[Latingp] Sharp S and Allocatable vs Blocked
Tan Tanaka, Dennis
dtantanaka at verisign.com
Thu Sep 5 19:02:20 UTC 2019
“The case we have here involves, potentially, the same word and the same language. (That, after all, is why we even were considering making this particular variant Allocatable.) “
The primary reason we are considering this case is due to the IDNA issue. And the proposed allocatable solution is to minimize the misconnection issue that arises with certain browsers. The linguistic argument is a moot point (in my opinion) greatly in part because it is not a clear cut rule (i.e. swapping sharp s with “ss”, or vice versa, can alter the meaning of a word) and it can be argued that the target market of sharp S (Germany) has been conditioned (by their country code registry operator) that domain names using sharp s and “ss” are different.
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: Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 1:12 PM
To: Latin GP <latingp at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Latingp] Sharp S and Allocatable vs Blocked
I guess my response to the point about other cases with Variants being first-come-first-served would be that other cases involve different words and perhaps different languages. “The case we have here involves, potentially, the same word and the same language. (That, after all, is why we even were considering making this particular variant Allocatable.) “
My take is that this constitutes a significant difference, and thus makes a different approach reasonable.
bill.jouris at insidethestack.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Latingp