Sharp S and Allocatable vs Blocked
I guess my response to the point about other cases with Variants being first-come-first-served would be that other cases involve different words and perhaps different languages. The case we have here involves, potentially, the same word and the same language. (That, after all, is why we even were considering making this particular variant Allocatable.) My take is that this constitutes a significant difference, and thus makes a different approach reasonable. Bill Jouris Inside Products bill.jouris@insidethestack.com 831-659-8360 925-855-9512 (direct)
“The case we have here involves, potentially, the same word and the same language. (That, after all, is why we even were considering making this particular variant Allocatable.) “ The primary reason we are considering this case is due to the IDNA issue. And the proposed allocatable solution is to minimize the misconnection issue that arises with certain browsers. The linguistic argument is a moot point (in my opinion) greatly in part because it is not a clear cut rule (i.e. swapping sharp s with “ss”, or vice versa, can alter the meaning of a word) and it can be argued that the target market of sharp S (Germany) has been conditioned (by their country code registry operator) that domain names using sharp s and “ss” are different. -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: Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 1:12 PM To: Latin GP <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Latingp] Sharp S and Allocatable vs Blocked I guess my response to the point about other cases with Variants being first-come-first-served would be that other cases involve different words and perhaps different languages. “The case we have here involves, potentially, the same word and the same language. (That, after all, is why we even were considering making this particular variant Allocatable.) “ My take is that this constitutes a significant difference, and thus makes a different approach reasonable. Bill Jouris Inside Products bill.jouris@insidethestack.com 831-659-8360 925-855-9512 (direct)
Hi Dennis, On 05.09.2019 21:02, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp wrote:
The primary reason we are considering this case is due to the IDNA issue. And the proposed allocatable solution is to minimize the misconnection issue that arises with certain browsers. The linguistic argument is a moot point (in my opinion) greatly in part because it is not a clear cut rule (i.e. swapping sharp s with “ss”, or vice versa, can alter the meaning of a word) and it can be argued that the target market of sharp S (Germany) has been conditioned (by their country code registry operator) that domain names using sharp s and “ss” are different.
I have to disagree here for two reasons: 1. Although Germany is the main market (due to the large population) we must not forget Austria and Switzerland (and there are also border regions in neighbouring countries where German is the mother tongue). Those countries also speak the same language (well, more or less at least). At least for Swiss people there is no real difference between ß and ss as they spell all their words with ss instead of ß ... while at the same time accepting ß when reading as a totally valid spelling. 2. Even though Denic (.de registry) decided to make ß and ss different, it's hardly the case that the people in Germany are "conditioned" in any way. From my experience (I haven't read any official studies related to this topic) I would say that more than half of the people aren't even aware that they can use ß in domain names. Cheers, Michael -- ____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Germany Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Software Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Register Court: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728 Chief Executive Officers: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp
Hi Michael, Not sure which part are you disagreeing with: 1) main driver for analysis is technical; or 2) linguistic argument not relevant; or both? Anyway, the key message I was trying to make is that the analysis on sharp S is on technical grounds. That the technical issue originated because of linguistics conventions getting into protocol, sure. But absent of the technical issues we would not be exploring this case, would we? Dennis On 9/6/19, 2:47 AM, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> wrote: Hi Dennis, On 05.09.2019 21:02, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp wrote: > The primary reason we are considering this case is due to the IDNA > issue. And the proposed allocatable solution is to minimize the > misconnection issue that arises with certain browsers. The linguistic > argument is a moot point (in my opinion) greatly in part because it is > not a clear cut rule (i.e. swapping sharp s with “ss”, or vice versa, > can alter the meaning of a word) and it can be argued that the target > market of sharp S (Germany) has been conditioned (by their country code > registry operator) that domain names using sharp s and “ss” are different. I have to disagree here for two reasons: 1. Although Germany is the main market (due to the large population) we must not forget Austria and Switzerland (and there are also border regions in neighbouring countries where German is the mother tongue). Those countries also speak the same language (well, more or less at least). At least for Swiss people there is no real difference between ß and ss as they spell all their words with ss instead of ß ... while at the same time accepting ß when reading as a totally valid spelling. 2. Even though Denic (.de registry) decided to make ß and ss different, it's hardly the case that the people in Germany are "conditioned" in any way. From my experience (I haven't read any official studies related to this topic) I would say that more than half of the people aren't even aware that they can use ß in domain names. Cheers, Michael -- ____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Germany Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Software Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Register Court: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728 Chief Executive Officers: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Dennis, On 06.09.2019 20:44, Tan Tanaka, Dennis wrote:
Hi Michael,
Not sure which part are you disagreeing with: 1) main driver for analysis is technical; or 2) linguistic argument not relevant; or both?
sorry the misunderstanding. I should have better expressed what I referred to. I meant the statement that 'the target market of sharp S (Germany) has been conditioned (by their country code registry operator) that domain names using sharp s and “ss” are different.' That is not the case.
Anyway, the key message I was trying to make is that the analysis on sharp S is on technical grounds. That the technical issue originated because of linguistics conventions getting into protocol, sure. But absent of the technical issues we would not be exploring this case, would we?
I think we nevertheless would have explored this case, but the discussion would maybe have been much shorter and wouldn't have taken months. Cheers, Michael -- ____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Germany Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Software Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Register Court: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728 Chief Executive Officers: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp
participants (3)
-
Bill Jouris -
Michael Bauland -
Tan Tanaka, Dennis