[vip] Types of variants: do we have consensus?

[Francisco Arias]

Hello,

Perhaps we are conflating two sets of issues, which makes the discussion
more difficult. I think that we have (at least) two set of issues that can
be decoupled:

1. The general discussion about what is a variant, types of variants, etc.
I.e., The "variant definition" set of issues.

2. The "name aliasing" set of issues. This refers to the idea of having a
mechanism (e.g., DNAME in DNS, or other mechanism at a higher level) that
allows to names to "behave as one".

I think there would be cases in which you want to use a name aliasing
mechanism that allows such variants to "behave as one". But there are
other cases in which you only want to allocate (not delegate n DNS),
reserve, or block certain names considered variants. Since there is no
delegation, there is no name aliasing tool in use.

Conversely, you may have two strings that are no variants (for a given and
agreed definition of variant) but still the registrant wants them to be
treated as one. For example, company ABC acquires company XYZ, and as one
of the steps of the transition they setup name "xyz.tld" as an alias of
"abc.tld".

I'd propose to treat the two set of issues above independently. Thoughts?

Regards,

__
Francisco



On 7/28/11 11:36 AM, "Vladimir Shadrunov" <vlad.london.uk at gmail.com> wrote:

>Thanks, Chris and all who responded.
>
>Just to clarify: I am not trying to insist that we introduce special
>class of semantic variants or phonetic variants. My point is that the
>reason why two strings are considered variants may be not that
>important for the purpose of our study. Besides, depending on the
>context (i. e. ccTLD labels, gTLD labels, second-level labels etc.)
>these reasons may vary.
>
>Best regards,
>Vladimir Shadrunov
>
>On 28 July 2011 15:22, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> This is not an argument in favour of semantic variants, but I think
>>there would be more of a case for the following Japanese situation.
>>
>> All of these (and probably several more, but they are not on the
>>Japanese Ministry of Educations official character list [改定常用漢字表]) are
>>ways of writing hakaru 'plan; measure':
>> 計る==測る==量る==諮る==図る==謀る
>>
>> According to 漢字の用法[=The uses of characters] / 武部良明. - 第２版. - 東京 :  角川書
店
>>, [1982] there are the following nuances:
>> 計 when counting and thinking
>> 測 when measuring length etc.
>> 量 when measuring weight; probability
>> 諮 consult
>> 図 plan to do something
>> 謀 plot, scheme
>>
>> There is overlap in the use of the various characters, although to a
>>lesser extent perhaps with謀 because of its negative implications!
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Chris.
>> ==
>> Faculty Information Support Officer
>> for Arts & Humanities and Laws
>> Arts & Humanities Faculty Office
>> Andrew Huxley Building
>> UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT
>> Tel 020 7679 1599 (int. 31599)
>> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/isd/staff/fiso/ah
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: vip-bounces at icann.org [mailto:vip-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>>Joseph Yee
>> Sent: 26 July 2011 19:31
>> To: Giovanni Seppia
>> Cc: vip at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [vip] Types of variants: do we have consensus?
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Personally I believed that ICANN question (IDN ccTLD or IDN gTLD) and
>>variant issues are two separate issues.  The *sequence of characters*
>>combined together, regardless meaningful or not to community and/or
>>ICANN, still has variance (mileage varies) issues.
>>
>> Claiming semantic as variant is hard, very close to impossible.  If one
>>tried to claim that RED==RUBY==CRIMSON are variant of each semantically,
>>one would expect rejection not just from authority but from large
>>communities as well.
>>
>> And worse, the meaning of string changes over time.
>>
>> One question that I think is interesting to all of us (us as Variant
>>Study Team)
>> What characters are *universally* changeable and/or swappable in each
>>script? and in each language? and under Unicode?
>>
>> Best,
>> Joseph
>>
>>
>> On 2011-07-26, at 11:40 AM, Giovanni Seppia wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> In following up some of the comments circulated so far regarding the
>>>association of meaningfulness to a string, I would like to highlight
>>>that one of the criteria applied by ICANN when submitting a string
>>>application within the ccTLD IDN Fast Track process is "meaningfulness
>>>of the string". ICANN does not approve any string request if this
>>>element is not adequately addressed by the applicant.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Giovanni
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 Jul 2011, at 09:59, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 26.07.11 02:30, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>>>> "Meaning or restatement of string in English. The applicant will
>>>>>provide a
>>>>> short description of what the string would mean or represent in
>>>>>English."
>>>>> Thank you for bringing this requirement to my attention; I somehow
>>>>> missed it in previous readings of the guidebook.  I'm sure you can
>>>>> work out what my (personal) opinion of this requirement is.
>>>>
>>>> I always wished our work to be useful at all levels of DNS, but TLDs
>>>>are definitely supposed to have meaning. So therefore, if we are to
>>>>focus on variants in the context of TLDs (primarily), then we must
>>>>consider the meaning "variants".
>>>>
>>>> Even if we do not consider the "meaning" as a string variant, it will
>>>>surely be considered as such at some other policy level.
>>>>
>>>> If we talk about meaning of the string at any level in DNS, then I
>>>>could justify your opinion -- however the policies at different levels
>>>>are quiet different. On many levels "anything goes".
>>>>
>>>>>> I think it is safe to claim that TLDs do have meaning _associated
>>>>>>to them_
>>>>> Semioticians will tell us that _everything_ has meaning associated to
>>>>> it.  Of course DNS labels have more or less meaning for a given
>>>>> person, and over time a user community might come to converge on a
>>>>> conventional meaning.  On the other hand, I've often heard it said
>>>>> that .org domains are for non-profits.
>>>>
>>>> This I believe was coined during the Bucharest ICANN meeting, where
>>>>the .ORG TLD was subject to bids. RFC1591 says about .ORG:
>>>>
>>>> ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for
>>>> organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non-
>>>> government organizations may fit here.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, would ICANN agree for a gTLD .ОРГ (same phonetics,
>>>>same abbreviated meaning in Bulgarian, at least) to exist separately
>>>>from .ORG? If not, why?
>>>> It is different, because:
>>>> - has different script (Cyrillic)
>>>> - does not have visual similarity (oh yes, 'Г' is equivalent with 'R'
>>>>:)
>>>> - does have different Abstract Characters and produces different
>>>>punnycode.
>>>>
>>>> There are many cases like this, that support the non-character base
>>>>to define variants in DNS.
>>>> Of course, none of these are technical.
>>>> But then, character variants are not technical as well. :)
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Giovanni Seppia
>>> External Relations manager
>>>
>>> EURid
>>> Woluwelaan 150
>>> 1831 Diegem - Belgium
>>> TEL: +32 (0) 2 401 2750
>>> MOB:+39 335 81 41 733
>>> giovanni.seppia at eurid.eu
>>> http://www.eurid.eu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>