Re: [Latingp] Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5
Thanks, Pitinan. One thing I noticed is that the list of confusables (Apendix E) has not changed since the last time we reviewed it. We agreed in revising it using the visual similarity analysis; keep those with scores 1 or 2 in 4 out of 7 votes, remove everything else. Dennis From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 2:09 PM To: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Final Call: Lain LGR package version 5 Dear Latin GP members, Thank you for your feedback on the set of documents for LGR version 5 in OneDrive. Now the final call for comments on the document is closed. Please do not put any further comments on the online document but share any further feedback, if any, over the email. Where the comments do not affect the normative part, I’m going ahead and incorporate them. I’m working on both the main document and appendices, which might take a couple of days. The final LGR version 5 package will be shared with the GP within this week for a final look before submitting to the IP. Regards, Pitinan From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org> Date: Monday, October 12, 2020 at 5:26 AM To: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Latingp] Finally Call: Lain LGR package version 5 Dear Latin GP members, The XML and its equivalent HTML are already uploaded to One Drive for your review. (https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AkZhpDj508j%2DWW4&id=48AA6AACD70E3A81%... [onedrive.live.com]<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1NzSNn6qL0I7kkIjWdI-VU4p1nL2VLUMirYdVOFuPIhKxJp...>) Kindly review and let us know any feedback by 19 October 2020, 12-Noon UTC. Regards, Pitinan From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org> Date: Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 6:02 AM To: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [Latingp] Finally Call: Lain LGR package version 5 Dear Latin GP members, The Latin script LGR proposal and relevant appendices has been updated as per the GP conclusions made during the meetings up to 8 October 2020. Please review the files at the Latin GP One Drive, Reviewing Version folder (https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AkZhpDj508j%2DWW4&id=48AA6AACD70E3A81%... [onedrive.live.com]<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1NzSNn6qL0I7kkIjWdI-VU4p1nL2VLUMirYdVOFuPIhKxJp...>) and provide your feedback by 19 October 2020, 12:00 noon UTC. If there is no request to hold the submission e.g. change in the normative part. The package will send the IP on 20 October 2020. It will be version 5. Please note that the XML file will be available over the weekend. Regards, Pitinan
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 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) 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 All, For your information. Based on the recording of 20 Aug 2020 meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/croscomlgrprocedure/Latin+GP>, 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]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=G...> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 9:36 AM, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp <latingp@icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org<mailto: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]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!PtGJab4!...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!PtGJab4!vWu...>). 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 -
Pitinan Kooarmornpatana -
Tan Tanaka, Dennis