing to try our best as much as the technical equipment allows us to preserve the cultural heritage also in the online world. Now I would like to give the floor to Esteve to tell us how this concept is in line with the European digital priorities.

Esteve Sanz: Thank you so much, Regina. Thank you so much for hosting this lightning talk. I’m really looking forward to hear more about the report, which I don’t know about yet, so that will be a premiere for me as well. The EU, DNA really, our identity is based on multilingualism. Our motto is united in diversity. We have 24 official languages in the EU. There are many more languages, and this multilingual priority of the EU carries, of course, into the digital realm. EU policy and funding strongly support online multilingualism in many different aspects, in universal acceptance, but also in other regulations that I will talk about in a minute. And we require, of course, that all official EU content in every language, official language of the EU, and the capacity for everyone intervening in the policy process to exercise that right in that language. This is the DNA, really, of the EU multilingualism, and we are very proud to also support universal acceptance as a core value. As Regina was explaining, universal acceptance means all domain names and email addresses work everywhere online, whether in Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, or any script. This is crucial for Europe, where scripts and accented characters vary, so that French accents, Greek or Cyrillic languages work as smoothly as example.com. Today, 68% of domain registries say universal acceptance is the top factor for boosting multilingual domains. We need every app, browser, and form to accept all EU languages. Most European domains technically support IDNs, 88% of European ccTLDs, according to the latest statistics, can register names with local characters, yet uptake is slow. User awareness of universal acceptance is normally what we are told is the limiting factor. that it’s blocking that, and that’s why we’re happy to have this lightning talk to address that awareness. There are interesting, successful stories in the multilingual internet space in the EU. I’m from Catalonia, a region of Spain, and Catalan has built an extremely strong online presence. There is a dedicated .cat domain with 100,000 sites, and today 66% of websites in Catalonia have a Catalan version, up to only 39% in 2002. We have successful examples in Irish Gaelic, which went from limited to use in the EU to a full EU language, and then this also boosts online presence. There is a lot of coordination with member states. Many countries are championing their language online, whether Spain is supporting co-official languages like Catalan and Basque, or Baltic countries developing AI for the language, for their languages. The EU complements this funding. For example, we have the European language data space, but also injects in the new rules that we have this multilingual element. It’s not well known, but the Digital Services Act, which is our flagship when it comes to digital regulation, has several provisions that incentivize platforms to actually promote linguistic diversity. So, you know, situations, the policies are there, the political intentions are there. We need to bridge that gap. This is extremely important for the EU. It’s also extremely important, if I have to say, for things that we normally don’t think about. So we’ve engaged a lot with Global South players these days in the IGF, as we constantly do. And we heard one very interesting idea that I just wanted to put to you. We’re very worried about Internet shutdowns, that, you know, despite all these commitments, they continue to be on the rise. And very intelligent people that know the local characteristics of these shutdowns, they tell us that if the Internet was in our local language, we would not see a shutdown. Because people would really feel the Internet as themselves, and politicians could not perform that shutdown. I thought that was a very powerful idea.

