Hi Bill, My concern here comes from two sources: First, the charter talks about "a base ASCII gTLD and *the* Latin script diacritic version", in singular. It looks like nobody considered the possibility of multiple diacritic versions. Second, looking at today's slide 21, it says that "This may mean that [...] the solution would be limited to a maximum of two strings." That's "may", so perhaps not, but I think we should clarify that. The language in the charter is ambiguous enough that I think we can decide this without asking the council, but if we do it's probably an easy decision for them. Tapani On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 03:37:47PM +0000, Bill Jouris via Gnso-latin-diacritics (gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org) wrote:
Hi Tapani, I don't recall anything in our charter which would limit us to pairs. But if there is, it seems like something we should ask the GNSO Council to change. Because, as you say, it seems an artificial and counterproductive limitation. Bill Jouris
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 8:10 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via Gnso-latin-diacritics<gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> wrote: 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