- Gnso-latin-diacritics - lists.icann.org

Notes and Action Items from LD PDP Meeting #2
by Saewon Lee April 3, 2025

April 3, 2025

Dear WG Members, Please see the following high-level notes, outcomes, and action items from the LD PDP WG Meeting #2<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/17602969…> on 2 April 2025. Kind regards, Saewon Notes, Outcomes, and Action Items from LD PDP WG Meeting #2<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/17602969…> on Wednesday, 2 April 2025. [OUTCOME] 1. Agreement to define Latin Script Diacritics per Unicode (Established since Meeting #1<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/12215910…>). 2. Agreement that this PDP WG should examine the diacritics that are similar but should not define what similarity means or change the existing String Similarity Review process; This WG will use the outcomes of the String Similarity Review Panel and if found to be confusingly similar, the recommendations from this PDP will become effective. 3. Agreement to allow for multiple diacritic cases (multiple diacritics in the same letter as well as multiple [3 or more with no upper limits] diacritic versions of TLDs at the same time) within scope while also not restricting the cases to certain TLD types such as real words or to geographic or brand, bearing in mind the process flow. 4. Agreement to limit the scope to same entity operating the ASCII/diacritic versions while not limiting it to only applied-for IDNs strings of existing ASCII gTLDs; also accepting new gTLD applications. [ACTION ITEMS] 1. Leadership/Staff to present a list of Unicode Tables, compiling all the cases that are within scope. 2. WG to consider the existing body of work to be consistent in the use of terminologies, while also being mindful of the existing policies and the process flow (e.g., Suggestion to refer to AGB language on similarity<https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-development/agb-string-similarity…> and the Applicant Journey<https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-development/applicant-journey-rel…>) 3. Leadership/Staff to invite an ICANN org expert on String Similarity Review process (Sarmad Hussain?) to share the details and criteria of String Similarity Review with the WG. [NOTES] * Download slides and background docs discussed during meeting (Unicode Tables, AGB on String Similarity Review and Applicant Journey) from here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/17602969… 1. Welcome and SOIs N/A 1. Summary of First Meeting * Reminder that the Early Input Request message has been sent to each SO/AC/SG/C Leadership. * Proposed Project Plan has been submitted to GNSO Council (28 March) and Prudence Malinki, the GNSO Council Liaison to the PDP WG, will be providing an overview of the Plan to the Council during the April Council Meeting. 1. Established Scope to Date * When determining what is within scope (with diacritic), the following Unicode Tables can be referred to – A Unicode Character can be decomposed into a base character and a diacritic: https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0000.pdf https://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0080.pdf * Questions on whether cases with multiple diacritics in the same letter (e.g., diệp) and/or multiple (3 or more) diacritic versions of TLDs (e.g., stop, stóp, stòp) at the same time would be allowed/within scope: Members agreed that allowing all these cases should not be a problem. * A suggestion was made to gather the Unicode Tables to be used for this PDP: Noted that a list could be compiled. However, whether to provide general principles vs. a full list of diacritics, it was noted that presenting a general rule of Unicode may be best with the list provided for convenience; though if listed in full, it must be made clear that the list is not fixed/restricted but rather current examples that may be adjusted if the LGR version were to be adjusted. 1. Scope Management and Discussion: Similarity * Agreement that terms should be consistent throughout this work per the existing body of work (e.g., “similarity”, “user confusion” rather than “visual similarity”) and the correct understanding/definition of “similarity” is necessary. A suggestion was made for WG to refer to the AGB language to align definition of similarity: https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-development/agb-string-similarity… * Agreement that this PDP WG should examine the diacritics that are similar but should not define what similarity means or change the existing String Similarity Review process; This WG will use the outcomes of the String Similarity Review Panel and if found to be confusingly similar, the recommendations from this PDP will become effective. * Question on whether this PDP could propose a rule saying that the registry should only allocate same second level domain to both ASCII and diacritic TLD: Noted that this PDP would follow the rules set forth in the EPDP-IDNs as that PDP has already made sure that even though variant TLDs are confusingly similar, the registries operating them will have rules that make it unlikely. * A suggestion was raised to share more information on variant rules compared to the String Similarity Review process: Noted that it may be ideal to invite an ICANN org expert on String Similarity Process (Sarmad Hussain?) to share the criteria and details of String Similarity Review with the WG. 1. Charter Question 1 * A suggestion was made that the focus should be on preventing user confusion (and not only about allowing applicants to move forward) and from this perspective that the multiple TLDs should follow a same entity (same registrant, same registrar, same registry) rule: Noted that the same entity principle is also a part of the EPDP-IDNs solution for variants (second-level) and with the goal to avoid user confusion, the same entity principle will be applicable for this PDP (TLD level) with a possibility for this WG to explicitly determine the same entity concept within its policy recommendation. Either way, WG should be mindful of existing policies. * Question on the meaning of “workaround” for existing ASCII gTLDs instead of the proper IDN string (and vice versa): Noted that there is no need for this WG to define ”workaround” anymore as the characters will be defined via Unicode. * Agreement on allowing for multiple diacritic cases while not restricting to certain TLD types such as real words or to geographic or brand, bearing in mind the process flow (reminder of the process flow where the String Similarity Review comes first during application process; Refer to Applicant journey: https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-development/applicant-journey-rel…. Also, the WG agreed to not have an upper limit in the diacritics. * Agreement to limit the scope to same entity operating the ASCII/diacritic versions while not limiting the scope to only applied-for IDNs strings of existing ASCII gTLDs; also accepting new gTLD applications. 1. Next Steps/AOB * Leadership/Staff to present a list of Unicode Tables, compiling all the cases that are within scope. * WG to consider the existing body of work to be consistent in the use of terminologies, while also being mindful of the existing policies and the process flow (e.g., Suggestion to refer to AGB language on similarity<https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-development/agb-string-similarity…> and the Applicant Journey<https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-development/applicant-journey-rel…>) * Leadership/Staff to invite an ICANN org expert on String Similarity Review process (Sarmad Hussain?) to share the details and criteria of String Similarity Review with the WG.

