[council] Further on dot québec

[Mark Datysgeld]

I'm not aware. I wonder if IDN EPDP members could clarify.

On 22 Oct 2023 10:37, Thomas Rickert | rickert.law wrote:
>
> Thanks for your analysis, Mark.
>
> I may have missed this, but has there been any discussion around 
> grandfathering or bundles of SLDs under both TLDs that would help 
> avoid confusion of an identical second level domain under both TLDs?
>
> Thomas
>
> *Von: *council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> im Auftrag von Mark 
> Datysgeld via council <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Antworten an: *Mark Datysgeld <mark at governanceprimer.com>
> *Datum: *Sonntag, 22. Oktober 2023 um 10:17
> *An: *"council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Betreff: *[council] Further on dot québec
>
> I have been studying the Latin Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules 
> [here 
> <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/lgr/proposal-japanese-lgr-20dec21-en.xml>] 
> and, for practical purposes, (U+0065) vs. é (U+00E9) are not variants. 
> The variants for lower case Latin letter "e" are listed under "Variant 
> Set 3" and consist of one homoglyph (forward and reverse mapping) and 
> one out-of-repertoire (reflexive) instance, both which do not apply 
> here. Also, é (U+00E9) is recognized as part of the French language in 
> the document, so linguistic relevance is recognized there.
>
> Potential for malice also does not come up as a significant concern in 
> the LGR, as opposed to something like dotted i (U+0069) vs. dotless i 
> (U+0131), for example.
>
> That said, considering that we are dealing with a geoTLD, linguistic 
> and cultural relevance are important aspects, and looking into the 
> writing of the word "Québec" on the Web, both the the "e" and "é" 
> cases seem to be widely employed, in such a way that they are 
> interchangeable in a way. If these TLDs were to be managed 
> independently, that would almost certainly lead to confusion.
>
> However, the requestor of the accented TLD is the same as that of the 
> ASCII TLD, which is PointQuébec, so we are looking into a "same 
> entity" situation. If PointQuébec were to run both TLDs as if they 
> were the same (as if they were variants), meaning that domain names 
> would resolve consistently instead of being operated independently, 
> this would allow the people of Québec the linguistic freedom to 
> utilize their language while at the same time avoiding confusion.
>
> Since, as Seb pointed out, this is the only applicant from the first 
> round reaching out to have this issue resolved, it does not seem to be 
> out of scope to simply recognize their request, and allow them to 
> operate the TLDs in this way, more than anything because there seems 
> to be no good reason not to. We would just need to be very clear about 
> the necessity of both TLDs operating in this consistent manner.
>
> Best,
>
> -- 
> Mark W. Datysgeld [markwd.website <https://markwd.website>]
> Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com 
> <https://governanceprimer.com>]
> ICANN GNSO Councilor
>
-- 
Mark W. Datysgeld [markwd.website <https://markwd.website>]
Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com 
<https://governanceprimer.com>]
ICANN GNSO Councilor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20231022/ddbd693e/attachment.html>