My inclination would be to include Appendix E (as is) in what we are sending to the IP.   All we are doing with this is give them the opportunity to comment on what we are doing.  If we leave it out, then we will be faced with creating the Public Comment version without getting the IP's comments on it.   I admit, I may not be pleased with the substance of the IP's comments.  On the other hand, I think we ought to have it.  Bill Jouris On Wednesday, October 21, 2020, 11:48:09 AM PDT, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com> wrote: <!--#yiv6821024080 _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv6821024080 #yiv6821024080 p.yiv6821024080MsoNormal, #yiv6821024080 li.yiv6821024080MsoNormal, #yiv6821024080 div.yiv6821024080MsoNormal {margin:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;}#yiv6821024080 a:link, #yiv6821024080 span.yiv6821024080MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6821024080 p.yiv6821024080MsoListParagraph, #yiv6821024080 li.yiv6821024080MsoListParagraph, #yiv6821024080 div.yiv6821024080MsoListParagraph {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;}#yiv6821024080 span.yiv6821024080EmailStyle19 {font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv6821024080 .yiv6821024080MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered {}#yiv6821024080 div.yiv6821024080WordSection1 {}#yiv6821024080 _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv6821024080 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv6821024080 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}--> Thanks, Pitinan.   The proposal was: - Variant: 7/7, 6/7 or 5/7à Variant candidates - Confusable: 4/7à Appendix E - Distinguishable: 3/7, 2/7 or 1/7   Since appendix E is not normative I would be okay to not include in the submission to IP until we have a chance to review it as a group.   Dennis   From:Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 2:36 PM To: "b_jouris@yahoo.com" <b_jouris@yahoo.com>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com>, "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] Re: [Latingp] Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5   Dear All,   For your information. Based on the recording of20 Aug 2020 meeting, the GP discussed the Appendix E Confusable from minute 36:00 onward. Toward the end, the GP agreed to have ICANN staff shortlists the 4 of 7 cases in a separate section which will provide a clearer information for the GP  to make decision (minute 00:58 till the end).  Highly apologize that the meeting note is not available.     Also, we would suggest not including Appendix E in the package of version 5 submission, as it is not concluded yet and it does not affect the normative part. The updated Appendix E with a separate section for 4 of 7 cases will be share to the GP after version 5 submission.   Regards, Pitinan     From:Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com> Reply-To: "b_jouris@yahoo.com" <b_jouris@yahoo.com> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 12:13 AM To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com>, "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp@icann.org>, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org>, "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Latingp] Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5   Somehow I missed that agreement.  I thought we agreed that, if only 4 of 7 selected "variant," it would be only a Confusable.  But nothing about restricting Confusables to just those.     That would be a HUGE change.  The principle we have been using is that, since we are just providing input for the Similarity Review Panel, we would cast a wide net.  They are not, after all, required to pay any attention to our views.  So where is the harm in offering them other items for possible consideration?     The only possible harm I can dream up (admittedly perhaps just lack of imagination on my part) is this: if we list something as Confusable, it increases the likelihood that, in Public Comment, someone thinks to tell us it should have been a Variant. Rather then just overlooking the pair in the large volume of possibilities.  That is, the harm is that we might not be able to get away with a mistake.  Not a strong ethical basis IMHO.    Bill Jouris      Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]   On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 9:36 AM, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp <latingp@icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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 [icann.org]) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]). 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.