[vip] Educational session on existing variant practices

[Andrzej Bartosiewicz]

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. 
<http://www.yonita.com>
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/vip/attachments/20110725/a27616c3/attachment.html