Hi Tapani. Well, I see what you mean, but I really don’t get the point here. Or rahter, I disagree with your solution even in tht concrete case. Sure, in most, if not all, languages diacritics have the functin to affect pronoounciation, meaning or jsut, sometimes, to distinguish 2 or more otherwise idential words with tidfferent meaning. In my language, Catalan, “net” means “clean” and “nét” means “granchild”. And I could provide some hundreds of other eamples, as most people in this lsit. But this does not mean that .net and .nñet could or should coexist as TLDs. Because one thing is grammatical and orthographical rules, another one, linguistic knoledge and a third one perceptions of ngneral user confusion for those things. OK, you might argue that Toop level and second-level are not exactly the same. I would partially agree and partially disagree. And you can provide as many examples as the .fi ones: yes, in many tLDs, certainly (IMHO: thankfully, but that’s me) not all, second level registrations of ascii and ascii + diacritics are allowed. And wait, even of variants, in certain cctLDs. But this does not invalidate the purpsoe of our WG which is rather limited. Taking your suggested examples, and hoping I got the spelling for some of them correct: The point we are discussing is not whehter sakki.tld and säkki.tld may coexist with different Registrants. Our point is specifcally if, say, an applicant for BOTH .sakki and .säkki could then allow sakki.sakki and säkki.sakki to be registred by different Regitrants, and pleas. add the 2 options I have ommitted to make my point here complete. We cannot simply provide a grammar as the Registration rules. We cannot not say that the policy will depend on the meaning in. a given language, or the prononciation, of a given word. We need to address the issue from the DNS perspective and deal with characters, with codepoints NOT words, not meaning, not prononciation. And above all, we need to bear in mind that the goal is to avoid user, general user, confusion. Not to have some marginal cases addressed at all cost. But even with a possible exception process, how could any such Registry make a sound, general policy, defining in which cases such concurrent uses could be allowed and in whcih should not? Would it be acceptable to jsut say “1. I will apply different, contradictory rules for same labels and codepoints at the top and second level and 2. I will make a decision at the second level for each individual domain”? OK, let’s not rule this out, but let’s not make this the rule, please. As I’ve said, the same way a TLD may change from Brand to ordinary, or from Exclusiive-USe to Brand, or from Community to anything else, at least in principle, even if some of these changes would be easy and some near-impossible depending on what the TLD has been doing in the past, we can, and should, accept that a Registry could ask for such a special deal in their IDn tables and Registry services in Exhibit A of the Agreement…. but I strongly oppose that this is sent as a registry choice directly to the String evaluation Panel during String Evaluation. Best regards. A
Missatge enviat per Tapani Tarvainen via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> el dia 27 maig 2026 a les 18:11:
Dear all,
I'm not going to object hard to the 2nd level same entity principle, but I wanted to give an example where it might not be ideal.
There are languages where some words have the same meaning with or without diacritics while others do not.
In Finnish "sekki" and "šekki" are the same word, just two different pronunciations of it, both considered acceptable today. On the other hand "sakki", "šakki" and "säkki" are three completely distinct words with very different meanings, and sakki.fi, šakki.fi and säkki.fi actually belong to different registrants.
There are also lots of cases where some name's correct spelling has diacritics but where omitting them doesn't cause confusion and has been common just because they've not been available in domain names, just like in Québec and .quebec.
For example, my home town is Jyväskylä. Omitting the diacritics results in something unpronounceable which means nothing but everybody knows it should be Jyväskylä, and both jyvaskyla.fi and jyväskylä.fi work (and lead to the same place).
If the town were to get .jyvaskyla and .jyväskylä, it would make sense to allow sakki.jyvaskyla, šakki.jyvaskyla and säkki.jyvaskyla to belong to different registrants, while insisting that šakki.jyvaskyla and šakki.jyväskylä belong to the same registrant, ditto with säkki and sakki.
I concede that this is a rather marginal case, but I would like to have at least some kind of exception process to make it possible.
-- Tapani Tarvainen _______________________________________________ Gnso-latin-diacritics mailing list -- gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org