1 0

Post Call | Latin Script Diacritics PDP | Wednesday, 02 April 2025
by Devan Reed April 2, 2025

April 2, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 13:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB_Cg?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiYjIyM…> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar<https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2025>. These include: * Attendance * Audio recording * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, and chat.) * Transcript * Agenda and Notes/Action Items For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives<https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org/> and the main wiki page<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/EwDVBg?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiMWI2M…>. Thank you. With kind regards, Devan

1 0

[LD PDP WG] Proposed Agenda for Meeting #2
by Saewon Lee April 2, 2025

April 2, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find the proposed agenda for Meeting #2 on Wednesday, 2 April 2025: 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Summary of First Meeting 3. Established Scope to Date 4. Scope Management and Discussion: Similarity 5. Charter Question 1 6. Next Steps/AOB Sincere apologies for the delay and see you all soon. Kind regards, Saewon Saewon Lee Policy Development Support Manager for GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (310) 463-5541 Email: saewon.lee(a)icann.org<mailto:saewon.lee@icann.org> Skype: saewon.lee.icann Website: www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

1 0

Notes and Action Items from LD PDP Meeting #1
by Steve Chan March 28, 2025

March 28, 2025

Dear WG Members, Please find the high-level notes, outcomes, and action items from the LD PDP meeting #1<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/12215910…> on 26 March 2025. Best, Steve ACTION ITEMS: * None NOTES: Welcome & SOIs * None Updates Since ICANN82 * Request for (voluntary) input shared with SO/AC/SG/Cs Scope Management and Discussion * Reviewed variants sets to help clarify what is NOT in scope for this PDP. * Question of whether this WG’s scope of work includes things like æ, ŋ, þ, ß &c. Noted that strictly speaking, no. Reviewed Unicode table to demonstrate when code points are combinable (i.e.,, an ASCII code point and a diacritic) or not. Do not necessarily need to review the table – it can serve as an input/reference to this WG’s potential recommendations. * Question about strict interpretation of Unicode – was it intended by the Council? Recommendation to adhere to the boundaries, established by Unicode. Outcome: Tentative agreement to adhere to Charter and define Latin Script Diacritics per Unicode. Outcome: Helpful also to include discussion and conclusions of what was determined to be out of scope and potentially, but perhaps as well, how the rules can be extended (e.g., through a separate process). * Suggestion that it might not limiting to establish a specific list of allowable characters and instead, flexibility can potentially be gained by relying on rules that strings must adhere to. * Some questions raised about cases that that might exist outside of the Latin repertoire. Agreement to explore further how this might be accommodated, or not, given the limited scope of this PDP. * Question raised about possibility of having ASCII/diacritic pairs being operated by separate entities. Noted that the charter envisions a single registry operator, to avoid the potential for user confusion. * Question raised about the possibility of trying to prevent the application for the corresponding ASCII or diacritic version from a third party. Noted that the string similarity process in the New gTLD Program should prevent this outcome, with an objection mechanism also present to help mitigate the concern. * Question about whether the string similarity panel only looks at pair-wise comparisons between codepoints, or it looks at the full gTLD. Clarified that the panel will have the pair-wise comparisons as an input to their evaluation, but will analyze the complete strings in determining whether there is string confusion or not. In other words, the panel will evaluate strings, not characters. Next Steps: * Work plan will be submitted to Council. * Members are encouraged to review relevant materials (RZ-LGR for the Latin Script and relevant parts of the ccTLD Fast Track process). * Question about a small Phase 1 process, which could potentially allow for the application of ASCII/diacritic gTLD strings, which would await completion of Phase 2 of this PDP. Performed some initial analysis that demonstrates that the timeline is too lengthy to align with the AGB. However, still evaluating whether there might be another way to add language to the AGB. AOB * Suggestion that as a way to narrow this PDP, may want to focus on .Brands and city names (or more generally, proper nouns), but perhaps to separate out generic strings. Noted that this is a matter for deliberations for this PDP (e.g., considering whether the criteria for allowable ASCII/diacritic pairs should be further narrowed). Some concern noted that the sequencing of the Next Round would make this sort of differentiation, by application type, difficult to implement. Steven Chan  VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Email: steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

3 2

Scope: only two strings?
by Tapani Tarvainen March 26, 2025

March 26, 2025

Dear all, Many questions about our scope were made clear in the call, but not all. Notably, the limitation to a maximum of two strings was implied (see slide 21) but not explicitly decided as far as I could tell. It sounds like a strange limitation to me, given that there are cases where more than two words, even proper names, differ only in having different diacritics. My earlier examples included ø which was declared out of scope, but there're similar cases with "real" diacritics, e.g., Sjoberg, Sjöberg and Sjóberg. Can we consider cases where someone applies for three or more such at the same time, or where one already has two of them and applies for a third one &c? -- Tapani Tarvainen

5 6

Post Call | Latin Script Diacritics PDP | Wednesday, 26 March 2025
by Devan Reed March 26, 2025

March 26, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 26 March 2025 at 13:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQBIBw?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiMTVhY…> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar<https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2025>. These include: * Attendance * Audio recording * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, and chat.) * Transcript * Agenda and Notes/Action Items For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives<https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org/> and the main wiki page<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/EwDVBg?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiMWI2M…>. Thank you. With kind regards, Devan

1 0

Scope issues
by Tapani Tarvainen March 26, 2025

March 26, 2025

Dear all, In preparation for our next call, I wrote down a few issues I'd like to clarify about our scope: (1) We use the term "diacritics" differently than linguists do. If I understand correctly, we're including all non-ASCII characters that various Latin-based alphabets use, such as æ, ŋ, ß, ð, þ etc. (2) The base ASCII gTLD version of a diacritic is for us by definition a single ASCII letter with the sole exception of German ß. Other cases where the conventional ASCII conversion is two or more letters are not treated similarly (as per RZ-LGR). Presumably we could, however, take the existence of such as a factor in our recommendations. E.g., to pick an example from Finnish, consider ".šakki" vs ".sakki", should the existence of ".shakki" matter? (Both "šakki" and "sakki" are Finnish words with completely unrelated meanings, while "shakki" is an alternative spelling of "šakki" - not a computer-era fallback, but actually older and still more common spelling even though deprecated by modern ortography.) Or consider "æ", which also looks obviously similar to "ae". (3) Our first question talks about "a base ASCII gTLD and *the* Latin script diacritic version", in singular. It seems pretty clear to me, however, that we should also consider cases with multiple diacritic versions of the same ASCII letter, like the "sjö" / "sjø" case I brought up earlier. -- Tapani Tarvainen

7 16

Re: Proposed Agenda for Meeting #1
by Saewon Lee March 24, 2025

March 24, 2025

Dear All, It seems like the wiki link I shared with you below (Background Docs.) got broken along the way. Sharing it with you all again just in case: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/11462345… Best regards, Saewon On 3/24/25, 10:48 PM, "Saewon Lee via Gnso-latin-diacritics" <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org>> wrote: Dear LD PDP WG, Please find the proposed agenda for Meeting #1: 1. Welcome and SOIs (3mins) 2. Updates Since ICANN82 (2mins) 3. Scope Management and Discussion (75mins) 4. Next Steps (5mins) 5. AOB (5mins) As we prepare for Meeting #1, please review the Latin RZ-LGR doc. again. This document as well as other relevant documents to support the WG can be found on wiki here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spac… <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spac…>.*Background*Documents__;Kys!!PtGJab4!_QyQZTs_fUnb_dkVjZ-rcgwr2aHwLPooYV967x0ZdymThAL1Noi2FOvPjG6U4LGjgqTz0yOhH8Zy-ooV4e5fPQeCRLh_Co5pSA$ [icann-community[.]atlassian[.]net] Today, you would have also received meeting invites for the next month. Please let us know through the mailing list if you were unable to receive them. Tapani and Amadeu: Thank you for initiating the scope discussions again. The points you made provided lots of food for thought for Leadership-Staff while preparing for the next meeting. As we do a deep dive into the scope, the points you have raised will be discussed upon/responded to during the meeting through the understanding of the Charter, RZ-LGR Table for Latin Script, Unicode characters, and the String Similarity Review concerns. Looking forward to seeing you all! Best regards, Saewon Saewon Lee Policy Development Support Manager for GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (310) 463-5541 Email: saewon.lee(a)icann.org <mailto:saewon.lee@icann.org> <mailto:saewon.lee@icann.org <mailto:saewon.lee@icann.org>> Skype: saewon.lee.icann Website: http://www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org> <http://www.icann.org> <http://www.icann.org>> On 3/24/25, 6:16 PM, "Amadeu Abril i Abril (CORE) via Gnso-latin-diacritics" <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org>>> wrote: Hello all. I would say “yes” to both your questions. As I explained in previous mail exchanges, we should not base our decisions and distinctions in linguistic, semantic, morphological or otrhographic criteria. TLDs may be grammaticaly incorrect, or mean jut nothing in no language. And indeed, what is a diacritic varies from context to context. In linguistic terms, it also varies historically: w was,and still is in some lalnguages, a variant, a diacritic version, of v. And u and v were just variants of the same character, as G amc C…. The point is not whehter they are considered proper charactars in a given alphabet or a modification/diacritic of another character. The point, for us, is that a set of the Latin charactr repoertoire iknon as ASCII does NOT require specicalencoding inthe DNS. While allthe rest does require althe IDN/punycode encoding. So when we say ASCII and diacrtitics we mean ASCII and non-ASCII (if they are similar enough to raise issues under the String Evaluation test which is a requirement for new gTLDs). And indeed there may be more than one “similar” IDN/non-ASCII/string with diacritics which falls ntothe “too similar to be allowed” scenario, so the solution(s) we are toduscuss mayapply to more than 2 TLDs strings at once. Even if unlikely for practical (including financial) reasons. Regards. AAA > El 24 març 2025, a les 15:14, Tapani Tarvainen via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org>>> va escriure: > > Dear all, > > In preparation for our next call, I wrote down a few issues > I'd like to clarify about our scope: > > (1) We use the term "diacritics" differently than linguists do. > If I understand correctly, we're including all non-ASCII characters > that various Latin-based alphabets use, such as æ, ŋ, ß, ð, þ etc. > > (2) The base ASCII gTLD version of a diacritic is for us by definition > a single ASCII letter with the sole exception of German ß. Other cases > where the conventional ASCII conversion is two or more letters are not > treated similarly (as per RZ-LGR). Presumably we could, however, take > the existence of such as a factor in our recommendations. > > E.g., to pick an example from Finnish, consider ".šakki" vs ".sakki", > should the existence of ".shakki" matter? (Both "šakki" and "sakki" > are Finnish words with completely unrelated meanings, while "shakki" is > an alternative spelling of "šakki" - not a computer-era fallback, but > actually older and still more common spelling even though deprecated > by modern ortography.) > > Or consider "æ", which also looks obviously similar to "ae". > > (3) Our first question talks about "a base ASCII gTLD and *the* Latin > script diacritic version", in singular. It seems pretty clear to me, > however, that we should also consider cases with multiple diacritic > versions of the same ASCII letter, like the "sjö" / "sjø" case I > brought up earlier. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-latin-diacritics mailing list -- gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org>> > To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-latin-diacritics-leave(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org>> _______________________________________________ Gnso-latin-diacritics mailing list -- gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org>> To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-latin-diacritics-leave(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org>> _______________________________________________ Gnso-latin-diacritics mailing list -- gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-latin-diacritics-leave(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org>

2 1

Proposed Agenda for Meeting #1
by Saewon Lee March 24, 2025

March 24, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find the proposed agenda for Meeting #1: 1. Welcome and SOIs (3mins) 2. Updates Since ICANN82 (2mins) 3. Scope Management and Discussion (75mins) 4. Next Steps (5mins) 5. AOB (5mins) As we prepare for Meeting #1, please review the Latin RZ-LGR doc. again. This document as well as other relevant documents to support the WG can be found on wiki here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/11462345… Today, you would have also received meeting invites for the next month. Please let us know through the mailing list if you were unable to receive them. Tapani and Amadeu: Thank you for initiating the scope discussions again. The points you made provided lots of food for thought for Leadership-Staff while preparing for the next meeting. As we do a deep dive into the scope, the points you have raised will be discussed upon/responded to during the meeting through the understanding of the Charter, RZ-LGR Table for Latin Script, Unicode characters, and the String Similarity Review concerns. Looking forward to seeing you all! Best regards, Saewon Saewon Lee Policy Development Support Manager for GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (310) 463-5541 Email: saewon.lee(a)icann.org <mailto:saewon.lee@icann.org> Skype: saewon.lee.icann Website: www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org> On 3/24/25, 6:16 PM, "Amadeu Abril i Abril (CORE) via Gnso-latin-diacritics" <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org>> wrote: Hello all. I would say “yes” to both your questions. As I explained in previous mail exchanges, we should not base our decisions and distinctions in linguistic, semantic, morphological or otrhographic criteria. TLDs may be grammaticaly incorrect, or mean jut nothing in no language. And indeed, what is a diacritic varies from context to context. In linguistic terms, it also varies historically: w was,and still is in some lalnguages, a variant, a diacritic version, of v. And u and v were just variants of the same character, as G amc C…. The point is not whehter they are considered proper charactars in a given alphabet or a modification/diacritic of another character. The point, for us, is that a set of the Latin charactr repoertoire iknon as ASCII does NOT require specicalencoding inthe DNS. While allthe rest does require althe IDN/punycode encoding. So when we say ASCII and diacrtitics we mean ASCII and non-ASCII (if they are similar enough to raise issues under the String Evaluation test which is a requirement for new gTLDs). And indeed there may be more than one “similar” IDN/non-ASCII/string with diacritics which falls ntothe “too similar to be allowed” scenario, so the solution(s) we are toduscuss mayapply to more than 2 TLDs strings at once. Even if unlikely for practical (including financial) reasons. Regards. AAA > El 24 març 2025, a les 15:14, Tapani Tarvainen via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org>> va escriure: > > Dear all, > > In preparation for our next call, I wrote down a few issues > I'd like to clarify about our scope: > > (1) We use the term "diacritics" differently than linguists do. > If I understand correctly, we're including all non-ASCII characters > that various Latin-based alphabets use, such as æ, ŋ, ß, ð, þ etc. > > (2) The base ASCII gTLD version of a diacritic is for us by definition > a single ASCII letter with the sole exception of German ß. Other cases > where the conventional ASCII conversion is two or more letters are not > treated similarly (as per RZ-LGR). Presumably we could, however, take > the existence of such as a factor in our recommendations. > > E.g., to pick an example from Finnish, consider ".šakki" vs ".sakki", > should the existence of ".shakki" matter? (Both "šakki" and "sakki" > are Finnish words with completely unrelated meanings, while "shakki" is > an alternative spelling of "šakki" - not a computer-era fallback, but > actually older and still more common spelling even though deprecated > by modern ortography.) > > Or consider "æ", which also looks obviously similar to "ae". > > (3) Our first question talks about "a base ASCII gTLD and *the* Latin > script diacritic version", in singular. It seems pretty clear to me, > however, that we should also consider cases with multiple diacritic > versions of the same ASCII letter, like the "sjö" / "sjø" case I > brought up earlier. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-latin-diacritics mailing list -- gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> > To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-latin-diacritics-leave(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ Gnso-latin-diacritics mailing list -- gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-latin-diacritics-leave(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org>

