October 2020 - Latingp - lists.icann.org

Canceled: Latin GP Call Thursdays 16:00UTC
by Pitinan Kooarmornpatana Oct. 29, 2020

Oct. 29, 2020

Dear Latin GP members, There were less than five members on the call, and the members agreed to cancel the meeting. Regards, Pitinan

2 1

Latin GP Call Thursdays 16:00UTC
by Pitinan Kooarmornpatana Oct. 29, 2020

Oct. 29, 2020

Dear Latin GP members, This is a gentle reminder  for the Latin GP meeting on Thursday 29 Oct 2020 16:00UTC, starting now. Kindly join the meeting at https://icann.zoom.us/j/98435828760 Meeting ID: 984 3582 8760 Password: 1F$^iEkt$# Agenda for the Latin GP Call  20 October 2020   1. During test data production Bill found the following: â€žIn the course of this, I came across the Serer language (ISO 639-3 srr).  It isn't in our list of languages included, but it is EGIDS 5 and has roughly 1.2 million native speakers so it would appear to fit our criteria.  Also the Kpelle language (ISO 639-3 kpe), which is also EGIDS 5 and has about 1.4 million native speakers.  Adding Serer would entail adding 3 code points for Serer to the repertoire:  U 0188  Small Letter C with Hook  Ćˆ  U 01A5  Small Letter P with Hook  ĆĽ   U 01AD  Small Letter T with Hook  Ć    For Kpelle we would also need to add:  U 0260  Small Letter G with Hook  É     We might pick up a couple of Variants as well.  For example, a P with Hook (ĆĽ) resembles a Thorn (Ăž) far more than a P alone does. â€œ 2. Code points like â€œsâ€ť and â€œŕ´Ÿâ€ť (U+0D1F) Malayalam letter 3. Test data production https://1drv.ms/t/s!AoE6DtesaqpIhCxEk8eVroNWMgZg?e=ttsQrn [1drv.ms]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/1drv.ms/t/s!AoE6DtesaqpIhCxEk8eVroNWMgZg…> 4. Appendix C reordering of letters, Billâ€™s proposal e-mail  on 23.7 2020 5. Capital Letters Discussion, Mats sent an e-mail on 23.7 2020 6. Review of the Appendix E: Confusable. Regards, Pitinan

1 0

I cannot chair today call, please try without me
by Mirjana Tasić Oct. 29, 2020

Oct. 29, 2020

Dear GP members, I cannot chair today call, please try without me. Pitinan will make an agenda, trying to continue where we stopped before few weeks. I hope, next call I shall be with you. Regards Mirjana

1 0

Latin GP Call Thursdays 16:00UTC
by Pitinan Kooarmornpatana Oct. 28, 2020

Oct. 28, 2020

Dear Latin GP members, This is a gentle reminder  for the Latin GP meeting on Thursday 29 Oct 2020 16:00UTC. Kindly join the meeting at https://icann.zoom.us/j/98435828760 Meeting ID: 984 3582 8760 Password: 1F$^iEkt$# Agenda for the Latin GP Call  20 October 2020   1. During test data production Bill found the following: â€žIn the course of this, I came across the Serer language (ISO 639-3 srr).  It isn't in our list of languages included, but it is EGIDS 5 and has roughly 1.2 million native speakers so it would appear to fit our criteria.  Also the Kpelle language (ISO 639-3 kpe), which is also EGIDS 5 and has about 1.4 million native speakers.  Adding Serer would entail adding 3 code points for Serer to the repertoire:  U 0188  Small Letter C with Hook  Ćˆ  U 01A5  Small Letter P with Hook  ĆĽ   U 01AD  Small Letter T with Hook  Ć    For Kpelle we would also need to add:  U 0260  Small Letter G with Hook  É     We might pick up a couple of Variants as well.  For example, a P with Hook (ĆĽ) resembles a Thorn (Ăž) far more than a P alone does. â€œ 2. Code points like â€œsâ€ť and â€œŕ´Ÿâ€ť (U+0D1F) Malayalam letter 3. Test data production https://1drv.ms/t/s!AoE6DtesaqpIhCxEk8eVroNWMgZg?e=ttsQrn [1drv.ms]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/1drv.ms/t/s!AoE6DtesaqpIhCxEk8eVroNWMgZg…> 4. Appendix C reordering of letters, Billâ€™s proposal e-mail  on 23.7 2020 5. Capital Letters Discussion, Mats sent an e-mail on 23.7 2020 6. Review of the Appendix E: Confusable. Regards, Pitinan

