Actually, no.

 

The panel worked the definition of “same” during the Brussels meeting (you attended) and this is what we finalized:

Within-script Variants

 

-Dennis

 

From: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>
Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>
Date: Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 3:58 PM
To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com>, "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Draft in-script variants

 

Briefly, these meet the definition in Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels:

An IDN variant, as understood here, is an alternate code point (or sequence of code points) that could be substituted for a code point (or sequence of code points) in a candidate label to create a variant label that is considered the “same” in some measure by a given community of Internet users.

 

Does that help?

 

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@insidethestack.com" <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>; "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Draft in-script variants

 

Interesting point of view re:Marshallese . Let’s bring it up when we get to review in-script variants. For the time being please provide evidence of your candidates.

 

Thanks,

Dennis

 

From: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>
Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>
Date: Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 3:05 PM
To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com>, "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Draft in-script variants

 

As far as I can see, all of the Marshallese references are to justify exclusion.  Not inclusion.  What am I missing?

 

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@insidethestack.com" <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>; "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Draft in-script variants

 

Bill,

 

For in-script variants IP asked we provide evidence of the variant relationship. Since the cases you are proposing do not fall in the homoglyph category, the panel must provide a strong reason for inclusion (e.g. Marshelle cases)

 

Thanks,
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: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 11:54 PM
To: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Draft in-script variants

 

I've taken the liberty of adding a couple dozen additional candidates.  (I held off the Rating 2 cases.  These are the slam dunks.)

 

I still think that, as discussed last week, we ought to include more cases rather than fewer.  Especially when we are sending a draft to the IP for review -- that's when they can tell us if we have taken a wrong turn.

 

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: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 7:43 PM
Subject: [Latingp] Draft in-script variants

 

Dear Latin GP,

 

Here is the compilation of current in-script variant candidates for our review during tomorrow’s call.

 

 

Talk to you all soon.

 

Best,

-Dennis

_______________________________________________
Latingp mailing list
Latingp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp