[Latingp] Response to IP letter from August the 9th

[Bill Jouris]

Dear Colleagues, 
I'm not entirely clear what is being implied by "problematic" in the proposed answer.  Are we saying that we object?  Or simply that we didn't reach the same conclusion? 
It seems to me that, for cross script variants, if either GP finds a pair to be variants, that is sufficient. After all, they know what their own users will find to be cause for confusion.  
Now when one GP finds multiple cross-script variants which would result in in-script variants for the other, that's a different situation.  I see two possible scenarios:    
   - If we have agreed that the two in our script are Different, I can see raising an objection.  
   - On the other hand, we may have a case where our opinion was divided, perhaps even narrowly. It seems to me that in those cases we should live with the results of transitivity. 

P.S.  I see that we missed V and V with Dot Below in out underlining analysis.  Oops.  I've added it to our table so we can deal with it.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19FZmntXOan_7LF0ckzKZNLrla0L8eC_GxWEfAmmOMkU/edit#gid=1543789122

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

    On Tuesday, September 17, 2019, 12:36:48 PM PDT, Mirjana Tasić <Mirjana.Tasic at rnids.rs> wrote:  
 
  <!--#yiv9554462924 _filtered #yiv9554462924 {font-family:"Cambria Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9554462924 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv9554462924 #yiv9554462924 p.yiv9554462924MsoNormal, #yiv9554462924 li.yiv9554462924MsoNormal, #yiv9554462924 div.yiv9554462924MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;}#yiv9554462924 a:link, #yiv9554462924 span.yiv9554462924MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9554462924 a:visited, #yiv9554462924 span.yiv9554462924MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9554462924 span.yiv9554462924EmailStyle17 {font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv9554462924 .yiv9554462924MsoChpDefault {font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;} _filtered #yiv9554462924 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv9554462924 div.yiv9554462924WordSection1 {}-->
  
 
Dear GP members
 
Please read the proposal for answering the letter received from IP on August the 9th. I need you to check if I made any mistake in preparation of response dealing
 
 with Latin Greek Variants.
 
  
 
The proposal of response is at
 
  
 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hXTlULWnH_S6FnCadI_LmMYB8iZ8rPvx_H3zN9sAzPk/edit?usp=sharing
 
  
 
We shall discuss this letter as first item in our agenda for Thursday the 19th.
 
  
 
Regards Mirjana
 
  
 _______________________________________________
Latingp mailing list
Latingp at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/latingp/attachments/20190918/a4f6e27f/attachment.html>