<<<
Chronological Index
>>>
Thread Index
>>>
Comment regarding: Variant Issues Project -- Greek Case Study Team Issues Report
- To: <idn-vip-greek@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Comment regarding: Variant Issues Project -- Greek Case Study Team Issues Report
- From: "Jimmy Kyriannis" <jimmy.kyriannis@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:52:55 -0400
Dear Greek Case Study Review Team,
After reviewing the Greek Case Study Team Issues Report, I would like to pose
the following question for your consideration.
Regarding the text which appears in Paragraph 5 of Page 17 within the PDF
document located at
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/greek-vip-issues-report-07oct11-en.pdf
(which is marked as Page 13 within the Report itself):
“Additionally, a second red line for the team is the belief that any variations
of the characters of a specific string submitted for registration should be
reserved only for the same registrant. This is because of the significant
confusability risk present in small variations of a tonos in an alternative
place or a different position of the final sigma. The team acknowledges that
this decision introduces a restriction for some words (e.g. words like πότε and
ποτέ) but the risk mitigation is by far more significant than the impact of
this restriction to the registrations, especially if only TLDs are studied.”
I very much appreciate the need to mitigate the risk of confusability and to
promote user-friendliness. However, the decision to equate πὀτε with ποτἐ
would, as I read the text, appear to be in conflict with the text in the
paragraph immediately prior to it (Paragraph 4) on the same page, regarding the
use of accent marks:
“What should be considered as a red line for the members of this team is the
absolute belief that both the accent marks and the final sigma have to be
included in the allowed for registrations characters since they are paramount
for the proper typing of so many words in the Greek language. Although a
“no‐accents‐no‐final‐sigma” approach was discussed, it was not welcomed by any
of the members of the team and it was rejected, because this would lead to a
not real representation of the Greek language and its grammar.”
Although the difference in meaning between the words πὀτε and ποτἐ may not be
of major significance as it relates to the adoption of Greek TLDs, I wonder how
the Review Team might consider the case of the words Αθἠνα and Αθηνἀ where the
former refers to the capital city of Greece, Athens, and the latter refers to
the Greek goddess Athena. Both words are of great historic and cultural
significance to the Greek people, and care should be taken to not confuse the
two. However, if I correctly understand the meaning expressed within Paragraph
5, a party wishing to register the gTLD Αθἠνα – if awarded – would receive
αθἠνα. as well as control over αθηνἀ. What would then become of the party
wishing to register the gTLD Αθηνἀ?
The recommendation in Paragraph 5 suggests that the second party would be
denied that privilege. Although unfortunate for the second registrant, in this
particular case, there could be cultural implications as the registrant awarded
a gTLD relevant to the city of Athens would not be held responsible for
providing services relevant to the goddess Athena.
I’m curious if the Team has considered this particular case or those of other
similar pairs of strings, which may have significance within Greek culture or
history, and thus be of interest to Greek TLD applicants? I believe the
implications go beyond the difference between the words πότε and ποτέ.
Continuing to use the above case as an example, the matter could be addressed
by treating the TLDs for Αθἠνα (αθἠνα.) and Αθηνἀ (αθηνἀ.) as two entirely
different domains available for two different registrants to operate, while
disallowing the atonal TLD of αθηνα. , which would be a source of mutual
conflict. This would be consistent with what is suggested in Paragraph 4 as
the “no‐accents‐no‐final‐sigma” approach. This approach would serve to
preserve the spirit of the text within Paragraph 5, which I read to be to
preserve the “real representation of the Greek Language and its grammar”, while
also providing for the disambiguation of the two tonal variants.
Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter.
Jimmy Kyriannis
Please note: The above comments or opinions are those of the author and do not
in any way reflect those of New York University.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>>
Thread Index
>>>
|