1 0

FW: Lain LGR package version 5
by Pitinan Kooarmornpatana Oct. 28, 2020

Oct. 28, 2020

Dear Latin GP members, Thank you for your great effort to finalize version 5 of Latin script LGR. The following files as shared on 23 October 2020 are being shared with the IP with a note that the Append E is still a work in progress. We will let you know the IP feedback as soon as it becomes available. List of files in LGR version 5 package: 1. 00-proposal-latin-lgr-v5.docx 2. proposal-lgr-latin20201023.xml 3. proposal-lgr-latin20201023.html 4. Appendix A - Updated MSR during Latin GP work.docx 5. Appendix B - Table of Languages Used to Develop Latin Script Repertoire.docx 6. Appendix C - Repertoire Table Grouped by Glyph.docx 7. Appendix D - Variants Analysis.docx 8. Appendix D.1 - Shape of Base Characters.docx 9. Appendix D.2 - Spacing of Base Characters.docx 10. Appendix D.3 - Shape of Diacritics.docx 11. Appendix D.4 - Stacking of Diacritics.docx 12. Appendix D.5 - IDNA 2003 Compatibility.docx 13. Appendix D.6 - Underlining Evaluation Process.docx 14. Appendix D.7 - Generic Glyphs.docx 15. Appendix D.8 - Caron Above.docx 16. Appendix D.9 - Cross-script Variants.docx 17. Appendix E - Confusables.docx (as-is) Regards, Pitinan From: Latingp <latingp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org> Date: Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 3:55 AM To: "latingp(a)icann.org" <latingp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Latingp] Lain LGR package version 5 Dear Latin GP members, Please find attached the Latin script LGR package version 5 dated 23 Oct 2020. List of LGR version 5 package attachments: 1. 00-proposal-latin-lgr-v5.docx 2. proposal-lgr-latin20201023.xml 3. proposal-lgr-latin20201023.html 4. Appendix A - Updated MSR during Latin GP work.docx 5. Appendix B - Table of Languages Used to Develop Latin Script Repertoire.docx 6. Appendix C - Repertoire Table Grouped by Glyph.docx 7. Appendix D - Variants Analysis.docx 8. Appendix D.1 - Shape of Base Characters.docx 9. Appendix D.2 - Spacing of Base Characters.docx 10. Appendix D.3 - Shape of Diacritics.docx 11. Appendix D.4 - Stacking of Diacritics.docx 12. Appendix D.5 - IDNA 2003 Compatibility.docx 13. Appendix D.6 - Underlining Evaluation Process.docx 14. Appendix D.7 - Generic Glyphs.docx 15. Appendix D.8 - Caron Above.docx 16. Appendix D.9 - Cross-script Variants.docx List of additional information attachments: ## Final Call Comments ## 1. 00-proposal-latin-lgr-v5-with-final-call-comments.docx 2. Appendix D.3 - Shape of Diacritics-with-final-call-comments.docx 3. Appendix D.5 - IDNA 2003 Compatibility-with-final-call-comments.docx ## Pending Decision ## 4. Appendix E - Confusables.docx (as-is) ## Analysis Data ## 5. Latin Script LGR - Armenian Cross-script Analysis (23 Oct 2020).xlsx (Appeared in D.9.3) 6. Latin Script LGR - Cyrillic Cross-script Analysis (23 Oct 2020).xlsx (Appeared in D.9.4) 7. Latin Script LGR - Greek Cross-script Analysis (23 Oct 2020).xlsx (Appeared in D.9.5) 8. Underlining Analysis.xlsx (Appeared in D.6) 9. Visual Variants - Diacritics 20200827.xlsx (Appeared in D.3.13) Kindly let us know if the List of LGR version 5 package could be sent to the IP for review. Regards, Pitinan From: Latingp <latingp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 1:09 AM To: "latingp(a)icann.org" <latingp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Latingp] Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5 Dear Latin GP members, Thank you for your feedback on the set of documents for LGR version 5 in OneDrive. Now the final call for comments on the document is closed. Please do not put any further comments on the online document but share any further feedback, if any, over the email. Where the comments do not affect the normative part, I’m going ahead and incorporate them. I’m working on both the main document and appendices, which might take a couple of days. The final LGR version 5 package will be shared with the GP within this week for a final look before submitting to the IP. Regards, Pitinan From: Latingp <latingp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, October 12, 2020 at 5:26 AM To: "latingp(a)icann.org" <latingp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Latingp] Finally Call: Lain LGR package version 5 Dear Latin GP members, The XML and its equivalent HTML are already uploaded to One Drive for your review. (https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AkZhpDj508j%2DWW4&id=48AA6AACD70E3A81… [onedrive.live.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/onedrive.live.com/?authkey=*21AkZhpDj508…>) Kindly review and let us know any feedback by 19 October 2020, 12-Noon UTC. Regards, Pitinan From: Latingp <latingp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org> Date: Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 6:02 AM To: "latingp(a)icann.org" <latingp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Latingp] Finally Call: Lain LGR package version 5 Dear Latin GP members, The Latin script LGR proposal and relevant appendices has been updated as per the GP conclusions made during the meetings up to 8 October 2020. Please review the files at the Latin GP One Drive, Reviewing Version folder (https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AkZhpDj508j%2DWW4&id=48AA6AACD70E3A81… [onedrive.live.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/onedrive.live.com/?authkey=*21AkZhpDj508…>) and provide your feedback by 19 October 2020, 12:00 noon UTC. If there is no request to hold the submission e.g. change in the normative part. The package will send the IP on 20 October 2020. It will be version 5. Please note that the XML file will be available over the weekend. Regards, Pitinan