Regina Filipova Fuchsova: It’s a very interesting aspect. Thank you. Maybe we can consider it for the future to have a look in the study in this aspect. It actually hasn’t come to our mind. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Esteve, for your explanation. So, in the remaining time, I would like to show you the findings of the report. Just briefly, why URID cares at all, and who we are. I mentioned that we are running .eu, a top-level domain. We are already since 2005 by the appointment of the European Commission, and from the very beginning, we are committed to provide our support in all official EU languages. Throughout the years, we have introduced first IDNs under .eu, then also the Cyrillic version of the top-level domain, and then also the Greek version. In total, we account for 3.7 million of registrations, and about 1% out of them are IDNs. This might seem really low, 1%, but it’s actually in line with what our CCTLDs are experiencing. Also taking into account the technical and other issues, the uptake is not as it could be. And it’s a part of our strategy to bring European values to open, safe, and inclusive Internet. So this corresponds together. The IDN World Report already has a history since 2011, when we started it at that time in a PDF printed form together with UNESCO and other partners. We have got more partners over the years. The aim is to enhance the linguistic diversity through advocacy of internationalized domain names and their usage. This report, which is now in the form of a website, you can see on the right-hand side idnworldreport.eu brings news, registration trends, also information on technical readiness, and also we have added quite recently a kind of sentiment analysis. The outcomes of the 2025 report can be on a very high level grouped in three main topics. One is that many TLDs are experiencing flat or even negative growth trends. Second, the IDN market is highly concentrated, so to say in the hands of a few TLDs. And third, there are still challenges in user awareness and adoption. Some illustration of this, and I have to say at the beginning that the study has its limitation by the number of TLDs which provide us with the data. So this is also a call for action. Whoever from you can address in your communities people and organizations dealing with IDNs, please direct us to our study. So based on the data set, we had over 400 TLDs. There is an estimated 4.4 million of IDNs worldwide, and roughly 70% are under country code TLDs. The growth is indeed negative, almost minus 1% for yearly growth for ccTLDs, and even 5.5% for gTLDs. The top 10 TLDs, which is in line with the concentration I mentioned, account for over 3.3 million of domain names, so 75% more or less of all the IDNs. And the top 5 IDNs are in the Cyrillic version of Russian top-level domain .com.de and the 4th and 5th place belongs to Chinese registrations. We are also following technical aspects of IDN implementation and found out that over half of the registries do not support Unicode addresses in Vail mail servers at all. Unicode was with Soleti.eu in the Cyrillic script, so the form which is readable for humans. Three-fourths of the registries do not permit Unicode symbols as contact emails in their registry database, and actually none of the ccTLDs stated that they would offer support to EIA, stands for email addresses in international form, so it means that they have this Unicode quotation also in the email addresses also before the ad. And the last piece of information in these slides refers to the display of IDNs in this form of Unicode and also the Unicode xn-quotation I was mentioning. When it comes to Whois services, when the registries display both versions in 67% of cases and slightly lower rates are for registry databases. interfaces display and user interfaces display. So only on this information you can already see why the uptake is not as it could be, because if you cannot use the domain name and the connected email address in all the services you are used to, not only connected to registration, but also to the services by big platforms, for example, then it makes less sense. And then also the users who otherwise cannot access internet because of the language barriers are disadvantaged. We also asked how the CCTLDs or TLDs in general, which answered the survey, see the main barriers to adoption. And we identified three main fields. One are technical issues, the compatibility with browser and email services. Second, low public awareness. And also the habit to use ASCII, like English, is so rooted with the users that it’s very difficult to overcome this. One of the case studies we have on our IDN World Report website refers to the introduction of a top-level domain in Hebrew. And even though it was extremely also politically important for the country to introduce this, they reported back that it was extremely difficult to bring to the users that there is this possibility and that it can work in the domains in Hebrew. And the third barrier identified is also a modest level of promotion, both from registries and registrars, which is actually quite understandable. With the registries, it’s a bit better because they have, especially CCTLDs, in their DNA embedded support to local communities. But for registrars who are commercial companies, if there is not a business case, it’s difficult for them to find the resources for the support. This is to illustrate what you can find in the report. We have listed all the results, so you can see that indeed the majority voted for low awareness. Then also one of the sentiment questions was how organizations promote IDN. The most voted for marketing and also presence in events. These complete answers are there for all the questions we have asked. Shortly to the sources and methodology for CCTLD data, we are cooperating, apart from the forum, with the center and other regional organizations in Asia, Latin America, also Africa. And we also take the GTLD data from Mark Datysgeld and also from Zooknik. The mechanism or the season is that in January, the research team circulates two forms. One is about the IDN implementation in technical terms, and one is the sentiment survey. And then it’s complemented with the data, registration data, available via the regional registries organizations. And then also, as much as it is possible, the research team follows up with the CLTLDs to get a better understanding for the data. As our time is almost expired, and I still would like to give a space if there is some question, I will just refer you to also the recent articles and case studies in the website, including our colleagues from .cat, which have a very interesting way to promote and they put a lot of effort there. And also, I think the presentation will be available in the recording of the session, so some useful links. There is a lot of information on the ICANN website. There is also a recently formed CODI group. There were some changes in the universal acceptance steering group at ICANN, so you can have a look for further information. So I would like to finish with a call for action. If you have your IDN story from your country, please share it with us. We will be happy to publish it. Also, if you will be able to reach out so that we can address more CLTLDs, that would be very helpful. So thank you very much for your attention, and if you have a question to Esteve or to me, we still have space to answer it. Yes? I think, can I ask you? Thank you.

