Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets
All, I cannot help but think this is déjà vu. We started out very liberal as to our approach for variants in the Latin script and this panel submitted its proposal to IP for review in two separate occasions, early<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9jf1ThZFL4Ga0hhTTZndk1JNVE/view?ths=true> and mid<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RNXPxAsquUJSQ5jRimMYjz3Es_sX-f1JRhi4Cbwd...> 2017. The IP provided its feedback in those two opportunities (March 22<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aMLHw5ahtqmkB07zOJacvRUX-BHjXxXD-u9E9Beb...> and October 18<https://www.dropbox.com/s/ra8odr5ksd82goz/Principles%20for%20repertoire%20an...>) and the variant sub-group adjusted course based on the feedback received. During the Brussels workshop in Jan 2018 (a year later after work started) the same questions were raised again (by newcomers), so we decided to have an impromptu phone call with the IP to have them explain their guidance. They came back with the same response, and provided examples to that end. This is what led us to rewrite the principles for variant inclusion<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IrT_kfildf1SumYUqjkaIkMT-TYx9IRqtuPMV4Yv...>. Dennis From: Mirjana Tasić <Mirjana.Tasic@rnids.rs> Date: Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 2:40 PM To: Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets Dear Colleagues, My opinion on this matter is the same as Meikal stated in this mail. We should make our own interpretation of rules and guidelines and stick to it. In the further discussion with IP we could modify our findings if there is enough reasons for it. Regards Mirjana From: Latin GP <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de> Date: Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 10:00 To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets Dear colleuages, personally, I think we should conduct our own data-driven analysis based on our own interpretation of the rules and guidelines, and then ask IP for a review. After all, we are the community and it is our choice - they are only the ones to judge wether we meet the common criteria. That would be in line we the view they expressed, that the GPs are to guide IP. Best, Meikal On 31 May 2018 at 15:14, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com<mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>> wrote: It would be helpful if we could get the IP to issue an statement on the points you are raising below. -Dennis From: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com<mailto:bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>> Reply-To: "bill.jouris@insidethestack.com<mailto:bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>" <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com<mailto:bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 5:24 PM To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com<mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>>, Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de<mailto:meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de>>, Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>> Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org<mailto:LatinGP@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets And yet, in speaking with members of the IP (at San Juan), on the subject of the Least Astonishment Principle, what they said was "We are looking to the Generation Panels for guidance." And said further (on the matter of the breve and caron) "When I am typing something that includes one of them, I have to copy and paste because I can't tell which I am lookIng at." In short, while the two diacritics are clearly not identical, at least with sufficient magnification, as far as he was concerned there was no reason that they could not be classified by us as varients. What constitutes "identical in appearance" depends enormously on just how much magnification is assumed. The rationale for assuming anything larger than 12 point type is not at all obvious. Bill Sent from Yahoo Mail on Androi<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>d On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com<mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>> wrote: From: Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de<mailto:meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de>> Date: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 10:14 AM To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com<mailto:bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com<mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>>, Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>> Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org<mailto:LatinGP@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets My conclusion is that it is more complex than reducing things to "homoglyphs" but I do not think that (at least linguistically) we have a strong definition of homoglyphs On homoglyphs the Latin GP has received the following guidance from IP, in writing and verbally (during the Brussels workshop) “In the context of the Root Zone, the Procedure is quite clear in that it considers simple similarity of appearance to be outside the scope of the Root Zone LGR. In admitting exact homoglyphs, the IP has been making the argument that ‘e’ in Latin (U+0065) and ‘е’ in Cyrillic(U+0435) are not just visually indistinguishable, but that their distinct code points effectively represent a disunification by script property.” – Email from IP to Latin GP of 18 October 2017 in response to our draft Principles for Inclusion and Exclusion of Code Points in Latin Script for the Root Zone, and in particular to our Analysis of Variants in the Latin Script for the Root Zone. “The kinds of variants to be defined in the Root Zone LGR are limited to homoglyphs, which are characters with essentially identical appearance by design, instead of merely similar appearance.” – Integration Panel feedback to Latin GP proposal of 22 March 2017.
Yet my recollection is rather otherwise. What I recall is:1) While several of us on the Variants working group argued for a "relatively liberal" approach, you insisted on an extremely narrow criteria. Since you were Chair, that's what got recorded. 2) Eventually, we submitted questions to the IP. Questions that you (very skillfully!) worded so as to get the response that you wanted. 3) We had further arguments, based on increased familiarity with previous ICANN documents, on expert opinions from the linguists among us, and on individual discussions that some of us had the IP members - who expressed rather different views that you got previously. 4) Repeat of #25) The current discussion. I share the feeling of déjà vu. Perhaps this time we can achieve something better. Alternatively, you can write the report on Variants that you so clearly want, and some of the other members of the working group can write a separate report which reflects our views. Give the IP complete packages to review. Bill JourisInside Products bill.jouris@insidethestack.com 831-659-8360 925-855-9512 (direct) From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp@icann.org> To: Mirjana Tasić <Mirjana.Tasic@rnids.rs>; Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de>; Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org> Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 8:15 AM Subject: Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets #yiv2813984843 #yiv2813984843 -- _filtered #yiv2813984843 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2813984843 {font-family:DengXian;panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;} _filtered #yiv2813984843 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2813984843 {panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}#yiv2813984843 #yiv2813984843 p.yiv2813984843MsoNormal, #yiv2813984843 li.yiv2813984843MsoNormal, #yiv2813984843 div.yiv2813984843MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv2813984843 a:link, #yiv2813984843 span.yiv2813984843MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2813984843 a:visited, #yiv2813984843 span.yiv2813984843MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2813984843 p.yiv2813984843msonormal0, #yiv2813984843 li.yiv2813984843msonormal0, #yiv2813984843 div.yiv2813984843msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv2813984843 p.yiv2813984843m205254556420450350yiv4522631482msonormal, #yiv2813984843 li.yiv2813984843m205254556420450350yiv4522631482msonormal, #yiv2813984843 div.yiv2813984843m205254556420450350yiv4522631482msonormal {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv2813984843 span.yiv2813984843m205254556420450350yiv4522631482apple-converted-space {}#yiv2813984843 span.yiv2813984843EmailStyle20 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv2813984843 span.yiv2813984843EmailStyle21 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv2813984843 .yiv2813984843MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv2813984843 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv2813984843 div.yiv2813984843WordSection1 {}#yiv2813984843 All, I cannot help but think this is déjà vu. We started out very liberal as to our approach for variants in the Latin script and this panel submitted its proposal to IP for review in two separate occasions,early and mid 2017. The IP provided its feedback in those two opportunities (March 22 andOctober 18) and the variant sub-group adjusted course based on the feedback received. During the Brussels workshop in Jan 2018 (a year later after work started) the same questions were raised again (by newcomers), so we decided to have an impromptu phone call with the IP to have them explain their guidance. They came back with the same response, and provided examples to that end. This is what led us to rewrite theprinciples for variant inclusion. Dennis From:Mirjana Tasić <Mirjana.Tasic@rnids.rs> Date: Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 2:40 PM To: Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets Dear Colleagues, My opinion on this matter is the same as Meikal stated in this mail. We should make our own interpretation of rules and guidelines and stick to it. In the further discussion with IP we could modify our findings if there is enough reasons for it. Regards Mirjana From:Latin GP <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de> Date: Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 10:00 To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets Dear colleuages, personally, I think we should conduct our own data-driven analysis based on our own interpretation of the rules and guidelines, and then ask IP for a review. After all, we are the community and it is our choice - they are only the ones to judge wether we meet the common criteria. That would be in line we the view they expressed, that the GPs are to guide IP. Best, Meikal On 31 May 2018 at 15:14, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com> wrote: It would be helpful if we could get the IP to issue an statement on the points you are raising below. -Dennis From: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Reply-To: "bill.jouris@insidethestack.com" <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 5:24 PM To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com>, Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de>, Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets And yet, in speaking with members of the IP (at San Juan), on the subject of the Least Astonishment Principle, what they said was "We are looking to the Generation Panels for guidance." And said further (on the matter of the breve and caron) "When I am typing something that includes one of them, I have to copy and paste because I can't tell which I am lookIng at." In short, while the two diacritics are clearly not identical, at least with sufficient magnification, as far as he was concerned there was no reason that they could not be classified by us as varients. What constitutes "identical in appearance" depends enormously on just how much magnification is assumed. The rationale for assuming anything larger than 12 point type is not at all obvious. Bill Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com> wrote: From:Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de> Date: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 10:14 AM To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com>, Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets My conclusion is that it is more complex than reducing things to "homoglyphs" but I do not think that (at least linguistically) we have a strong definition of homoglyphs On homoglyphs the Latin GP has received the following guidance from IP, in writing and verbally (during the Brussels workshop) “In the context of the Root Zone, the Procedure is quite clear in that it considers simple similarity of appearance to be outside the scope of the Root Zone LGR. In admitting exact homoglyphs, the IP has been making the argument that ‘e’ in Latin (U+0065) and ‘е’ in Cyrillic(U+0435) are not just visually indistinguishable, but that their distinct code points effectively represent a disunification by script property.” – Email from IP to Latin GP of 18 October 2017 in response to our draft Principles for Inclusion and Exclusion of Code Points in Latin Script for the Root Zone, and in particular to our Analysis of Variants in the Latin Script for the Root Zone. “The kinds of variants to be defined in the Root Zone LGR are limited to homoglyphs, which are characters with essentially identical appearance by design, instead of merely similar appearance.” – Integration Panel feedback to Latin GP proposal of 22 March 2017. _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp
Dear GP members, I must admit that I don’t understand this discussion. I think that we should finish the analysis of the Variants as we started. Then we shall have some results which could be discussed by Panel. After the discussion we shall decide are we satisfied with the results, and what should be our next steps. Regards Mirjana From: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Date: Friday, June 1, 2018 at 10:17 To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org>, Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de>, Mirjana Tasić <Mirjana.Tasic@rnids.rs> Subject: Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets Yet my recollection is rather otherwise. What I recall is: 1) While several of us on the Variants working group argued for a "relatively liberal" approach, you insisted on an extremely narrow criteria. Since you were Chair, that's what got recorded. 2) Eventually, we submitted questions to the IP. Questions that you (very skillfully!) worded so as to get the response that you wanted. 3) We had further arguments, based on increased familiarity with previous ICANN documents, on expert opinions from the linguists among us, and on individual discussions that some of us had the IP members - who expressed rather different views that you got previously. 4) Repeat of #2 5) The current discussion. I share the feeling of déjà vu. Perhaps this time we can achieve something better. Alternatively, you can write the report on Variants that you so clearly want, and some of the other members of the working group can write a separate report which reflects our views. Give the IP complete packages to review. 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: Mirjana Tasić <Mirjana.Tasic@rnids.rs>; Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de>; Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org> Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 8:15 AM Subject: Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets All, I cannot help but think this is déjà vu. We started out very liberal as to our approach for variants in the Latin script and this panel submitted its proposal to IP for review in two separate occasions, early<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9jf1ThZFL4Ga0hhTTZndk1JNVE/view?ths=true> and mid<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RNXPxAsquUJSQ5jRimMYjz3Es_sX-f1JRhi4Cbwd...> 2017. The IP provided its feedback in those two opportunities (March 22<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aMLHw5ahtqmkB07zOJacvRUX-BHjXxXD-u9E9Beb...> and October 18<https://www.dropbox.com/s/ra8odr5ksd82goz/Principles%20for%20repertoire%20an...>) and the variant sub-group adjusted course based on the feedback received. During the Brussels workshop in Jan 2018 (a year later after work started) the same questions were raised again (by newcomers), so we decided to have an impromptu phone call with the IP to have them explain their guidance. They came back with the same response, and provided examples to that end. This is what led us to rewrite the principles for variant inclusion<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IrT_kfildf1SumYUqjkaIkMT-TYx9IRqtuPMV4Yv...>. Dennis From: Mirjana Tasić <Mirjana.Tasic@rnids.rs> Date: Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 2:40 PM To: Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets Dear Colleagues, My opinion on this matter is the same as Meikal stated in this mail. We should make our own interpretation of rules and guidelines and stick to it. In the further discussion with IP we could modify our findings if there is enough reasons for it. Regards Mirjana From: Latin GP <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de> Date: Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 10:00 To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets Dear colleuages, personally, I think we should conduct our own data-driven analysis based on our own interpretation of the rules and guidelines, and then ask IP for a review. After all, we are the community and it is our choice - they are only the ones to judge wether we meet the common criteria. That would be in line we the view they expressed, that the GPs are to guide IP. Best, Meikal On 31 May 2018 at 15:14, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com<mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>> wrote: It would be helpful if we could get the IP to issue an statement on the points you are raising below. -Dennis From: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com<mailto:bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>> Reply-To: "bill.jouris@insidethestack.com<mailto:bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>" <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com<mailto:bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 5:24 PM To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com<mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>>, Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de<mailto:meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de>>, Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>> Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org<mailto:LatinGP@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets And yet, in speaking with members of the IP (at San Juan), on the subject of the Least Astonishment Principle, what they said was "We are looking to the Generation Panels for guidance." And said further (on the matter of the breve and caron) "When I am typing something that includes one of them, I have to copy and paste because I can't tell which I am lookIng at." In short, while the two diacritics are clearly not identical, at least with sufficient magnification, as far as he was concerned there was no reason that they could not be classified by us as varients. What constitutes "identical in appearance" depends enormously on just how much magnification is assumed. The rationale for assuming anything larger than 12 point type is not at all obvious. Bill Sent from Yahoo Mail on Androi<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>d On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com<mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>> wrote: From: Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de<mailto:meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de>> Date: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 10:14 AM To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com<mailto:bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com<mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>>, Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>> Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org<mailto:LatinGP@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets My conclusion is that it is more complex than reducing things to "homoglyphs" but I do not think that (at least linguistically) we have a strong definition of homoglyphs On homoglyphs the Latin GP has received the following guidance from IP, in writing and verbally (during the Brussels workshop) “In the context of the Root Zone, the Procedure is quite clear in that it considers simple similarity of appearance to be outside the scope of the Root Zone LGR. In admitting exact homoglyphs, the IP has been making the argument that ‘e’ in Latin (U+0065) and ‘е’ in Cyrillic(U+0435) are not just visually indistinguishable, but that their distinct code points effectively represent a disunification by script property.” – Email from IP to Latin GP of 18 October 2017 in response to our draft Principles for Inclusion and Exclusion of Code Points in Latin Script for the Root Zone, and in particular to our Analysis of Variants in the Latin Script for the Root Zone. “The kinds of variants to be defined in the Root Zone LGR are limited to homoglyphs, which are characters with essentially identical appearance by design, instead of merely similar appearance.” – Integration Panel feedback to Latin GP proposal of 22 March 2017. _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org<mailto:Latingp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp
Hi all, sorry for chiming in so late. There was a holiday here in Germany on Thursday (that's why I didn't joint the phone call). I agree with Mirjana that we shouldn't change the rules for our Variant analysis at this point. We should finish it the way we started. By the way, it looks that I missed the second inspection round. Was there an e-mail that we should start with the work? Sorry, if I overlooked that. 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
Dear Michael, I have done inspections instead of you. We thought you were busy, so I accepted to finish your part. Regards Mirjana On 6/2/18, 06:53, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> wrote: Hi all, sorry for chiming in so late. There was a holiday here in Germany on Thursday (that's why I didn't joint the phone call). I agree with Mirjana that we shouldn't change the rules for our Variant analysis at this point. We should finish it the way we started. By the way, it looks that I missed the second inspection round. Was there an e-mail that we should start with the work? Sorry, if I overlooked that. 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
Bill, I’m sorry you feel this way, but you paint a reality that is far from the truth. All the documents or correspondence we have exchanged with the IP were reviewed by interested panel members, you among them, and everyone had the chance to comment or tweak them. By the way, links to those documents are posted below, and the only question variant-related (that I remember) this panel sent to the IP was written by you (“Variant Universe”, 21 Sep 2017). You also had the opportunity to participate on the call with the IP during the Brussels meeting and ask your own questions with your own words, but you didn’t. The rest of us made the effort to engage with the IP, but you didn’t show up. We can have difference of opinions, but at the end of the day we will be measured by the Procedure and the guidance this panel sought for and received. We all should be aiming to deliver on this. Dennis From: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Date: Friday, June 1, 2018 at 1:17 PM To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org>, Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de>, Mirjana Tasić <mirjana.tasic@rnids.rs> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets Yet my recollection is rather otherwise. What I recall is: 1) While several of us on the Variants working group argued for a "relatively liberal" approach, you insisted on an extremely narrow criteria. Since you were Chair, that's what got recorded. 2) Eventually, we submitted questions to the IP. Questions that you (very skillfully!) worded so as to get the response that you wanted. 3) We had further arguments, based on increased familiarity with previous ICANN documents, on expert opinions from the linguists among us, and on individual discussions that some of us had the IP members - who expressed rather different views that you got previously. 4) Repeat of #2 5) The current discussion. I share the feeling of déjà vu. Perhaps this time we can achieve something better. Alternatively, you can write the report on Variants that you so clearly want, and some of the other members of the working group can write a separate report which reflects our views. Give the IP complete packages to review. 