1 0

Re: [Latingp] Voting: Lain LGR package version 5 - about Confusables
by Pitinan Kooarmornpatana Oct. 28, 2020

Oct. 28, 2020

Dear Latin GP members, Thank you for participating in the vote. The vote is now closed. We have received 5 votes; 3 for “yes” and 2 for “no”. Based on the Chair’s direction. Appendix E - Confusable (as-is) will be included in the Latin GP LGR version 5 Package submission. The files as shared on 23 October 2020, will be submitted to the IP. Regards, Pitinan From: Latingp <latingp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 at 1:28 AM To: "latingp(a)icann.org" <latingp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Latingp] Voting: Lain LGR package version 5 - about Confusables Dear Latin GP members, Based on the Chair’s direction below. I’d like to organize the vote for the following question. Do you think that Confusables table, as it is now, should be included in the first draft of our Report (version 5, shared on 23 October 2020) ? Please provide your answer “Yes” or “No” via email, sent directly to me at pitinan.koo(a)icann.org<mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org>. Kindly cast your vote by Wednesday 13:00 UTC. Thank you. Regards, Pitinan From: Mirjana Tasić <Mirjana.Tasic(a)rnids.rs> Date: Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 2:20 AM To: Bill Jouris <b_jouris(a)yahoo.com>, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org>, "latingp(a)icann.org" <latingp(a)icann.org>, "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com> Subject: [Latingp] [Ext] Re: Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5 - about Confusables Dear GP members, I am very sorry I had no time in last few week to commit to our work. As I can remember , during the call when we discussed Confusables, we did not make any decision what to do with the proposed list. Some way out was proposal made by Dennis, how we can use the results from our investigation, and Dennis repeated his proposal in one of his mails. In this situation when the discussion about inclusion of Confusables, as they are now, in the report is taking place, I am proposing that every member of the panel should sent the response to our list to the question Do you think that Confusables table, as it is now, should be included in the first draft of our Report? The votes of Panel members will give the decision. If member agree to this proposal, I have no other choice than to ask Pitinan to organize voting. I am still very occupied with some family problems, I cannot commit that I will do enything on time. I shall vote, of course. If there is no other proposal till Monday 27th of October, Pitinan could organize the voting, voting should be finished in two days, and we shall have the decision. Bill, we shall have at least two iteration with IP in finalization of the Report. We shall get IP’s comment on Confusables after second iteration if we don’t send Confusables in the first. Regards Mirjana From: Latin GP <latingp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Latin GP <latingp(a)icann.org> Reply to: Bill Jouris <b_jouris(a)yahoo.com> Date: Wednesday, 21 October 2020 at 21:41 To: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org>, Latin GP <latingp(a)icann.org>, "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com> Subject: Re: [Latingp] [Ext] Re: Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5 My inclination would be to include Appendix E (as is) in what we are sending to the IP. All we are doing with this is give them the opportunity to comment on what we are doing. If we leave it out, then we will be faced with creating the Public Comment version without getting the IP's comments on it. I admit, I may not be pleased with the substance of the IP's comments. On the other hand, I think we ought to have it. Bill Jouris On Wednesday, October 21, 2020, 11:48:09 AM PDT, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com> wrote: Thanks, Pitinan. The proposal was: * Variant: 7/7, 6/7 or 5/7 --> Variant candidates * Confusable: 4/7 --> Appendix E * Distinguishable: 3/7, 2/7 or 1/7 Since appendix E is not normative I would be okay to not include in the submission to IP until we have a chance to review it as a group. Dennis From: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 2:36 PM To: "b_jouris(a)yahoo.com" <b_jouris(a)yahoo.com>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com>, "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] Re: [Latingp] Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5 Dear All, For your information. Based on the recording of 20 Aug 2020 meeting [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1cSC4nyC-f2csQnjW_O…>, the GP discussed the Appendix E Confusable from minute 36:00 onward. Toward the end, the GP agreed to have ICANN staff shortlists the 4 of 7 cases in a separate section which will provide a clearer information for the GP to make decision (minute 00:58 till the end). Highly apologize that the meeting note is not available. Also, we would suggest not including Appendix E in the package of version 5 submission, as it is not concluded yet and it does not affect the normative part. The updated Appendix E with a separate section for 4 of 7 cases will be share to the GP after version 5 submission. Regards, Pitinan From: Bill Jouris <b_jouris(a)yahoo.com> Reply-To: "b_jouris(a)yahoo.com" <b_jouris(a)yahoo.com> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 12:13 AM To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com>, "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp(a)icann.org>, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org>, "latingp(a)icann.org" <latingp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Latingp] Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5 Somehow I missed that agreement. I thought we agreed that, if only 4 of 7 selected "variant," it would be only a Confusable. But nothing about restricting Confusables to just those. That would be a HUGE change. The principle we have been using is that, since we are just providing input for the Similarity Review Panel, we would cast a wide net. They are not, after all, required to pay any attention to our views. So where is the harm in offering them other items for possible consideration? The only possible harm I can dream up (admittedly perhaps just lack of imagination on my part) is this: if we list something as Confusable, it increases the likelihood that, in Public Comment, someone thinks to tell us it should have been a Variant. Rather then just overlooking the pair in the large volume of possibilities. That is, the harm is that we might not be able to get away with a mistake. Not a strong ethical basis IMHO. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/119L-OerFFRmUYyG9L2…> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 9:36 AM, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp <latingp(a)icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp(a)icann.org<mailto:Latingp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1FekwNks9qeKpD2Me5V…> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1pe8OZQs7XZLCKRyIzB…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1bUfGCEYAiE-U03pLoP…>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

Voting: Lain LGR package version 5 - about Confusables
by Pitinan Kooarmornpatana Oct. 27, 2020

