ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< 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 
(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 >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy