[Latingp] New version of Proposal for inclusion Latin script letters in next version of MSR

Fri Jan 19 18:43:11 UTC 2018

Meikal, et al

Inconsistent guidance is certainly not helpful. Bill, Mats and Meikal, thank you for taking the initiative in drafting a response. I’d suggest adding an agenda topic to our upcoming meeting to review (and finalize?) a response to IP regarding MSR3. I’d like to contribute.

-Dennis

From: Latingp <latingp-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin at uni-koeln.de>
Date: Friday, January 19, 2018 at 1:26 PM
To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris at insidethestack.com>
Cc: Latin GP <latingp at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] New version of Proposal for inclusion Latin script letters in next version of MSR

Dear all,

I see numerous inconsistencies rather than consistencies in those choices made, and holding on to such choices in the end serves to reinforce pre-existing biases without any supporting data (as Mats pointed out), rather than improving the safety of the zone. So let's argue against it strongly as a GP and ask for a change of policy, if a majority of the GP is in favor! Processes were made to adopt to reality, not the other way around.

I'm already working on some text regarding these issues for the proposal. Please feel free to chime in.

Best,

Meikal

On 19 January 2018 at 17:59, Bill Jouris <bill.jouris at insidethestack.com<mailto:bill.jouris at insidethestack.com>> wrote:
Hi Meikal,

I'd be fine with including something along these lines in the main text, if the panel is OK with that.  What I sent out needs serious editing, but it's a start.

My best guess (and it is only a guess) on why is that the IP decided that, since they were excluding the click symbols that are homoglyphs of punctuation marks, consistency would indicate that they exclude also those click symbols which are not.  On the other hand, that would have meant excluding U0294 (ʔ), which would have to be considered at least a near homoglyph of a question mark (?).  But as Mats notes they have accepted that.  So perhaps not.

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

________________________________
From: Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin at uni-koeln.de<mailto:meikal.mumin at uni-koeln.de>>
To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris at insidethestack.com<mailto:bill.jouris at insidethestack.com>>
Cc: Latin GP <latingp at icann.org<mailto:latingp at icann.org>>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 6:40 AM

Subject: Re: [Latingp] New version of Proposal for inclusion Latin script letters in next version of MSR

Dear colleagues,

I was trying to look for a specific reason why those code points representing click sounds have been excluded. Looking at the text of MSR-3, I was able to find only the following line of argumentation on page 23:

"In general, where code points are homoglyphs or near homoglyphs of code points that are not PVALID,
usually punctuation characters, the Integration Panel has not included such code points in the MSR.
In particular, the following code points are highly confusable with or outright homoglyphs of code
points, such as common punctuation characters like apostrophe or exclamation mark, that are not
PVALID in IDNA2008 or excluded for other reasons:"

I don't see however how the main argument that the code points we suggested are homogylphs or near homogylphs of such characters they consider punctuation characters. That argument may be valid in the case of U01C3 or U0242, but not the three code points we suggested. I think that this stance taken by IP is overly conservative and reinforces certain systemic biases in the DNS as part of the internet and that the entire point of our task is precisely to put and end to such biases and therefore I would like to raise this issue again.

I would suggest we submit a comment asking what their specific rationale for excluding these three code points is, and that clearly U01C2 for example is NOT a homogylph or near homoglyph of any punctuation character, just as U01C0 and U01C1. Otherwise, I would like to argue that following their approach 0069 (i.e. i) as well as any "near homoglyph" of it is a near homogylph of the exclamation mark and should be excluded equally.

Also, I have started working on the proposal, Bill, and I would like to add your text to it and I don't think it should be an appendix.

Best,

Meikal

On 19 January 2018 at 00:50, Bill Jouris <bill.jouris at insidethestack.com<mailto:bill.jouris at insidethestack.com>> wrote:
Hello all,

Earlier this week, I had been drafting a possible Appendix D for our final report, to discuss the overall issue of clicks and stops.  (And it is a VERY rough draft.  Note, for example, that the various RFCs and other documents are not yet identified.)

With this reply from the IP, it seems like the question may be better addressed in comments on MSR-3.  But I have attached what I had for those who may be interested.

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

________________________________
From: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain at icann.org>>
To: Mirjana Tasić <Mirjana.Tasic at rnids.rs<mailto:Mirjana.Tasic at rnids.rs>>; Latin GP <latingp at icann.org<mailto:latingp at icann.org>>
Cc: "integrationpanel at icann.org<mailto:integrationpanel at icann.org>" <integrationpanel at icann.org<mailto:integrationpanel at icann.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Latingp] New version of Proposal for inclusion Latin script letters in next version of MSR

Dear Mirjana, Latin GP members,

Please find below the message from the Integration Panel.

Regards,
Sarmad

=========

The IP is pleased to acknowledge the input from the Chinese, Japanese and Latin GPs to the MSR-3 update of the Maximal Starting Repertoire. MSR-3 has just been released for public comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/msr-3-2018-01-17-en> and contains an updated listing of code points as well as the rationale for including or excluding particular code points. Based on the input received, the IP has extended the list of source sets for the Han ideographs with the net effect of adding three code points. The IP has added three Latin code points because new evidence provided invalidated the original rationale for their exclusion. An additional three Latin code points representing clicks were not included because the original rationale for their exclusion remains valid. For details see the overview document of MSR-3.

Integration Panel

1.      MSR-3 (HTML<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/lgr/msr/msr-3-wle-rules-15jan18-en.html>, XML<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/lgr/msr/msr-3-wle-rules-15jan18-en.xml>)
2.     MSR-3-Annotated-Hangul-Tables<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/msr-3-hangul-15jan18-en.pdf>  [PDF, 1.12 MB]
3.     MSR-3-Annotated-Han-Tables<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/msr-3-han-15jan18-en.pdf> [ PDF, 39 MB]
4.     MSR-3-Annotated-non-CJK-Tables<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/msr-3-non-cjk-15jan18-en.pdf>  [PDF, 2.16 MB]
5.     MSR-3-Overview and Rationale<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/msr-3-overview-15jan18-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.1 MB]

From: Mirjana Tasić [mailto:Mirjana.Tasic at rnids.rs<mailto:Mirjana.Tasic at rnids.rs> ]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:07 PM
To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain at icann.org>>
Cc: Latin GP <latingp at icann.org<mailto:latingp at icann.org>>
Subject: [Ext] New version of Proposal for inclusion Latin script letters in next version of MSR

Dear Sarmad,

After further investigation of Latin Repertoire, Latin GP has found one additional code point which is not included in our previous proposal for inclusion in the new version of MSR.

Please find enclosed the new version of our Proposal for inclusion Latin script letters in the next version of MSR.

Regards Mirjana

______________________________ _________________
Latingp mailing list
Latingp at icann.org<mailto:Latingp at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/ listinfo/latingp<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp>

______________________________ _________________
Latingp mailing list
Latingp at icann.org<mailto:Latingp at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/ listinfo/latingp<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/latingp/attachments/20180119/92d2ade7/attachment-0001.html>