[Latingp] Homoglyphs within Latin script

[Tan Tanaka, Dennis]

Mats,

The Root Zone LGR is not designed to pick up on those security and stability issues. That would be the concern of already established processes, such as the Similarity Review or DNS Security and Stability Review of applied-for TLDs.

-Dennis


On 1/5/18, 10:27 AM, "Mats Dufberg" <mats.dufberg at iis.se> wrote:

    In lower case, they are equal. My interpretation of "security" is that we must include some variant or contextual rules that prevent two TLDs only differing on those two code points.
    
    I do not think we should try to interpret what IP thinks. We should propose a solution we think is correct.
    
    
    Mats
    
    ---
    Mats Dufberg
    DNS Specialist, IIS
    Mobile: +46 73 065 3899
    https://www.iis.se/en/
     
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka at verisign.com>
    Date: Friday 5 January 2018 at 16:13
    To: Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland at knipp.de>, Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg at iis.se>
    Cc: "latingp at icann.org" <latingp at icann.org>
    Subject: Re:  [Latingp] Homoglyphs within Latin script
    
    Hi Michael,
    
    They are not the same character. They look alike in lower case, but are different in upper case (i.e. disunification by case property). The IP briefly discussed this case of 01DD and 0259 in their feedback to our Principles document and suggested that these two should not be variants. Hence my question about more evidence.
    
    -Dennis
    
    On 1/5/18, 10:10 AM, "Michael Bauland" <Michael.Bauland at knipp.de> wrote:
    
        Hi Dennis, hi Mats,
        
        On 05.01.2018 16:02, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp wrote:
        > Thanks Mats.
        > 
        >  
        > 
        > A follow up question, is there evidence that these two code points are
        > used interchangeably in the languages the repertoire team analyzed? I
        > ask because the IP will ask for more evidence of a variant relationship
        > besides visual appearance. Per the Procedure “Generation Panels should
        > ignore cases where the relation is based exclusively on aspects of
        > visual similarity”.
        
        I'm not sure we need additional evidence, because in this case it's not
        mere "visual similarity" but those two are actually the same. And I
        don't think we have another choice in the case of homoglyphs, but to
        make them variants. On the contrary, I think we had to argue if we
        wanted to not make them variants.
        
        Michael
        
        -- 
        ____________________________________________________________________
             |       |
             | knipp |            Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
              -------                    Technologiepark
                                         Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9
                                         44227 Dortmund
                                         Germany
        
             Dipl.-Informatiker          Fon:    +49 231 9703-0
                                         Fax:    +49 231 9703-200
             Dr. Michael Bauland         SIP:    Michael.Bauland at knipp.de
             Software Development        E-mail: Michael.Bauland at knipp.de
        
                                         Register Court:
                                         Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728
        
                                         Chief Executive Officers:
                                         Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp