Hial. I missed today’s call due to a last-minute conflict, so I am stepping into the discussion without knowing all the context from which it arises. So my apologies in advance. 2Tapani: In my experience of managing secnd-level IDns treatng ASCII and the “corresponding” (sic) versions with diacritics as pseudo-variants, whcih range from 19 years for .cat to 11 years for .barcelona, .swiss, .radio, .sport, .eus, .gal, .madrid, .quebec… I have NEVER seen a situation like the one you describe. I am not saying it is not possible: certainly it is. I am just saying it is exrtremely rare, close to something that would only happen as a test by someone interested in ehcking the limits ;-) Now, let’s keep in mind how efficeint rules should be desinged. Inthis means, most often “rule for the statistically relevant cases; handle rare, extreme cases via compliance”. In other terms, the vast majority of drivers tend to stop with a red light. Yes, even in Naples ;-) What you seem to tell us is that some drivers don’t or jsut may not doso. So… let0s forget traffic lights altogether, as it is possible to burn a red light. Well, good luckwith the results ;-) The point is not that the Same entityu rule *may* have some (statistically irrelevant) holes. The point is that it is clearly the most efficent, and eaiset to enforce, solution to prevent he overwhleming majority of the situations we are trying to prevent which is user confusion. Not all? No, but it also simplifies compliance. As those cases are not jsut accients but cleverly and consxiously built to bypass the rule. Onthe contrary, if we stop at Registrar (Registrar meaning Registrar or Regiistrar + reseller? probably 50% of all domains are handled by resellers…), then you are not facing just some fringe, cleaverly designed cases, but a singnificant amount of “accidents” and non-intentional disparities of registrants for confusingly similar domains. Inthe same entity principle the “same registran” is BY FAR the most relevant part to minimize all the problems we are supposed to deal with. Amadeu
El 9 jul. 2025, a les 18:24, Tapani Tarvainen via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> va escriure:
Hi Michael,
Thank you for the explanation. There is, however, still something I don't understand.
On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 05:35:19PM +0200, Michael Bauland via Gnso-latin-diacritics (gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org) wrote:
[clip]
However, imagine mark.muller is a bad person and tries to impersonate mark.müller. Then it gets interesting.
With the same entity requirement, the domains mark.müller and mark.mueller belong to the same registrant ... company, whatever. They are then responsible to solve and issues with abuse and they easily can, because they own both domains and have a direct customer relationship with both Marks. The company selling those domains further on, would want to make sure, there is no abuse, because legally, they are still responsible for both domains, they have a contract with the registrar. They have a high interest, neither of the two Marks is doing anything bad with their domains.
However, without the same entity principle, mark.müller could get his domain and somebody totally different, using a different registrar, can get mark.muller and pretend to be mark.müller.
That is why I thought it'd be good to have same entity principle down to registrar level, but I don't see it on registrant level.
Even as independent registrants, both Marks would have a relationship with the same registrar, no international law issues &c.
It is not clear to me why this would be worse than having the intermediary between the registrar and the two Marks.
-- Tapani Tarvainen _______________________________________________ Gnso-latin-diacritics mailing list -- gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org