1 0

About yesterday's meeting
by Sergio Salinas Porto March 13, 2025

March 13, 2025

*Español y abajo Ingles* Queridos amigos, el día de ayer concurrí a la reunión de nuestro grupo de trabajo, realmente estoy muy feliz de poder trabajar con ustedes y avanzar en algo que para los latinoamericanos es de suma importancia como son los caracteres diacríticos, que utilizamos a diario en nuestra comunicación verbal y escrita aquellos que estamos atravesados por la cultura latina. Lamentablemente me tuve que retirar al darme cuenta que no estaba previsto en una reunion a tratar temas concernientes al idioma latino (Castellano, Francés y Portugués en principio), interpretación para las personas que provenimos de paises de justamente esas lenguas. ICANN, ha hecho y hace por cierto un gran esfuerzo por ser una organización inclusiva y sensible de que todos aquellos que provenimos de otras culturas, para que podamos participar y comunicarnos, y es por eso que ha previsto un cuerpo de interpretes para que TODOS podamos participar. El 26 de Marzo tenemos nuestra reunión por Zoom, creo que es necesario que tengamos interpretación en la reunion, y que asumamos que en una organización con anclaje internacional, debemos ser inclusivos, prever sumar a aquellos que trabajan y no hablan el idioma ingles y que tienen mucho para aportar al trabajo cotidiano de ICANN. Espero que podamos avanzar en ese sentido de forma positiva. Saludos cordiales! *Ingles* Dear friends, Yesterday I attended the meeting of our working group. I am really happy to be able to work with you and move forward on something that is of utmost importance to Latin Americans, such as diacritical characters, which we use daily in our verbal and written communication, those of us who are influenced by Latin culture. Unfortunately, I had to leave when I realized that there was no meeting scheduled to discuss issues concerning the Latin language (Spanish, French and Portuguese in principle), or interpretation for people who come from countries with precisely those languages. ICANN has made and continues to make a great effort to be an inclusive and sensitive organization for all of us who come from other cultures, so that we can participate and communicate, and that is why it has provided a body of interpreters so that ALL of us can participate. On March 26th we have our meeting via Zoom. I think it is necessary to have interpretation at the meeting, and to assume that in an organization with international anchorage, we must be inclusive, planning to include those who work and do not speak English and who have a lot to contribute to the daily work of ICANN. I hope we can move forward in that direction in a positive way. Best regards! *Sergio Salinas Porto**Presidente Internauta Argentina - LACRALO/ICANN <https://atlarge.icann.org/ralos/lacralo>**Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.internauta.org.ar/>/FeTIA <http://www.fetia.org.ar/>**FUILAC- Federación de Usuarios de Internet de LAC <https://fuilac.org>**facebook: salinasporto <http://www.facebook.com/salinasporto> **twitter: sergiosalinas <http://twitter.com/sergiosalinas>**Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819**"Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que humillan nuestra * * conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" Eduardo Galeano*

2 1