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