Thanks, Pitinan.
The proposal was:
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@icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 2:36 PM
To: "b_jouris@yahoo.com" <b_jouris@yahoo.com>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com>, "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp@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, 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@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: "b_jouris@yahoo.com" <b_jouris@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 12:13 AM
To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com>, "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp@icann.org>, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org>, "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@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
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 9:36 AM, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp
<latingp@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Latingp mailing list
Latingp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp
_______________________________________________
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]) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]). 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.