Tapani Tarvainen: Okay. Tapani Tajvainen from Electronic Frontier Finland, and also a non-commercial stakeholder group in ICANN. Have you been following the use of IDN top-level domains and ICANN’s policies in that regard? You mentioned Sámi, and in particular, there is a policy going on that looks like the Sámi letter Eng will be much less usable than some other special characters because nobody out there cares, basically. So that these very small minority languages and their characters would need someone to speak for them.

Regina Filipova Fuchsova: It’s a very good point, because there are also languages which cannot be put in written form, of course, and still deserve preservation. But since you mentioned Sámi, actually, I was in a session. It was in Tampere, so what, two years ago? Sandra can help me with Eurodic in Tampere, two years ago. And there was a session, and there was a young lady researcher who did research for the Sámi language. It was herself, I think not a Mavratan, but her family’s Mavratan. And there was obviously some movement of young people to preserve the language and raise awareness. So even though it will not become widely spread, I think especially via the young people, if they are interested in preserving this heritage online, we, as well, I can speak for the technical community, I think are obliged just to do our part of the work to enable this. But otherwise, you are right, some languages are even difficult to bring over to written form. So the content, actually, it starts and finishes with the content, of course, available. Do we have the mic already switched off?

Tapani Tarvainen: Okay, just to follow up. Sámi does not have a problem of not being able to write it. It just uses a bunch of special characters, and these are not well supported. That was the point.

Regina Filipova Fuchsova: But it’s a technical thing, right, to include them in the next version of the ID&A variant? Okay, we can talk about it. We had the last one in 2008, so high time to update. But thank you very much. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you, Esteve, for your contribution. And please reach out to us. There is an email address. We will be happy to share and cooperate. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multilingualism as fundamental to digital inclusion and cultural preservation

Speakers

– Regina Filipova Fuchsova
– Esteve Sanz

Arguments

Multilingual internet access is crucial for digital inclusion and preserving cultural heritage online, as illustrated by indigenous languages like Sámi

EU’s identity is fundamentally based on multilingualism with 24 official languages, and this priority extends into the digital realm

Summary

Both speakers strongly emphasize that multilingualism is essential for digital inclusion and maintaining cultural diversity online, with specific focus on preserving indigenous and minority languages in the digital space

Topics

Multilingualism | Cultural diversity | Development

Technical barriers significantly hinder IDN adoption and universal acceptance

Speakers

– Regina Filipova Fuchsova
– Esteve Sanz

Arguments

Over half of registries don’t support Unicode addresses in email servers, and three-fourths don’t permit Unicode symbols as contact emails

Main barriers to IDN adoption include technical compatibility issues, low public awareness, and entrenched habits of using ASCII domains

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge that technical implementation gaps and compatibility issues are major obstacles preventing widespread adoption of internationalized domain names

Topics

Infrastructure | Multilingualism

Need for advocacy and support for minority languages in technical policies

Speakers

– Regina Filipova Fuchsova
– Tapani Tarvainen

Arguments

Multilingual internet access is crucial for digital inclusion and preserving cultural heritage online, as illustrated by indigenous languages like Sámi

Small minority languages face particular challenges with special character support in IDN policies and need advocacy

Summary

Both speakers recognize that minority and indigenous languages require dedicated advocacy and technical support to ensure their preservation and accessibility online

Topics

Multilingualism | Cultural diversity | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for comprehensive universal acceptance where all languages and scripts should be equally supported across internet infrastructure and applications

Speakers

– Regina Filipova Fuchsova
– Esteve Sanz

Arguments

Universal acceptance means all domain names and email addresses should work equally across all internet applications regardless of script or characters

EU policy and funding strongly support online multilingualism, requiring all official EU content to be available in every official language

Topics

Infrastructure | Multilingualism | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers recognize the need for broader distribution and support of multilingual internet infrastructure beyond current concentrated markets

Speakers

– Regina Filipova Fuchsova
– Esteve Sanz

Arguments

The IDN market is highly concentrated, with top 10 TLDs accounting for 75% of all 4.4 million IDNs worldwide

EU policy and funding strongly support online multilingualism, requiring all official EU content to be available in every official language

Topics

Infrastructure | Multilingualism

Unexpected consensus

Connection between local language internet and resistance to internet shutdowns

Speakers

– Esteve Sanz
– Regina Filipova Fuchsova

Arguments

Local language internet could potentially reduce internet shutdowns because people would feel more ownership of the internet in their native language

