I guess I have a rather different view of the answer to the question: What is the real world issue that we are trying to address?

I do not think it is: "How do we exactly conform to the narrowest interpretation of the requirements, so as to allow the maximum number of registrations to start thru the process?"  Rather it is: "How do we make the Internet, specifically the process of registering new domain names and of correctly identifying a domain name, work as well as possible for the public?"

So anything which we KNOW will always end up rejected, and the schwa and turned e are a dramatic example, ought to be included among the variants.  Otherwise, when someone comes to register a new name, all they get is a delay while their submission gets a manual review. 

A name which differs only by that one character will ALWAYS get rejected -- and we all know it.  So what is gained, for anyone, by requiring it to go thru a manual process?  (OK, perhaps a company registering names can charge for each attempt that gets as far as the manual process.  But nobody else has anything that I can see.)
 
Bill Jouris
Inside Products
bill.jouris@insidethestack.com
831-659-8360
925-855-9512 (direct)


From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp@icann.org>
To: Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@iis.se>; Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>
Cc: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Homoglyphs within Latin script

Mats,

The Root Zone LGR is not designed to pick up on those security and stability issues. That would be the concern of already established processes, such as the Similarity Review or DNS Security and Stability Review of applied-for TLDs.

-Dennis


On 1/5/18, 10:27 AM, "Mats Dufberg" <mats.dufberg@iis.se> wrote:

    In lower case, they are equal. My interpretation of "security" is that we must include some variant or contextual rules that prevent two TLDs only differing on those two code points.
   
    I do not think we should try to interpret what IP thinks. We should propose a solution we think is correct.
   
   
    Mats
   
    ---
    Mats Dufberg
    DNS Specialist, IIS
    Mobile: +46 73 065 3899
   
   
    -----Original Message-----
    From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com>
    Date: Friday 5 January 2018 at 16:13
    To: Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>, Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@iis.se>
    Subject: Re:  [Latingp] Homoglyphs within Latin script
   
    Hi Michael,
   
    They are not the same character. They look alike in lower case, but are different in upper case (i.e. disunification by case property). The IP briefly discussed this case of 01DD and 0259 in their feedback to our Principles document and suggested that these two should not be variants. Hence my question about more evidence.
   
    -Dennis
   
    On 1/5/18, 10:10 AM, "Michael Bauland" <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> wrote:
   
        Hi Dennis, hi Mats,
       
        On 05.01.2018 16:02, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp wrote:
        > Thanks Mats.
        >
        > 
        >
        > A follow up question, is there evidence that these two code points are
        > used interchangeably in the languages the repertoire team analyzed? I
        > ask because the IP will ask for more evidence of a variant relationship
        > besides visual appearance. Per the Procedure “Generation Panels should
        > ignore cases where the relation is based exclusively on aspects of
        > visual similarity”.
       
        I'm not sure we need additional evidence, because in this case it's not
        mere "visual similarity" but those two are actually the same. And I
        don't think we have another choice in the case of homoglyphs, but to
        make them variants. On the contrary, I think we had to argue if we
        wanted to not make them variants.
       
        Michael
       
        --
        ____________________________________________________________________
            |      |
            | knipp |            Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
              -------                    Technologiepark
                                        Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9
                                        44227 Dortmund
                                        Germany
       
            Dipl.-Informatiker          Fon:    +49 231 9703-0
                                        Fax:    +49 231 9703-200
            Dr. Michael Bauland        SIP:    Michael.Bauland@knipp.de
            Software Development        E-mail: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de
       
                                        Register Court:
                                        Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728
       
                                        Chief Executive Officers:
                                        Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp
       
   
   
   
   

_______________________________________________
Latingp mailing list