<div dir="ltr">Dear colleuages,<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,<br><br>Meikal</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 31 May 2018 at 15:14, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com" target="_blank">dtantanaka@verisign.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="m_205254556420450350WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">It would be helpful if we could get the IP to issue an statement on the points you are raising below.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-Dennis<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Bill Jouris <<a href="mailto:bill.jouris@insidethestack.com" target="_blank">bill.jouris@insidethestack.<wbr>com</a>><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>"<a href="mailto:bill.jouris@insidethestack.com" target="_blank">bill.jouris@insidethestack.<wbr>com</a>" <<a href="mailto:bill.jouris@insidethestack.com" target="_blank">bill.jouris@insidethestack.<wbr>com</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 5:24 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>Dennis Tan Tanaka <<a href="mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com" target="_blank">dtantanaka@verisign.com</a>>, Meikal Mumin <<a href="mailto:meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de" target="_blank">meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de</a>>, Michael Bauland <<a href="mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" target="_blank">Michael.Bauland@knipp.de</a>>, Sarmad Hussain <<a href="mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org" target="_blank">sarmad.hussain@icann.org</a>><span class=""><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Latin GP <<a href="mailto:LatinGP@icann.org" target="_blank">LatinGP@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
</div><span class="">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div id="m_205254556420450350yMail_cursorElementTracker_1527714687907">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">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." <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div id="m_205254556420450350yMail_cursorElementTracker_1527715178493">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div id="m_205254556420450350yMail_cursorElementTracker_1527715178704">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">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. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div id="m_205254556420450350yMail_cursorElementTracker_1527715296453">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div id="m_205254556420450350yMail_cursorElementTracker_1527715296805">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">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. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div id="m_205254556420450350yMail_cursorElementTracker_1527715130208">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div id="m_205254556420450350yMail_cursorElementTracker_1527715130427">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Bill<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div id="m_205254556420450350yMail_cursorElementTracker_1527715114675">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div id="m_205254556420450350yMail_cursorElementTracker_1527714955528">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div id="m_205254556420450350ymail_android_signature">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature" target="_blank">Sent from Yahoo Mail on Androi</a>d <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<blockquote style="margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#6d00f6">On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Tan Tanaka, Dennis<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#6d00f6"><<a href="mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com" target="_blank">dtantanaka@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid #6d00f6 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 15.0pt;margin-top:7.5pt">
<div id="m_205254556420450350yiv4522631482">
<div>
<div>
<div id="m_205254556420450350yiv4522631482yqtfd06280">
<p class="m_205254556420450350yiv4522631482msonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Meikal Mumin <<a href="mailto:meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de" target="_blank">meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 10:14 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>Bill Jouris <<a href="mailto:bill.jouris@insidethestack.com" target="_blank">bill.jouris@insidethestack.<wbr>com</a>>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <<a href="mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com" target="_blank">dtantanaka@verisign.com</a>>, Michael Bauland <<a href="mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" target="_blank">Michael.Bauland@knipp.de</a>>, Sarmad Hussain <<a href="mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org" target="_blank">sarmad.hussain@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Latin GP <<a href="mailto:LatinGP@icann.org" target="_blank">LatinGP@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="m_205254556420450350yiv4522631482msonormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="m_205254556420450350yiv4522631482yqtfd99307">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">My conclusion is that it is more complex than reducing things to "</span>homoglyphs<span style="font-size:13.5pt">" but I do not think that (at least linguistically) we have a strong
definition of<span class="m_205254556420450350yiv4522631482apple-converted-space"> </span></span>homoglyphs<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="m_205254556420450350yiv4522631482msonormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_205254556420450350yiv4522631482msonormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_205254556420450350yiv4522631482msonormal" style="margin-left:.5in">On homoglyphs the Latin GP has received the following guidance from IP, in writing and verbally (during the Brussels workshop)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_205254556420450350yiv4522631482msonormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_205254556420450350yiv4522631482msonormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><i><span style="font-size:13.5pt">“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.”</span></i><span style="font-size:13.5pt">
– 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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_205254556420450350yiv4522631482msonormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_205254556420450350yiv4522631482msonormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><i><span style="font-size:13.5pt">“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.”</span></i><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> – Integration Panel feedback to Latin GP proposal of 22 March 2017.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div id="m_205254556420450350yiv4522631482yqtfd63833">
<p class="m_205254556420450350yiv4522631482msonormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>