Explanation

This represents an unexpected and innovative connection between multilingual internet access and internet freedom/human rights, suggesting that linguistic ownership could serve as a protective factor against government censorship

Topics

Multilingualism | Human rights principles | Freedom of expression

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists among all speakers on the fundamental importance of multilingual internet access for digital inclusion, cultural preservation, and universal acceptance. All speakers agree on the technical barriers hindering IDN adoption and the need for advocacy for minority languages.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary perspectives rather than disagreement. The speakers represent different stakeholder groups (registry operator, policy maker, civil society) but share aligned views on core issues. This strong consensus suggests potential for coordinated action on universal acceptance and IDN promotion, though implementation challenges remain significant due to technical and awareness barriers identified by all speakers.

Different viewpoints

Unexpected differences

Overall assessment

Summary

This discussion showed remarkably high consensus among speakers, with no direct disagreements identified. All speakers shared a common vision of multilingual internet access and universal acceptance.

Disagreement level

Very low disagreement level. The discussion was characterized by complementary perspectives rather than conflicting viewpoints. Regina provided technical and registry perspectives, Esteve contributed EU policy context, and Tapani raised specific advocacy concerns for minority languages. This high level of agreement suggests strong consensus within the technical and policy communities about the importance of multilingual internet infrastructure, though it may also indicate that more challenging implementation debates occur in other forums.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for comprehensive universal acceptance where all languages and scripts should be equally supported across internet infrastructure and applications

Speakers

– Regina Filipova Fuchsova
– Esteve Sanz

Arguments

Universal acceptance means all domain names and email addresses should work equally across all internet applications regardless of script or characters

EU policy and funding strongly support online multilingualism, requiring all official EU content to be available in every official language

Topics

Infrastructure | Multilingualism | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers recognize the need for broader distribution and support of multilingual internet infrastructure beyond current concentrated markets

Speakers

– Regina Filipova Fuchsova
– Esteve Sanz

Arguments

The IDN market is highly concentrated, with top 10 TLDs accounting for 75% of all 4.4 million IDNs worldwide

EU policy and funding strongly support online multilingualism, requiring all official EU content to be available in every official language

Topics

Infrastructure | Multilingualism

Key takeaways

Universal Acceptance is critical for digital inclusion and multilingual internet access, requiring all domain names and email addresses to work equally across applications regardless of script or characters

The IDN market faces significant challenges with negative growth trends (-1% for ccTLDs, -5.5% for gTLDs) and high concentration (top 10 TLDs control 75% of market)

Technical barriers remain substantial – over half of registries don’t support Unicode addresses in email servers, and three-fourths don’t permit Unicode contact emails

Main adoption barriers are technical compatibility issues, low public awareness, and entrenched habits of using ASCII domains

EU’s multilingual digital policy strongly supports Universal Acceptance as aligned with its ‘united in diversity’ identity and 24 official languages

Multilingual internet access has broader social implications, potentially reducing internet shutdowns by increasing local ownership and preserving cultural heritage online

Resolutions and action items

Call for more TLDs to participate in the IDN World Report data collection to improve research comprehensiveness

Request for communities to share their IDN stories and case studies for publication on the IDN World Report website

Need to reach out to more ccTLDs to expand participation in the annual research surveys

Follow-up discussion needed on Sámi language character support in IDN policies between presenters and Tapani Tarvainen

Unresolved issues

How to overcome the low uptake of IDNs despite technical availability (88% of European ccTLDs support IDNs but adoption remains around 1%)

How to incentivize commercial registrars to promote IDNs when business case is unclear

Specific technical solutions for supporting minority language characters like Sámi letter Eng in IDN policies

How to bridge the gap between policy intentions and actual implementation of multilingual internet infrastructure

Strategies for increasing user awareness and changing entrenched ASCII domain usage habits

Suggested compromises

None identified

We’re very worried about Internet shutdowns, that, you know, despite all these commitments, they continue to be on the rise. And very intelligent people that know the local characteristics of these shutdowns, they tell us that if the Internet was in our local language, we would not see a shutdown. Because people would really feel the Internet as themselves, and politicians could not perform that shutdown.

Speaker

Esteve Sanz

Reason

This comment is profoundly insightful because it connects linguistic accessibility to political resistance and digital rights in an unexpected way. It suggests that when people have genuine ownership of the Internet through their native language, it becomes much harder for authoritarian governments to justify shutting it down. This reframes Universal Acceptance from a technical convenience issue to a fundamental tool for digital freedom and resistance to censorship.

Impact

This comment significantly elevated the discussion from technical implementation challenges to geopolitical implications. It prompted Regina to acknowledge this was a completely new perspective they hadn’t considered for future studies, showing how it opened new research directions. The comment transformed the conversation from focusing on European multilingualism to considering global digital rights and political freedom.

Have you been following the use of IDN top-level domains and ICANN’s policies in that regard? You mentioned Sámi, and in particular, there is a policy going on that looks like the Sámi letter Eng will be much less usable than some other special characters because nobody out there cares, basically. So that these very small minority languages and their characters would need someone to speak for them.

Speaker

Tapani Tarvainen

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it exposes a critical gap between the idealistic goals of Universal Acceptance and the harsh reality of implementation. It highlights how minority languages face systemic disadvantage not just from market forces, but from the very governance structures meant to support linguistic diversity. The phrase ‘nobody out there cares’ starkly illustrates how technical decisions can perpetuate linguistic marginalization.

Impact

This intervention shifted the discussion from celebrating progress in multilingual internet to confronting uncomfortable truths about whose languages actually get supported. It forced the speakers to acknowledge the limitations of current approaches and the need for active advocacy for minority languages. The comment introduced a note of urgency and activism that wasn’t present in the earlier technical presentation.

This might seem really low, 1%, but it’s actually in line with what our CCTLDs are experiencing. Also taking into account the technical and other issues, the uptake is not as it could be.

Speaker

Regina Filipova Fuchsova

Reason

While seemingly a simple statistic, this admission is insightful because it reveals the stark disconnect between the technical capability (88% of European ccTLDs support IDNs) and actual usage (only 1%). This honest acknowledgment of failure challenges the narrative of progress and forces a reckoning with why, despite years of development and policy support, multilingual domains remain largely unused.

Impact

This statistic served as a reality check that grounded the entire discussion. It shifted the focus from what’s technically possible to why adoption remains so low, leading to the detailed analysis of barriers (technical issues, low awareness, ASCII habits). It provided the empirical foundation that made the subsequent discussion of challenges more credible and urgent.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed what could have been a routine technical presentation into a nuanced exploration of the complex barriers to digital linguistic equality. Esteve’s insight about Internet shutdowns elevated the stakes from convenience to freedom, while Tapani’s intervention about Sámi characters exposed the gap between policy intentions and implementation reality. Regina’s honest acknowledgment of low adoption rates provided the empirical grounding that made these critiques meaningful. Together, these comments shifted the discussion from celebrating technical achievements to confronting systemic challenges, from European focus to global implications, and from abstract policy goals to concrete advocacy needs. The result was a much richer conversation that acknowledged both the importance of Universal Acceptance and the significant obstacles that remain in achieving true digital linguistic equality.

Could the relationship between Internet shutdowns and local language Internet usage be studied further?

Speaker

Esteve Sanz

Explanation

Esteve mentioned an interesting idea from Global South players that if the Internet was in local languages, politicians might be less likely to perform shutdowns because people would feel the Internet belongs to them. This concept wasn’t previously considered and could be valuable for future research.

How can more ccTLDs be encouraged to participate in the IDN World Report data collection?

Speaker

Regina Filipova Fuchsova

Explanation

Regina noted that the study has limitations due to the number of TLDs providing data and made a call for action to address more ccTLDs in their communities to participate in the study.

What are ICANN’s policies regarding IDN top-level domains, particularly for minority languages like Sámi?

Speaker

Tapani Tarvainen

Explanation

Tapani raised concerns about ICANN policies that may make certain characters (like the Sámi letter Eng) less usable than others, suggesting that small minority languages need advocates to speak for them in policy discussions.

When will the IDN variant tables be updated to better support special characters used in minority languages?

Speaker

Regina Filipova Fuchsova (in response to Tapani Tarvainen)

Explanation

Regina acknowledged that the last update was in 2008 and it’s ‘high time to update’ the IDN variant tables to include better support for special characters used in languages like Sámi.

How can IDN stories from different countries be collected and shared?

Speaker

Regina Filipova Fuchsova

Explanation

Regina made a call for action asking participants to share IDN stories from their countries, indicating a need for more case studies and examples to be documented and published.