My recollection (by all means, someone correct me if I am mis-remembering) is that we agreed to that because YOU claimed that it was what the IP required of us. There appears to be in some doubt as to whether the IP actually does so.
I note also that, in evaluating cross-script variants with Cyrillic, we have included multiple cases which are level 2: NOT homoglyphs. And you seemed to be fine with that.
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 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Draft in-script variants
Actually, no.
The panel worked the definition of “same” during the Brussels meeting (you attended) and this is what we
finalized:
Within-script Variants
-
Homoglyphs: when any given pair of code points or code point sequences are visually identical as represented in a common use font (e.g., Arial,
Times New Roman or
Courier New) by internet applications, such as internet browsers.
-
Alternate Use: a pair of code points or sequence of code points that are regularly used interchangeably and are considered the same by the script users.
-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.
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.
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
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)
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
Here is the compilation of current in-script variant candidates for our review during tomorrow’s call.