“The case we have here involves, potentially, the same word and the same language.  (That, after all, is why we even were considering making this particular variant Allocatable.) “

The primary reason we are considering this case is due to the IDNA issue. And the proposed allocatable solution is to minimize the misconnection issue that arises with certain browsers. The linguistic argument is a moot point (in my opinion) greatly in part because it is not a clear cut rule (i.e. swapping sharp s with “ss”, or vice versa, can alter the meaning of a word) and it can be argued that the target market of sharp S (Germany) has been conditioned (by their country code registry operator) that domain names using sharp s and “ss” are different.

-Dennis

From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>
Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>
Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 1:12 PM
To: Latin GP <latingp@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Latingp] Sharp S and Allocatable vs Blocked

I guess my response to the point about other cases with Variants being first-come-first-served would be that other cases involve different words and perhaps different languages.  “The case we have here involves, potentially, the same word and the same language.  (That, after all, is why we even were considering making this particular variant Allocatable.) “

My take is that this constitutes a significant difference, and thus makes a different approach reasonable.

Bill Jouris
Inside Products
bill.jouris@insidethestack.com
831-659-8360
925-855-9512 (direct)