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: Mirjana Tasić <Mirjana.Tasic@rnids.rs>; Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de>; Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org> Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 8:15 AM Subject: Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets All, I cannot help but think this is déjà vu. We started out very liberal as to our approach for variants in the Latin script and this panel submitted its proposal to IP for review in two separate occasions, early<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9jf1ThZFL4Ga0hhTTZndk1JNVE/view?ths=true> and mid<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RNXPxAsquUJSQ5jRimMYjz3Es_sX-f1JRhi4Cbwd...> 2017. The IP provided its feedback in those two opportunities (March 22<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aMLHw5ahtqmkB07zOJacvRUX-BHjXxXD-u9E9Beb...> and October 18<https://www.dropbox.com/s/ra8odr5ksd82goz/Principles%20for%20repertoire%20an...>) and the variant sub-group adjusted course based on the feedback received. During the Brussels workshop in Jan 2018 (a year later after work started) the same questions were raised again (by newcomers), so we decided to have an impromptu phone call with the IP to have them explain their guidance. They came back with the same response, and provided examples to that end. This is what led us to rewrite the principles for variant inclusion<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IrT_kfildf1SumYUqjkaIkMT-TYx9IRqtuPMV4Yv...>. Dennis From: Mirjana Tasić <Mirjana.Tasic@rnids.rs> Date: Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 2:40 PM To: Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets Dear Colleagues, My opinion on this matter is the same as Meikal stated in this mail. We should make our own interpretation of rules and guidelines and stick to it. In the further discussion with IP we could modify our findings if there is enough reasons for it. Regards Mirjana From: Latin GP <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de> Date: Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 10:00 To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets Dear colleuages, personally, I think we should conduct our own data-driven analysis based on our own interpretation of the rules and guidelines, and then ask IP for a review. After all, we are the community and it is our choice - they are only the ones to judge wether we meet the common criteria. That would be in line we the view they expressed, that the GPs are to guide IP. Best, Meikal On 31 May 2018 at 15:14, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com<mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>> wrote: It would be helpful if we could get the IP to issue an statement on the points you are raising below. -Dennis From: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com<mailto:bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>> Reply-To: "bill.jouris@insidethestack.com<mailto:bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>" <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com<mailto:bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 5:24 PM To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com<mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>>, Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de<mailto:meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de>>, Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>> Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org<mailto:LatinGP@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets And yet, in speaking with members of the IP (at San Juan), on the subject of the Least Astonishment Principle, what they said was "We are looking to the Generation Panels for guidance." And said further (on the matter of the breve and caron) "When I am typing something that includes one of them, I have to copy and paste because I can't tell which I am lookIng at." In short, while the two diacritics are clearly not identical, at least with sufficient magnification, as far as he was concerned there was no reason that they could not be classified by us as varients. What constitutes "identical in appearance" depends enormously on just how much magnification is assumed. The rationale for assuming anything larger than 12 point type is not at all obvious. Bill Sent from Yahoo Mail on Androi<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>d On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com<mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>> wrote: From: Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de<mailto:meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de>> Date: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 10:14 AM To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com<mailto:bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com<mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>>, Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>> Cc: Latin GP <LatinGP@icann.org<mailto:LatinGP@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Variant cross-script analysis worksheets My conclusion is that it is more complex than reducing things to "homoglyphs" but I do not think that (at least linguistically) we have a strong definition of homoglyphs On homoglyphs the Latin GP has received the following guidance from IP, in writing and verbally (during the Brussels workshop) “In the context of the Root Zone, the Procedure is quite clear in that it considers simple similarity of appearance to be outside the scope of the Root Zone LGR. In admitting exact homoglyphs, the IP has been making the argument that ‘e’ in Latin (U+0065) and ‘е’ in Cyrillic(U+0435) are not just visually indistinguishable, but that their distinct code points effectively represent a disunification by script property.” – Email from IP to Latin GP of 18 October 2017 in response to our draft Principles for Inclusion and Exclusion of Code Points in Latin Script for the Root Zone, and in particular to our Analysis of Variants in the Latin Script for the Root Zone. “The kinds of variants to be defined in the Root Zone LGR are limited to homoglyphs, which are characters with essentially identical appearance by design, instead of merely similar appearance.” – Integration Panel feedback to Latin GP proposal of 22 March 2017. _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org<mailto:Latingp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp
participants (4)
-
Bill Jouris -
Michael Bauland -
Mirjana Tasić -
Tan Tanaka, Dennis