Dear Colleagues, I have drafted a Minority Report. Per Sarmad's guidance, I have submitted it as a Public Comment. But for those who don't wish to dig it our from there, a copy is attached here. Warmest Regards, Bill Jouris
Good morning Bill, On 17.11.2021 19:50, Bill Jouris via Latingp wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
I have drafted a Minority Report. Per Sarmad's guidance, I have submitted it as a Public Comment. But for those who don't wish to dig it our from there, a copy is attached here.
thank you for the minority report. It is always good to make voices heard that would otherwise be overlooked or forgotten. Regarding your point about the languages we may have overlooked I have to admit that I lack knowledge to make a opinionated decision. We might need to discuss this further and possibly (at least for myself) need to gather further information. Regarding variants, while your examples and arguments are correct in that these letters/labels are very easily confusable for a large portion of the internet users, I disagree that they should be considered variants. The rules of which characters may be considered variants are quite strict and they are not about simple confusion. The fact that there are confusable labels, as in your example .сом and .COM, will be the task of the similarity review team. I'm certain that .сом would not pass the similarity review and would be rejected on grounds of being confusable with .COM (or rather .com). I think it's a good decision to keep the variant relationships restricted to clear-cut cases and not include merely confusables. If all confusables would be in a variant set, due to transitivity, I'm afraid we'd have characters being variants (and thus blocking each other) that are far from being similar. I wouldn't be surprised if that even leads to a situation in which "a", "o", "q", "p", and "g" are all being considered variants of each other. Anyway, that's just my opinion. We should talk about this in the group. 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
Good evening, Michael It seems to me that, if we have cases where the Similarity Review Panel will virtually always find a conflict, those ought to be variants. Otherwise we are merely making unnecessary work for someone in the future. I also have another concern. ICANN is discussing requiring registrars and registries to block the registration of domain names which differ only by "variants". But the IDN project does not (to my admittedly imperfect knowledge) have any plans to recreate the various script panels to consider Second Level Domain Names. Which means that our list of variants will be all there is. (And, obviously, there is no feasible way to do a manual review of SLDs ala the TLD Similarity Review Panel.) Which makes a very narrow definition of variants on our part a recipe for future DNS Abuse. I understand the issue with transitivity and widespread variant sets. (But then, I think transitivity is a seriously flawed concept for something like variants.) However, we can go a lot further than we have gone without getting to the point of creating variants of ASCII letters. Regards, Bill On Thursday, November 18, 2021, 12:25:45 AM PST, Michael Bauland via Latingp <latingp@icann.org> wrote: Good morning Bill, On 17.11.2021 19:50, Bill Jouris via Latingp wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
I have drafted a Minority Report. Per Sarmad's guidance, I have submitted it as a Public Comment. But for those who don't wish to dig it our from there, a copy is attached here.
thank you for the minority report. It is always good to make voices heard that would otherwise be overlooked or forgotten. Regarding your point about the languages we may have overlooked I have to admit that I lack knowledge to make a opinionated decision. We might need to discuss this further and possibly (at least for myself) need to gather further information. Regarding variants, while your examples and arguments are correct in that these letters/labels are very easily confusable for a large portion of the internet users, I disagree that they should be considered variants. The rules of which characters may be considered variants are quite strict and they are not about simple confusion. The fact that there are confusable labels, as in your example .сом and .COM, will be the task of the similarity review team. I'm certain that .сом would not pass the similarity review and would be rejected on grounds of being confusable with .COM (or rather .com). I think it's a good decision to keep the variant relationships restricted to clear-cut cases and not include merely confusables. If all confusables would be in a variant set, due to transitivity, I'm afraid we'd have characters being variants (and thus blocking each other) that are far from being similar. I wouldn't be surprised if that even leads to a situation in which "a", "o", "q", "p", and "g" are all being considered variants of each other. Anyway, that's just my opinion. We should talk about this in the group. 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.
Dear colleagues, I appreciate all these opinions voiced and do think there is good reason for all of them. If the group is interested in improving this product which we were going to deliver, I am myself ready to provide further input to questions which are more in my area of expertise, such as the question of how systemic bias keeps putting certain languages at a disadvantage and how this may have affected our choice of languages. How such issues should then be resolved at the level of an LGR is however a question which goes beyond linguistic considerations and needs both careful analysis of how such facts have impacted our work and careful weighing of potential solutions. However we have had numerous discussions on similar questions before and it has been quite difficult building consensus up to this point to be in a a position to deliver the product as it is, so I’m unsure how renewed considerations by the very same participants could arrive at different conclusions. So if we truly want to come up with new ideas on how to solve these complex questions in a balanced manner, I would suggest that we look for arbitration or external input from other stakeholders familiar with similar matters around us, such as from fellow GPs, the IP or other interested parties including those mentioned here—not so much as in getting a changed mandate or new guidelines, but more in the sense of finding new perspective and contextualizing questions from a different point of view and in a collegial atmosphere. Best, Meikal Am 18. Nov. 2021, 18:24 +0100 schrieb Bill Jouris via Latingp <latingp@icann.org>:
Good evening, Michael
It seems to me that, if we have cases where the Similarity Review Panel will virtually always find a conflict, those ought to be variants. Otherwise we are merely making unnecessary work for someone in the future.
I also have another concern. ICANN is discussing requiring registrars and registries to block the registration of domain names which differ only by "variants". But the IDN project does not (to my admittedly imperfect knowledge) have any plans to recreate the various script panels to consider Second Level Domain Names. Which means that our list of variants will be all there is. (And, obviously, there is no feasible way to do a manual review of SLDs ala the TLD Similarity Review Panel.) Which makes a very narrow definition of variants on our part a recipe for future DNS Abuse.
I understand the issue with transitivity and widespread variant sets. (But then, I think transitivity is a seriously flawed concept for something like variants.) However, we can go a lot further than we have gone without getting to the point of creating variants of ASCII letters.
Regards,
Bill
On Thursday, November 18, 2021, 12:25:45 AM PST, Michael Bauland via Latingp <latingp@icann.org> wrote:
Good morning Bill,
On 17.11.2021 19:50, Bill Jouris via Latingp wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
I have drafted a Minority Report. Per Sarmad's guidance, I have submitted it as a Public Comment. But for those who don't wish to dig it our from there, a copy is attached here.
thank you for the minority report. It is always good to make voices heard that would otherwise be overlooked or forgotten.
Regarding your point about the languages we may have overlooked I have to admit that I lack knowledge to make a opinionated decision. We might need to discuss this further and possibly (at least for myself) need to gather further information.
Regarding variants, while your examples and arguments are correct in that these letters/labels are very easily confusable for a large portion of the internet users, I disagree that they should be considered variants. The rules of which characters may be considered variants are quite strict and they are not about simple confusion. The fact that there are confusable labels, as in your example .сом and .COM, will be the task of the similarity review team. I'm certain that .сом would not pass the similarity review and would be rejected on grounds of being confusable with .COM (or rather .com).
I think it's a good decision to keep the variant relationships restricted to clear-cut cases and not include merely confusables. If all confusables would be in a variant set, due to transitivity, I'm afraid we'd have characters being variants (and thus blocking each other) that are far from being similar. I wouldn't be surprised if that even leads to a situation in which "a", "o", "q", "p", and "g" are all being considered variants of each other.
Anyway, that's just my opinion. We should talk about this in the group.
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. _______________________________________________ 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.
Dear colleagues, It occurs to me that there may be some question about how much time it would take to expand the repertoire as I have advocated. So let me offer an estimate. I believe we already have (somewhere) a list of all of the languages using the Latin script. To use that to produce: - a table of code points to be added (including name, glyph, Unicode number and languages which use it). - a list of which of the new languages use the code points already in the repertoire. (In case we wish to update our existing repertoire tables to include them. Which we may or may not.) - a list of references (probably the usual omniglot links) for each of the additional languages I expect would take approximately 2 weeks. IF I do it entirely myself. This based on how long it was taking me to work thru a language when we did the original repertoire, once I got the hang of it. Beyond that, a few days to identify potential variants of the new code points, and a week for us all to do our individual evaluations. And, once that is done, a day to determine which pairs achieved the threshold (whether our existing one or a new one). Not, I think, an enormous elongation of our timeline. Regards Bill On Thursday, November 18, 2021, 12:25:45 AM PST, Michael Bauland via Latingp <latingp@icann.org> wrote: Good morning Bill, On 17.11.2021 19:50, Bill Jouris via Latingp wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
I have drafted a Minority Report. Per Sarmad's guidance, I have submitted it as a Public Comment. But for those who don't wish to dig it our from there, a copy is attached here.
thank you for the minority report. It is always good to make voices heard that would otherwise be overlooked or forgotten. Regarding your point about the languages we may have overlooked I have to admit that I lack knowledge to make a opinionated decision. We might need to discuss this further and possibly (at least for myself) need to gather further information. Regarding variants, while your examples and arguments are correct in that these letters/labels are very easily confusable for a large portion of the internet users, I disagree that they should be considered variants. The rules of which characters may be considered variants are quite strict and they are not about simple confusion. The fact that there are confusable labels, as in your example .сом and .COM, will be the task of the similarity review team. I'm certain that .сом would not pass the similarity review and would be rejected on grounds of being confusable with .COM (or rather .com). I think it's a good decision to keep the variant relationships restricted to clear-cut cases and not include merely confusables. If all confusables would be in a variant set, due to transitivity, I'm afraid we'd have characters being variants (and thus blocking each other) that are far from being similar. I wouldn't be surprised if that even leads to a situation in which "a", "o", "q", "p", and "g" are all being considered variants of each other. Anyway, that's just my opinion. We should talk about this in the group. 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.
participants (3)
-
Bill Jouris -
Meikal Mumin -
Michael Bauland