[Latingp] Homoglyphs within Latin script
Tan Tanaka, Dennis
dtantanaka at verisign.com
Fri Jan 5 16:19:23 UTC 2018
Bill,
I think you are misunderstanding our mission and scope. The overarching scope is the Root Zone, this means Top Level Domains. These are not accepted every day, but in a very controlled manner. Processing a TLD request takes weeks, if not months before it is delegated. Mechanical and manual reviews are part of the process of accepting a new TLD into the Root Zone. The Latin LGR for the Root Zone is just one piece in the process, it’s not a one-stop shop.
If we were talking about rules for lower levels in the DNS I would agree with you that different rules are needed. But this is not the scope of our task.
-Dennis
From: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris at insidethestack.com>
Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris at insidethestack.com>
Date: Friday, January 5, 2018 at 11:06 AM
To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka at verisign.com>, Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg at iis.se>, Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland at knipp.de>
Cc: "latingp at icann.org" <latingp at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Homoglyphs within Latin script
I guess I have a rather different view of the answer to the question: What is the real world issue that we are trying to address?
I do not think it is: "How do we exactly conform to the narrowest interpretation of the requirements, so as to allow the maximum number of registrations to start thru the process?" Rather it is: "How do we make the Internet, specifically the process of registering new domain names and of correctly identifying a domain name, work as well as possible for the public?"
So anything which we KNOW will always end up rejected, and the schwa and turned e are a dramatic example, ought to be included among the variants. Otherwise, when someone comes to register a new name, all they get is a delay while their submission gets a manual review.
A name which differs only by that one character will ALWAYS get rejected -- and we all know it. So what is gained, for anyone, by requiring it to go thru a manual process? (OK, perhaps a company registering names can charge for each attempt that gets as far as the manual process. But nobody else has anything that I can see.)
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: Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg at iis.se>; Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland at knipp.de>
Cc: "latingp at icann.org" <latingp at icann.org>
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Homoglyphs within Latin script
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<mailto: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<mailto:dtantanaka at verisign.com>>
Date: Friday 5 January 2018 at 16:13
To: Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland at knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland at knipp.de>>, Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg at iis.se<mailto:mats.dufberg at iis.se>>
Cc: "latingp at icann.org<mailto:latingp at icann.org>" <latingp at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Michael.Bauland at knipp.de>
Software Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland at knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland at knipp.de>
Register Court:
Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728
Chief Executive Officers:
Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp
_______________________________________________
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/20180105/e316cb32/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Latingp
mailing list