[Idngwg] Minutes of meeting and AIs from 1 Dec.

[Sarmad Hussain]

Dear All,

 

Regarding the AI1 below, I have inquired about what has been published at it seems there are some sources, which we need to discuss in case we need to refer to them.  Here are the options:

 

1.      Some work has come out of Unicode’s Technical Standard 39 <http://unicode.org/reports/tr39/> .  There are two files available here <ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/security/revision-02> :

a.      Confusables.txt <ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/security/revision-02/confusables.txt>  is the larger set, which has the data we need, but much more data, as the definition of confusables is perhaps broader than the strict homoglyphs we may want.

b.      Intentional.txt <ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/security/revision-02/intentional.txt>  is perhaps the subset which we may be looking for, though the list seems ominously short, and would need a more thorough review (which I am happy to perform after our discussion).

2.      RFC 5992 has data in its appendices, which also lists confusable code points, but is not restricted to homoglyphs.

3.      The Root Zone LGR proposals <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lgr-proposals-2015-12-01-en>  will also provide a reasonably comprehensive list (though we already discussed that these may still be limited for the second level).  For example, see the list in Section 6 of the Armenian script proposal <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/armenian-lgr-proposal-05nov15-en.pdf>  already published for a subset.  Latin, Greek and Cyrillic GPs are also working on such lists, so we will have a multi-script community confirmation, once we have the other proposals.

However, it is interesting to note that this work remains largely limited to Cyrillic, Green and Latin homoglyphs.  Analysis is needed for other scripts.  We have recently concluded the analysis for Lao, Khmer and Thai scripts as part of the Root Zone LGR work (and the communities have not found significant homoglyph contexts – e.g. see the Khmer and Lao proposals published (Thai on its way soon)).  However, there may be some work needed for Neo-Brahmi scripts.  

 

Regards,
Sarmad

 

 

From: idngwg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:idngwg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2016 2:00 PM
To: idngwg at icann.org
Subject: [Idngwg] Minutes of meeting and AIs from 1 Dec.

 

Dear All,

 

Please find attached summary of the meeting of the WG on 1 Dec.  Please let me know if there are any changes or suggestions.

 

The meeting had the following AIs:

 


S. No.

Action Items 

Owner


1

Find out if there are existing lists of homoglyphs which can be referenced 

SH


2

Divide new recommendation on harmonization of LGRs into three recommendations, explaining harmonization, address cross-script homoglyphic variants, and address within-script variants caused by two different LGRs

MD


3

Write a new recommendation on how to address existing registrations which are not harmonized, giving flexibility to registries 

KF


4

Re-write the recommendation on automatic activation based on the current input for further discussion

EC

 

The next meeting is schedule for 8 Dec. 11am UTC.

 

The attached notes of the meeting and the recording of the meeting are available at the IDNGWG wiki page at https://community.icann.org/display/IDN/IDN+Implementation+Guidelines. 

 

Regards,
Sarmad 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/idngwg/attachments/20161204/0e44bef1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5046 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/idngwg/attachments/20161204/0e44bef1/smime.p7s>