On the first point, I wasn't objecting.  I was just failing to understand at that point.
Now that I do understand (I think) I have to say that I do not recall us deciding that a variant had to be regarded as interchangible in their language by a significant number of our users. I thought we were closer to "users will routinely not notice the difference."  (But it does explain your previously inexplicable position that the schwa and the turned E were not variants.)
 
Bill Jouris
Inside Products
bill.jouris@insidethestack.com
831-659-8360
925-855-9512 (direct)


From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com>
To: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>; Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@iis.se>; Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Cross-script analysis Armenian and Greek, and overview slides

Bill, Mats
 
Thanks for your feedback. I have carefully reviewed your input, so let me address each one of your points:
 
  1. “I really do not understand what bullet 1 in slide 4 means. Please elaborate.” And “I am not clear what you are trying to say in point 1.”, this referring to Slide 4 as well.
    1. It refers to the principle by which this panel will determine variants sets for the Latin script, that is within-script variants. Specifically, “sufficiently universal” means that whether certain characters are used as equivalents across an important majority of the languages using the Latin script.
    2. We received positive feedback from IP. Verbatim “The actual guiding principle (contained in the second paragraph of the document) appears to cover the important considerations and will likely serve the GP well in arriving at at [sic] list of proposed candidate variants”
    3. Both of you should be aware of this since you (Bill) presented and explained it during ICANN Abu Dhabi. Please review the panel presentation on slide 36.
  2. “I do not believe that we actually agreed that only exact homoglyphs would be considered variants.  I know that this is *your* view.  I just don't think is was anything resembling a consensus of the team.  And conversations with the Integration Panel have made clear that it is not a mandate from them.”
    1. These statements are inaccurate.
    2. We agreed on the principles and applied it to the cross-script analysis of Latin-Cyrillic, which is now complete.
    3. Not my view, but the requirement by which the IP expects this GP to do its work. On this, IP has consistently reminded this GP “the kinds of variants to be defined in the Root Zone LGR are limited to homoglyphs, which are characters with essentially identical appearance by design, instead of merely similar appearance.” (IP Feedback to Latin GP, 22 March 2017). And “In the context of the Root Zone, the Procedure is quite clear in that it considers simple similarity of appearance to be outside the scope of the Root Zone LGR.” (IP Feedback to Latin GP, 18 October 2017).
 
Best,
Dennis
 
From: Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@iis.se>
Date: Friday, January 26, 2018 at 4:14 AM
To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com>
Cc: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>, "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Cross-script analysis Armenian and Greek, and overview slides
 
Dennis,
 
I have to second Bill. I really do not understand what bullet 1 in slide 4 means. Please elaborate.
 
And when it comes to variants, I also question the requirement. That requirement is not used for Chinese variants.
 
 
Mats
 
---
Mats Dufberg
DNS Specialist, IIS
Mobile: +46 73 065 3899
https://www.iis.se/en/
 
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 25 January 2018 at 23:57
To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Cross-script analysis Armenian and Greek, and overview slides
 
 
In the Armenian/Latin table, line 39 (Armenian Letter Keh) by BJ+ is a typo on my part.  Should be BJ- of course.  Or BJ#, since there is no Latin equivalent given.  Sorry
 
I have a couple questions on Slide 4:
1) I am not clear what you are trying to say in point 1.
2) I do not believe that we actually agreed that only exact homoglyphs would be considered variants.  I know that this is *your* view.  I just don't think is was anything resembling a consensus of the team.  And conversations with the Integration Panel have made clear that it is not a mandate from them.
 
Bill Jouris
Inside Products
bill.jouris@insidethestack.com
831-659-8360
925-855-9512 (direct)
 
cid:image001.png@01D3968E.69A0BAA0
From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp@icann.org>
To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp@icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:32 PM
Subject: [Latingp] Cross-script analysis Armenian and Greek, and overview slides
 
Dear Latin GP variant team members,
 
Please find enclosed consolidated files for cross-script analysis for Armenian and Greek. We will be using these files to finalize the work during our workshop.
 
Also, please review the slides and let me know if you have any feedback.
 
Thank you,
Dennis
_______________________________________________
Latingp mailing list
Latingp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp