Dennis, I like your slides but I have two comments on slide one: * When user inputs "something.fass" no IDNA is involved since it is a pure ASCII TLD label. In that scenario there are not two cases, just one. It is confusing to refer to IDNA. * In Option 2 I still think it is unfair to flag "addresses failure of service" as red. I think orange is more reasonable. As you show on slide two, just because there is the possibility of variant, it might not be activated by the RO and registrant, respectively. But there is still the possibility, in contrast to Option 3. In slide two you display the .fass variant as a three-way choice, but in reality, to the effect on failure of service it is only a two-way choice, either .fass is in DNS (active) or .fass is not in DNS (not active). There could be different reasons why it is not active in DNS, but that is not interesting for possible failure of service. The same discussion is applicable for next level, possibl example.fass. When example.fass is active in DNS, and we assume that example.faß (with sharp S) is also active, then things do not necessarily works as we want anyway. It also requires that the registrant succeeds in making the two domains show the same content. Yours, Mats --- Mats Dufberg DNS Specialist Internetstiftelsen (The Swedish Internet Foundation) Mobile: +46 73 065 3899 https://internetstiftelsen.se/ From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org> Reply to: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, 1 August 2019 at 20:09 To: ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [Latingp] IDNA2003 compatibility issues slides 8/1 All, URL of the slides we reviewed today https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Pey1tE1q3KnvbKtiSjaUNsaVC_AXhwmaLgPi... Dennis