[vip] Educational session on existing variant practices

[Jothan Frakes]

Andzrej-

I hear you, and I am glad that we're aligned on the documentation capture.

I believe that the presence of a variant at the top level is different
than at the second level (or deeper).

Just to respond on the manner in which the Mozilla community curation
/ approval process works, there is a large developer community that
works to put together.  Changes under mozilla require multiple
approvals, and the approval must come from someone other than the
submitter or myself.

-Jothan


Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax



On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Andrzej Bartosiewicz
<andrzej at yonita.com> wrote:
> Jothan,
>
> I fully agree that we should document "ae" as type of "variant" and think
> how to address it.
>
> I think that discussion that is taking place with Mozilla is a good example
> for us, what should we (ICANN) expect when new TLDs will be opened and
> variant-TLDs are going to be submitted.
>
> What I don't actually understand with Mozilla (and this is out of the scope
> of ICANN VIP - sorry to mention this here): why exactly the same policies
> (DENIC for .DE and ARNES for .SI) are treated by Mozilla in completely
> different way - the first one is "whitelisted" and the second one is
> "blacklisted". Maybe ICANN VIP experts can also take a look at this problem
> and help our colleagues from .SI ccTLD to solve the problem with Mozilla
> different treatment of different TLDs with the same policies.
>
> Best,
> --
> Dr. Andrzej Bartosiewicz, CEO & President, Yonita Inc.
> phone (US): +1 650 2493707
> phone (Poland): +48 518 235209
>
>
> On 7/25/2011 8:40 PM, Jothan Frakes wrote:
>
> I saw that you responded to the mozilla ticket.  Thank you for taking
> the time to do this.
>
> I understand that the visual ae issue or other ligature type
> combinations were not considered in the very good work that you did in
> the efforts with NASK to be a variant, and I have also heard from
> Denic about the manner in which a similar circumstance exists with the
> sharp s character.
>
> I think personally that I have heard compelling anecdotal descriptions
> that justify the case where there could and rightly should be two
> separate websites for two separate domains with two separate meanings.
>
> There are also crafty entrepreneurial participants on the internet
> that don't always have the best interest of the end user in mind who
> could leverage the visual similarity between the strings in a manner
> that is arguably bad for the end-user, either in a confusing manner or
> in some cases worse.
>
> There is always ongoing discussion about the evolution of 'doing the
> right thing' with Mozilla as far as the approach taken with addressing
> visual variations.  The objective is to ensure the least end-user
> confusion.
>
> Without saying it is right or wrong how some software behaves in the
> presence of ligature or other visual variants that split one character
> into more than one, I think for the purposes and context of VIP
> simply exposing those as distinct variant types.
>
> Let's simply document this as a type of variant.
>
> This is was what the context and intent of my mention was.
>
>