Oct. 27, 2020

Dear Latin GP members, Based on the Chair’s direction below. I’d like to organize the vote for the following question. Do you think that Confusables table, as it is now, should be included in the first draft of our Report (version 5, shared on 23 October 2020) ? Please provide your answer “Yes” or “No” via email, sent directly to me at pitinan.koo(a)icann.org<mailto:pitinan.koo@icann.org>. Kindly cast your vote by Wednesday 13:00 UTC. Thank you. Regards, Pitinan From: Mirjana Tasić <Mirjana.Tasic(a)rnids.rs> Date: Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 2:20 AM To: Bill Jouris <b_jouris(a)yahoo.com>, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org>, "latingp(a)icann.org" <latingp(a)icann.org>, "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com> Subject: [Latingp] [Ext] Re: Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5 - about Confusables Dear GP members, I am very sorry I had no time in last few week to commit to our work. As I can remember , during the call when we discussed Confusables, we did not make any decision what to do with the proposed list. Some way out was proposal made by Dennis, how we can use the results from our investigation, and Dennis repeated his proposal in one of his mails. In this situation when the discussion about inclusion of Confusables, as they are now, in the report is taking place, I am proposing that every member of the panel should sent the response to our list to the question Do you think that Confusables table, as it is now, should be included in the first draft of our Report? The votes of Panel members will give the decision. If member agree to this proposal, I have no other choice than to ask Pitinan to organize voting. I am still very occupied with some family problems, I cannot commit that I will do enything on time. I shall vote, of course. If there is no other proposal till Monday 27th of October, Pitinan could organize the voting, voting should be finished in two days, and we shall have the decision. Bill, we shall have at least two iteration with IP in finalization of the Report. We shall get IP’s comment on Confusables after second iteration if we don’t send Confusables in the first. Regards Mirjana From: Latin GP <latingp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Latin GP <latingp(a)icann.org> Reply to: Bill Jouris <b_jouris(a)yahoo.com> Date: Wednesday, 21 October 2020 at 21:41 To: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org>, Latin GP <latingp(a)icann.org>, "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com> Subject: Re: [Latingp] [Ext] Re: Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5 My inclination would be to include Appendix E (as is) in what we are sending to the IP. All we are doing with this is give them the opportunity to comment on what we are doing. If we leave it out, then we will be faced with creating the Public Comment version without getting the IP's comments on it. I admit, I may not be pleased with the substance of the IP's comments. On the other hand, I think we ought to have it. Bill Jouris On Wednesday, October 21, 2020, 11:48:09 AM PDT, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com> wrote: Thanks, Pitinan. The proposal was: * Variant: 7/7, 6/7 or 5/7 --> Variant candidates * Confusable: 4/7 --> Appendix E * Distinguishable: 3/7, 2/7 or 1/7 Since appendix E is not normative I would be okay to not include in the submission to IP until we have a chance to review it as a group. Dennis From: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 2:36 PM To: "b_jouris(a)yahoo.com" <b_jouris(a)yahoo.com>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com>, "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] Re: [Latingp] Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5 Dear All, For your information. Based on the recording of 20 Aug 2020 meeting [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1cSC4nyC-f2csQnjW_O…>, the GP discussed the Appendix E Confusable from minute 36:00 onward. Toward the end, the GP agreed to have ICANN staff shortlists the 4 of 7 cases in a separate section which will provide a clearer information for the GP to make decision (minute 00:58 till the end). Highly apologize that the meeting note is not available. Also, we would suggest not including Appendix E in the package of version 5 submission, as it is not concluded yet and it does not affect the normative part. The updated Appendix E with a separate section for 4 of 7 cases will be share to the GP after version 5 submission. Regards, Pitinan From: Bill Jouris <b_jouris(a)yahoo.com> Reply-To: "b_jouris(a)yahoo.com" <b_jouris(a)yahoo.com> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 12:13 AM To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com>, "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp(a)icann.org>, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org>, "latingp(a)icann.org" <latingp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Latingp] Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5 Somehow I missed that agreement. I thought we agreed that, if only 4 of 7 selected "variant," it would be only a Confusable. But nothing about restricting Confusables to just those. That would be a HUGE change. The principle we have been using is that, since we are just providing input for the Similarity Review Panel, we would cast a wide net. They are not, after all, required to pay any attention to our views. So where is the harm in offering them other items for possible consideration? The only possible harm I can dream up (admittedly perhaps just lack of imagination on my part) is this: if we list something as Confusable, it increases the likelihood that, in Public Comment, someone thinks to tell us it should have been a Variant. Rather then just overlooking the pair in the large volume of possibilities. That is, the harm is that we might not be able to get away with a mistake. Not a strong ethical basis IMHO. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/119L-OerFFRmUYyG9L2…> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 9:36 AM, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp <latingp(a)icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp(a)icann.org<mailto:Latingp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1FekwNks9qeKpD2Me5V…> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1pe8OZQs7XZLCKRyIzB…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1bUfGCEYAiE-U03pLoP…>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

2 1

Lain LGR package version 5
by Pitinan Kooarmornpatana Oct. 23, 2020

Oct. 23, 2020

Dear Latin GP members, Please find attached the Latin script LGR package version 5 dated 23 Oct 2020. List of LGR version 5 package attachments: 1. 00-proposal-latin-lgr-v5.docx 2. proposal-lgr-latin20201023.xml 3. proposal-lgr-latin20201023.html 4. Appendix A - Updated MSR during Latin GP work.docx 5. Appendix B - Table of Languages Used to Develop Latin Script Repertoire.docx 6. Appendix C - Repertoire Table Grouped by Glyph.docx 7. Appendix D - Variants Analysis.docx 8. Appendix D.1 - Shape of Base Characters.docx 9. Appendix D.2 - Spacing of Base Characters.docx 10. Appendix D.3 - Shape of Diacritics.docx 11. Appendix D.4 - Stacking of Diacritics.docx 12. Appendix D.5 - IDNA 2003 Compatibility.docx 13. Appendix D.6 - Underlining Evaluation Process.docx 14. Appendix D.7 - Generic Glyphs.docx 15. Appendix D.8 - Caron Above.docx 16. Appendix D.9 - Cross-script Variants.docx List of additional information attachments: ## Final Call Comments ## 1. 00-proposal-latin-lgr-v5-with-final-call-comments.docx 2. Appendix D.3 - Shape of Diacritics-with-final-call-comments.docx 3. Appendix D.5 - IDNA 2003 Compatibility-with-final-call-comments.docx ## Pending Decision ## 4. Appendix E - Confusables.docx (as-is) ## Analysis Data ## 5. Latin Script LGR - Armenian Cross-script Analysis (23 Oct 2020).xlsx (Appeared in D.9.3) 6. Latin Script LGR - Cyrillic Cross-script Analysis (23 Oct 2020).xlsx (Appeared in D.9.4) 7. Latin Script LGR - Greek Cross-script Analysis (23 Oct 2020).xlsx (Appeared in D.9.5) 8. Underlining Analysis.xlsx (Appeared in D.6) 9. Visual Variants - Diacritics 20200827.xlsx (Appeared in D.3.13) Kindly let us know if the List of LGR version 5 package could be sent to the IP for review. Regards, Pitinan From: Latingp <latingp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 1:09 AM To: "latingp(a)icann.org" <latingp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Latingp] Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5 Dear Latin GP members, Thank you for your feedback on the set of documents for LGR version 5 in OneDrive. Now the final call for comments on the document is closed. Please do not put any further comments on the online document but share any further feedback, if any, over the email. Where the comments do not affect the normative part, I’m going ahead and incorporate them. I’m working on both the main document and appendices, which might take a couple of days. The final LGR version 5 package will be shared with the GP within this week for a final look before submitting to the IP. Regards, Pitinan From: Latingp <latingp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, October 12, 2020 at 5:26 AM To: "latingp(a)icann.org" <latingp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Latingp] Finally Call: Lain LGR package version 5 Dear Latin GP members, The XML and its equivalent HTML are already uploaded to One Drive for your review. (https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AkZhpDj508j%2DWW4&id=48AA6AACD70E3A81… [onedrive.live.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/onedrive.live.com/?authkey=*21AkZhpDj508…>) Kindly review and let us know any feedback by 19 October 2020, 12-Noon UTC. Regards, Pitinan From: Latingp <latingp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org> Date: Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 6:02 AM To: "latingp(a)icann.org" <latingp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Latingp] Finally Call: Lain LGR package version 5 Dear Latin GP members, The Latin script LGR proposal and relevant appendices has been updated as per the GP conclusions made during the meetings up to 8 October 2020. Please review the files at the Latin GP One Drive, Reviewing Version folder (https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AkZhpDj508j%2DWW4&id=48AA6AACD70E3A81… [onedrive.live.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/onedrive.live.com/?authkey=*21AkZhpDj508…>) and provide your feedback by 19 October 2020, 12:00 noon UTC. If there is no request to hold the submission e.g. change in the normative part. The package will send the IP on 20 October 2020. It will be version 5. Please note that the XML file will be available over the weekend. Regards, Pitinan

