It's been clear for some time, even before Brussels, that you think we should only look at homoglyphs.  (Also that you don't think that there are any in-script homoglyphs.  See the discussion about the schwa and the turned e.) 

But there is a world of difference between agreeing, and merely deciding not to waste time arguing with a closed mind.  Which, for me, is what happened in the discussion in Brussels. 
 
Bill Jouris
Inside Products
bill.jouris@insidethestack.com
831-659-8360
925-855-9512 (direct)


From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com>
To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>; Meikal Mumin <meikal@mumin.de>
Cc: Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>; "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp@icann.org>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets

I believe we delimited the scope of variants for the Latin script in the face to face meeting in Brussels, did we not?
 
From: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>
Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>
Date: Friday, May 18, 2018 at 2:18 PM
To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com>, Meikal Mumin <meikal@mumin.de>
Cc: Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>, "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets
 
It is pretty clear, if one reads the MSR-3 document, that we are supposed to deal with Variants.  Which include, but are NOT limited to, homoglyphs. 
 
Bill Jouris
Inside Products
bill.jouris@insidethestack.com
831-659-8360
925-855-9512 (direct)
 
From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com>
To: Meikal Mumin <meikal@mumin.de>
Cc: "bill.jouris@insidethestack.com" <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>; Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>; "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp@icann.org>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets
 
 
we must deal with such confusable characters or sequences of characters in the context of variants
 
No, we don’t. Confusability is not in scope. We established the Latin panel will deal with homoglyphs or nearly homoglyphs (i.e. font variation) in the context of cross-scripts.