[UA-discuss] Once again

[Roberto Gaetano]

I had this discussion many times.
It is a sort of “general issue”, in the sense that it is a general fact of life. The wider the set, the more likely it is that two elements are “confusingly similar”.
If you limit yourself to letter or numbers, the chances for confusion are very limited, or non-existent. However, if you join the two sets, you start having potential confusion.
What irritates me is the use of this “potential confusion” as an excuse for not further widening the set joining different scripts.
Colors are confusing. The world would be much simpler if we had only black and white. Daltonism would no longer be a problem!
Sorry for the rant
R



On 27.06.2018, at 11:02, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com<mailto:m.alzoba at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hello David,

Were pairs like 1 and l , 0 and o in latin script analyzed?
(it might give better perception of what it going on and if the confusion is limited to IDNs or is it a general issue)

Sincerely Yours,

Maxim Alzoba
Special projects manager,
International Relations Department,
FAITID

m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp)
skype oldfrogger

Current UTC offset: -5.00 (Panama)



On 27 Jun 2018, at 10:56, David Conrad <david.conrad at icann.org<mailto:david.conrad at icann.org>> wrote:

I suspect that might be triggered by:

https://info.farsightsecurity.com/farsight-idn-research-report?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axioscodebook&stream=technology

 From the executive summary:


Among the key findings:

100M total IDN resolutions observed; 27M unique fully qualified domain names (FQDNs)

8,000 IDN homographs representing or containing a top global brand name

Unicode “confusables” make up a significant percentage of the characters found in IDNs; 91% of all characters observed in IDN homographs are considered “confusable” -- a “confusable” is a Unicode code point that is often easily confused with other characters, ligatures, and/or digraphs.

Brands in banking and other related sectors are frequently imitated using IDN homographs with ~750 unique FQDNs observed per month

91% of IDN homographs offered some sort of webpage

We found clear violations of the ICANN Guidelines for the Implementation of Internationalized Domain Names

66% of all IDN homograph IP addresses were found to be geolocated in the United States

93% of IDN homograph FQDNs had IPv4-based address records

Regards,
-drc

On Jun 27, 2018, at 10:27 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:

I see, via Slashdot, that the BBC is once again promoting this problem:

https://it.slashdot.org/story/18/06/26/2031212/scammers-abuse-multilingual-domain-names

A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20180627/2082e755/attachment.html>