1 0

[Ext] Re: Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5 - about Confusables
by Mirjana Tasić Oct. 23, 2020

Oct. 23, 2020

Dear GP members, I am very sorry I had no time in last few week to commit to our work. As I can remember , during the call when we discussed Confusables, we did not make any decision what to do with the proposed list. Some way out was proposal made by Dennis, how we can use the results from our investigation, and Dennis repeated his proposal in one of his mails. In this situation when the discussion about inclusion of Confusables, as they are now, in the report is taking place, I am proposing that every member of the panel should sent the response to our list to the question Do you think that Confusables table, as it is now, should be included in the first draft of our Report? The votes of Panel members will give the decision. If member agree to this proposal, I have no other choice than to ask Pitinan to organize voting. I am still very occupied with some family problems, I cannot commit that I will do enything on time. I shall vote, of course. If there is no other proposal till Monday 27th of October, Pitinan could organize the voting, voting should be finished in two days, and we shall have the decision. Bill, we shall have at least two iteration with IP in finalization of the Report. We shall get IP’s comment on Confusables after second iteration if we don’t send Confusables in the first. Regards Mirjana From: Latin GP <latingp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Latin GP <latingp(a)icann.org> Reply to: Bill Jouris <b_jouris(a)yahoo.com> Date: Wednesday, 21 October 2020 at 21:41 To: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org>, Latin GP <latingp(a)icann.org>, "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com> Subject: Re: [Latingp] [Ext] Re: Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5 My inclination would be to include Appendix E (as is) in what we are sending to the IP. All we are doing with this is give them the opportunity to comment on what we are doing. If we leave it out, then we will be faced with creating the Public Comment version without getting the IP's comments on it. I admit, I may not be pleased with the substance of the IP's comments. On the other hand, I think we ought to have it. Bill Jouris On Wednesday, October 21, 2020, 11:48:09 AM PDT, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com> wrote: Thanks, Pitinan. The proposal was: * Variant: 7/7, 6/7 or 5/7 --> Variant candidates * Confusable: 4/7 --> Appendix E * Distinguishable: 3/7, 2/7 or 1/7 Since appendix E is not normative I would be okay to not include in the submission to IP until we have a chance to review it as a group. Dennis From: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 2:36 PM To: "b_jouris(a)yahoo.com" <b_jouris(a)yahoo.com>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com>, "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] Re: [Latingp] Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5 Dear All, For your information. Based on the recording of 20 Aug 2020 meeting<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1cSC4nyC-f2csQnjW_O2b3EE5OSZUDEw9ktvxmX7ZrB2vw…>, the GP discussed the Appendix E Confusable from minute 36:00 onward. Toward the end, the GP agreed to have ICANN staff shortlists the 4 of 7 cases in a separate section which will provide a clearer information for the GP to make decision (minute 00:58 till the end). Highly apologize that the meeting note is not available. Also, we would suggest not including Appendix E in the package of version 5 submission, as it is not concluded yet and it does not affect the normative part. The updated Appendix E with a separate section for 4 of 7 cases will be share to the GP after version 5 submission. Regards, Pitinan From: Bill Jouris <b_jouris(a)yahoo.com> Reply-To: "b_jouris(a)yahoo.com" <b_jouris(a)yahoo.com> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 12:13 AM To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com>, "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp(a)icann.org>, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org>, "latingp(a)icann.org" <latingp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Latingp] Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5 Somehow I missed that agreement. I thought we agreed that, if only 4 of 7 selected "variant," it would be only a Confusable. But nothing about restricting Confusables to just those. That would be a HUGE change. The principle we have been using is that, since we are just providing input for the Similarity Review Panel, we would cast a wide net. They are not, after all, required to pay any attention to our views. So where is the harm in offering them other items for possible consideration? The only possible harm I can dream up (admittedly perhaps just lack of imagination on my part) is this: if we list something as Confusable, it increases the likelihood that, in Public Comment, someone thinks to tell us it should have been a Variant. Rather then just overlooking the pair in the large volume of possibilities. That is, the harm is that we might not be able to get away with a mistake. Not a strong ethical basis IMHO. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]<https://secure-web.cisco.com/119L-OerFFRmUYyG9L2bG_l2jrD7uKNeW7ivaZqdhWFfBt…> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 9:36 AM, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp <latingp(a)icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp(a)icann.org<mailto:Latingp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1FekwNks9qeKpD2Me5VwnOQepZQJWgEuV0gX_LISzs9Ac4…> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1pe8OZQs7XZLCKRyIzBBWft0w2TIIruGHmt3rlFkLz0t-v…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1bUfGCEYAiE-U03pLoP0EfIQD4t6FeyrOo6dJKkqUa3goH…>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

