[Latingp] Draft in-script variants

[Tan Tanaka, Dennis]

Actually, no.

The panel worked the definition of “same” during the Brussels meeting (you attended) and this is what we finalized<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IrT_kfildf1SumYUqjkaIkMT-TYx9IRqtuPMV4YvKXU/edit#heading=h.6gojqs90rvxk>:
Within-script Variants

  *   Homoglyphs: when any given pair of code points or code point sequences are visually identical as represented in a common use font (e.g., Arial, Times New Roman or Courier New) by internet applications, such as internet browsers.
  *   Alternate Use: a pair of code points or sequence of code points that are regularly used interchangeably and are considered the same by the script users.

-Dennis

From: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris at insidethestack.com>
Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris at insidethestack.com>
Date: Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 3:58 PM
To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka at verisign.com>, "latingp at icann.org" <latingp at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Draft in-script variants

Briefly, these meet the definition in Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels:
An IDN variant, as understood here, is an alternate code point (or sequence of code points) that could be substituted for a code point (or sequence of code points) in a candidate label to create a variant label that is considered the “same” in some measure by a given community of Internet users.

Does that help?

Bill Jouris
Inside Products
bill.jouris at insidethestack.com
831-659-8360
925-855-9512 (direct)

________________________________
From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka at verisign.com>
To: "bill.jouris at insidethestack.com" <bill.jouris at insidethestack.com>; "latingp at icann.org" <latingp at icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Draft in-script variants

Interesting point of view re:Marshallese . Let’s bring it up when we get to review in-script variants. For the time being please provide evidence of your candidates.

Thanks,
Dennis

From: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris at insidethestack.com>
Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris at insidethestack.com>
Date: Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 3:05 PM
To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka at verisign.com>, "latingp at icann.org" <latingp at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Draft in-script variants

As far as I can see, all of the Marshallese references are to justify exclusion.  Not inclusion.  What am I missing?

Bill Jouris
Inside Products
bill.jouris at insidethestack.com
831-659-8360
925-855-9512 (direct)

________________________________
From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka at verisign.com>
To: "bill.jouris at insidethestack.com" <bill.jouris at insidethestack.com>; "latingp at icann.org" <latingp at icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Draft in-script variants

Bill,

For in-script variants IP asked we provide evidence of the variant relationship. Since the cases you are proposing do not fall in the homoglyph category, the panel must provide a strong reason for inclusion (e.g. Marshelle cases)

Thanks,
Dennis

From: Latingp <latingp-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Bill Jouris <bill.jouris at insidethestack.com>
Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris at insidethestack.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 11:54 PM
To: "latingp at icann.org" <latingp at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Draft in-script variants

I've taken the liberty of adding a couple dozen additional candidates.  (I held off the Rating 2 cases.  These are the slam dunks.)

I still think that, as discussed last week, we ought to include more cases rather than fewer.  Especially when we are sending a draft to the IP for review -- that's when they can tell us if we have taken a wrong turn.

Bill Jouris
Inside Products
bill.jouris at insidethestack.com
831-659-8360
925-855-9512 (direct)

________________________________
From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp at icann.org>
To: "latingp at icann.org" <latingp at icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 7:43 PM
Subject: [Latingp] Draft in-script variants

Dear Latin GP,

Here is the compilation of current in-script variant candidates for our review during tomorrow’s call.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bKKFHxbjgBd9CIPRiuOsej_3x670yTytUMM32Ou7Vcs/edit?usp=sharing

Talk to you all soon.

Best,
-Dennis
_______________________________________________
Latingp mailing list
Latingp at icann.org<mailto:Latingp at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/latingp/attachments/20180823/046e859c/attachment-0001.html>