[Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets

Fri Jun 1 17:17:35 UTC 2018

Yet my recollection is rather otherwise.  What I recall is:1) While several of us on the Variants working group argued for a "relatively liberal" approach, you insisted on an extremely narrow criteria.  Since you were Chair, that's what got recorded.
2) Eventually, we submitted questions to the IP.  Questions that you (very skillfully!) worded so as to get the response that you wanted. 
3) We had further arguments, based on increased familiarity with previous ICANN documents, on expert opinions from the linguists among us, and on individual discussions that some of us had the IP members - who expressed rather different views that you got previously.  
4) Repeat of #25) The current discussion. 

I share the feeling of déjà vu.  Perhaps this time we can achieve something better.  Alternatively, you can write the report on Variants that you so clearly want, and some of the other members of the working group can write a separate report which reflects our views. Give the IP complete packages to review.     Bill JourisInside Products
bill.jouris at insidethestack.com
831-659-8360
925-855-9512 (direct)

      From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp at icann.org>
 To: Mirjana Tasić <Mirjana.Tasic at rnids.rs>; Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin at uni-koeln.de>; Latin GP <LatinGP at icann.org> 
 Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 8:15 AM
 Subject: Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets

#yiv2813984843 #yiv2813984843 -- _filtered #yiv2813984843 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2813984843 {font-family:DengXian;panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;} _filtered #yiv2813984843 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2813984843 {panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}#yiv2813984843 #yiv2813984843 p.yiv2813984843MsoNormal, #yiv2813984843 li.yiv2813984843MsoNormal, #yiv2813984843 div.yiv2813984843MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv2813984843 a:link, #yiv2813984843 span.yiv2813984843MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2813984843 a:visited, #yiv2813984843 span.yiv2813984843MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2813984843 p.yiv2813984843msonormal0, #yiv2813984843 li.yiv2813984843msonormal0, #yiv2813984843 div.yiv2813984843msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv2813984843 p.yiv2813984843m205254556420450350yiv4522631482msonormal, #yiv2813984843 li.yiv2813984843m205254556420450350yiv4522631482msonormal, #yiv2813984843 div.yiv2813984843m205254556420450350yiv4522631482msonormal {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv2813984843 span.yiv2813984843m205254556420450350yiv4522631482apple-converted-space {}#yiv2813984843 span.yiv2813984843EmailStyle20 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv2813984843 span.yiv2813984843EmailStyle21 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv2813984843 .yiv2813984843MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv2813984843 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv2813984843 div.yiv2813984843WordSection1 {}#yiv2813984843 All,     I cannot help but think this is déjà vu. We started out very liberal as to our approach for variants in the Latin script and this panel submitted its proposal to IP for review in two separate occasions,early and mid 2017. The IP provided its feedback in those two opportunities (March 22 andOctober 18) and the variant sub-group adjusted course based on the feedback received. During the Brussels workshop in Jan 2018 (a year later after work started) the same questions were raised again (by newcomers), so we decided to have an impromptu phone call with the IP to have them explain their guidance. They came back with the same response, and provided examples to that end. This is what led us to rewrite theprinciples for variant inclusion.     Dennis    From:Mirjana Tasić <Mirjana.Tasic at rnids.rs>
Date: Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 2:40 PM
To: Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin at uni-koeln.de>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka at verisign.com>
Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets    Dear Colleagues,   My opinion on this matter is the same as Meikal stated in this mail. We should make our own interpretation of rules and guidelines and stick to it. In the further discussion with IP we could  modify our findings if there is enough reasons for it.   Regards Mirjana   From:Latin GP <latingp-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin at uni-koeln.de>
Date: Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 10:00
To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka at verisign.com>
Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets   Dear colleuages,    personally, I think we should conduct our own data-driven analysis based on our own interpretation of the rules and guidelines, and then ask IP for a review. After all, we are the community and it is our choice - they are only the ones to judge wether we meet the common criteria. That would be in line we the view they expressed, that the GPs are to guide IP.   Best,

Meikal   On 31 May 2018 at 15:14, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka at verisign.com> wrote: 
It would be helpful if we could get the IP to issue an statement on the points you are raising below.   -Dennis   From: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris at insidethestack.com>
Reply-To: "bill.jouris at insidethestack.com" <bill.jouris at insidethestack.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 5:24 PM
To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka at verisign.com>, Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin at uni-koeln.de>, Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland at knipp.de>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at icann.org>
Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets   And yet, in speaking with members of the IP (at San Juan), on the subject of the Least Astonishment Principle, what they said was "We are looking to the Generation Panels for guidance."    And said further (on the matter of the breve and caron) "When I am typing something that includes one of them, I have to copy and paste because I can't tell which I am lookIng at."  In short, while the two diacritics are clearly not identical, at least with sufficient magnification, as far as he was concerned there was no reason that they could not be classified by us as varients.     What constitutes "identical in appearance" depends enormously on just how much magnification is assumed.  The rationale for assuming anything larger than 12 point type is not at all obvious.    Bill     Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android    
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka at verisign.com> wrote: From:Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin at uni-koeln.de>
Date: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 10:14 AM
To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris at insidethestack.com>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka at verisign.com>, Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland at knipp.de>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at icann.org>
Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets   My conclusion is that it is more complex than reducing things to "homoglyphs" but I do not think that (at least linguistically) we have a strong definition of homoglyphs     On homoglyphs the Latin GP has received the following guidance from IP, in writing and verbally (during the Brussels workshop)   “In the context of the Root Zone, the Procedure is quite clear in that it considers simple similarity of appearance to be outside the scope of the Root Zone LGR. In admitting exact homoglyphs, the IP has been making the argument that ‘e’ in Latin (U+0065) and ‘е’ in Cyrillic(U+0435) are not just visually indistinguishable, but that their distinct code points effectively represent a disunification by script property.” – Email from IP to Latin GP of 18 October 2017 in response to our draft Principles for Inclusion and Exclusion of Code Points in Latin Script for the Root Zone, and in particular to our Analysis of Variants in the Latin Script for the Root Zone.   “The kinds of variants to be defined in the Root Zone LGR are limited to homoglyphs, which are characters with essentially identical appearance by design, instead of merely similar appearance.” – Integration Panel feedback to Latin GP proposal of 22 March 2017.   

  _______________________________________________
Latingp mailing list
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/20180601/048d9c85/attachment-0001.html>