2 1

Re: [Latingp] [Ext] Re: Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5
by Tan Tanaka, Dennis Oct. 21, 2020

Oct. 21, 2020

Thanks, Pitinan. The proposal was: * Variant: 7/7, 6/7 or 5/7 --> Variant candidates * Confusable: 4/7 --> Appendix E * Distinguishable: 3/7, 2/7 or 1/7 Since appendix E is not normative I would be okay to not include in the submission to IP until we have a chance to review it as a group. Dennis From: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 2:36 PM To: "b_jouris(a)yahoo.com" <b_jouris(a)yahoo.com>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com>, "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] Re: [Latingp] Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5 Dear All, For your information. Based on the recording of 20 Aug 2020 meeting<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1cSC4nyC-f2csQnjW_O2b3EE5OSZUDEw9ktvxmX7ZrB2vw…>, the GP discussed the Appendix E Confusable from minute 36:00 onward. Toward the end, the GP agreed to have ICANN staff shortlists the 4 of 7 cases in a separate section which will provide a clearer information for the GP to make decision (minute 00:58 till the end). Highly apologize that the meeting note is not available. Also, we would suggest not including Appendix E in the package of version 5 submission, as it is not concluded yet and it does not affect the normative part. The updated Appendix E with a separate section for 4 of 7 cases will be share to the GP after version 5 submission. Regards, Pitinan From: Bill Jouris <b_jouris(a)yahoo.com> Reply-To: "b_jouris(a)yahoo.com" <b_jouris(a)yahoo.com> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 12:13 AM To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com>, "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp(a)icann.org>, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org>, "latingp(a)icann.org" <latingp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Latingp] Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5 Somehow I missed that agreement. I thought we agreed that, if only 4 of 7 selected "variant," it would be only a Confusable. But nothing about restricting Confusables to just those. That would be a HUGE change. The principle we have been using is that, since we are just providing input for the Similarity Review Panel, we would cast a wide net. They are not, after all, required to pay any attention to our views. So where is the harm in offering them other items for possible consideration? The only possible harm I can dream up (admittedly perhaps just lack of imagination on my part) is this: if we list something as Confusable, it increases the likelihood that, in Public Comment, someone thinks to tell us it should have been a Variant. Rather then just overlooking the pair in the large volume of possibilities. That is, the harm is that we might not be able to get away with a mistake. Not a strong ethical basis IMHO. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]<https://secure-web.cisco.com/119L-OerFFRmUYyG9L2bG_l2jrD7uKNeW7ivaZqdhWFfBt…> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 9:36 AM, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp <latingp(a)icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp(a)icann.org<mailto:Latingp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1FekwNks9qeKpD2Me5VwnOQepZQJWgEuV0gX_LISzs9Ac4…> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1pe8OZQs7XZLCKRyIzBBWft0w2TIIruGHmt3rlFkLz0t-v…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1bUfGCEYAiE-U03pLoP0EfIQD4t6FeyrOo6dJKkqUa3goH…>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

2 1