In our meeting Thursday, we got into a discussion about how to resolve cases where two different ratings for similarity were given.  In the document by the Cyrillic GP that Sarmard links to below (page 19), I came across this: RFC 6912 made clear that: Public zones are, by definition, zones that are shared by different groups of people.  Therefore, any decision to permit a code point in a public zone (including the root) should be as conservative as practicable. Doubts should always be resolved in favor of rejecting a code point for inclusion rather than in favor of including it, in order to minimize risk. While this was a discussion about including code points, it seem to me that the same principle, doubt being resolved in favor of restriction, would lead us to resolving different similarity ratings in favor of making a pair variants, rather than something less restrictive.  Food for thought in our discussion of the subject.  Bill Jouris Inside Products bill.jouris@insidethestack.com 831-659-8360 925-855-9512 (direct) From: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Cc: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 10:18 AM Subject: RE: [Ext] Cyrillic Proposal #yiv3218222457 #yiv3218222457 -- _filtered #yiv3218222457 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3218222457 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3218222457 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv3218222457 #yiv3218222457 p.yiv3218222457MsoNormal, #yiv3218222457 li.yiv3218222457MsoNormal, #yiv3218222457 div.yiv3218222457MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv3218222457 a:link, #yiv3218222457 span.yiv3218222457MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3218222457 a:visited, #yiv3218222457 span.yiv3218222457MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3218222457 p.yiv3218222457msonormal0, #yiv3218222457 li.yiv3218222457msonormal0, #yiv3218222457 div.yiv3218222457msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv3218222457 span.yiv3218222457EmailStyle19 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv3218222457 span.yiv3218222457EmailStyle20 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv3218222457 .yiv3218222457MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv3218222457 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv3218222457 div.yiv3218222457WordSection1 {}#yiv3218222457 Sure Bill.  The RZ-LGR proposals are posted at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lgr-proposals-2015-12-01-en.  See section 6.2.  of the Cyrillic LGR proposal.  It says: “The GP analyzed only lower case because upper case is disallowed in IDNA 2008 standard. This decision was made in consultation with IP (the IP, at this point, does not require that upper case homoglyphs are included).”  Regards, Sarmad  From: Bill Jouris [mailto:bill.jouris@insidethestack.com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 9:47 PM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Cyrillic Proposal  Hi Sarmad, You mentioned that the IP had responded on the subject of Capital letters and that response was in the Cyrillic GP proposal.  Can you provide a link to that proposal? Thanks Bill Jouris Inside Products bill.jouris@insidethestack.com 831-659-8360 925-855-9512 (direct)