<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515110486889_19071">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? <br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515110486889_19114"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515110486889_19045" dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515110486889_19137">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?" <br></span></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515110486889_19205"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515110486889_19137"><br></span></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515110486889_19352"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515110486889_19137">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. <br></span></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515110486889_19359"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515110486889_19137"><br></span></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515110486889_19360"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515110486889_19137">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.)</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515110486889_19044"> </div><div class="signature" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515110486889_19040">Bill Jouris<br>Inside Products<br>bill.jouris@insidethestack.com<br>831-659-8360<br>925-855-9512 (direct)</div><div class="qtdSeparateBR" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515110486889_19483"><br><br></div><div class="yahoo_quoted" style="display: block;"> <div style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font size="2" face="Arial"> <hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp@icann.org><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@iis.se>; Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> <br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Friday, January 5, 2018 7:43 AM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Latingp] Homoglyphs within Latin script<br> </font> </div> <div class="y_msg_container"><br><div dir="ltr">Mats,<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">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.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">-Dennis<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">On 1/5/18, 10:27 AM, "Mats Dufberg" <<a ymailto="mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se" href="mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se">mats.dufberg@iis.se</a>> wrote:<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"> 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.<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> I do not think we should try to interpret what IP thinks. We should propose a solution we think is correct.<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> Mats<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> ---<br></div><div dir="ltr"> Mats Dufberg<br></div><div dir="ltr"> DNS Specialist, IIS<br></div><div dir="ltr"> Mobile: +46 73 065 3899<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <a href="https://www.iis.se/en/" target="_blank">https://www.iis.se/en/</a><br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> -----Original Message-----<br></div><div dir="ltr"> From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <<a ymailto="mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com" href="mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com">dtantanaka@verisign.com</a>><br></div><div dir="ltr"> Date: Friday 5 January 2018 at 16:13<br></div><div dir="ltr"> To: Michael Bauland <<a ymailto="mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" href="mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de">Michael.Bauland@knipp.de</a>>, Mats Dufberg <<a ymailto="mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se" href="mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se">mats.dufberg@iis.se</a>><br></div><div dir="ltr"> Cc: "<a ymailto="mailto:latingp@icann.org" href="mailto:latingp@icann.org">latingp@icann.org</a>" <<a ymailto="mailto:latingp@icann.org" href="mailto:latingp@icann.org">latingp@icann.org</a>><br></div><div dir="ltr"> Subject: Re: [Latingp] Homoglyphs within Latin script<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> Hi Michael,<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> 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.<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> -Dennis<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> On 1/5/18, 10:10 AM, "Michael Bauland" <<a ymailto="mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" href="mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de">Michael.Bauland@knipp.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> Hi Dennis, hi Mats,<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> On 05.01.2018 16:02, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp wrote:<br></div><div dir="ltr"> > Thanks Mats.<br></div><div dir="ltr"> > <br></div><div dir="ltr"> > <br></div><div dir="ltr"> > <br></div><div dir="ltr"> > A follow up question, is there evidence that these two code points are<br></div><div dir="ltr"> > used interchangeably in the languages the repertoire team analyzed? I<br></div><div dir="ltr"> > ask because the IP will ask for more evidence of a variant relationship<br></div><div dir="ltr"> > besides visual appearance. Per the Procedure “Generation Panels should<br></div><div dir="ltr"> > ignore cases where the relation is based exclusively on aspects of<br></div><div dir="ltr"> > visual similarity”.<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> I'm not sure we need additional evidence, because in this case it's not<br></div><div dir="ltr"> mere "visual similarity" but those two are actually the same. And I<br></div><div dir="ltr"> don't think we have another choice in the case of homoglyphs, but to<br></div><div dir="ltr"> make them variants. On the contrary, I think we had to argue if we<br></div><div dir="ltr"> wanted to not make them variants.<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> Michael<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> -- <br></div><div dir="ltr"> ____________________________________________________________________<br></div><div dir="ltr"> | |<br></div><div dir="ltr"> | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH<br></div><div dir="ltr"> ------- Technologiepark<br></div><div dir="ltr"> Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9<br></div><div dir="ltr"> 44227 Dortmund<br></div><div dir="ltr"> Germany<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0<br></div><div dir="ltr"> Fax: +49 231 9703-200<br></div><div dir="ltr"> Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: <a ymailto="mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" href="mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de">Michael.Bauland@knipp.de</a><br></div><div dir="ltr"> Software Development E-mail: <a ymailto="mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" href="mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de">Michael.Bauland@knipp.de</a><br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> Register Court:<br></div><div dir="ltr"> Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> Chief Executive Officers:<br></div><div dir="ltr"> Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">_______________________________________________<br></div><div dir="ltr">Latingp mailing list<br></div><div dir="ltr"><a ymailto="mailto:Latingp@icann.org" href="mailto:Latingp@icann.org">Latingp@icann.org</a><br></div><div dir="ltr"><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp</a><br></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></body></html>