ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[jig]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

FW: [jig] SSAC report on Single Character IDN TLDs

  • To: jig <jig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: FW: [jig] SSAC report on Single Character IDN TLDs
  • From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:28:57 -0800

Forwarding on behalf of Patrik Faltstrom.

Julie Hedlund

------ Forwarded Message
From: Patrik Fältström <patrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:14:29 -0800
To: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Julie Hedlund
<julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, 'jig' <jig@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [jig] SSAC report on Single Character IDN TLDs

Not new separate rules per se, but we can not apply the current rules
because there is no rules for one character TLDs.

For example, the current string evaluation for two characters (shortest so
far) does explicitly allow a gray scale of confusability, where there are
different grades of confusability. Now in the case of two characters, it is
said explicitly what grade of confusability is allowed in such a 2 character
TLD.

That is not done for one character cases.

Further, no rules exists, which is suddenly needed, when you say "one
character" what that really implies as that might as the report says be more
than one unicode codepoint.

Etc.

  Patrik

On 14 feb 2012, at 00:12, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Patrik,
> 
> I do not understand why a one character string would have separate rules for
character confusion.  Since the strings are evaluated absent of language then it
is merely an identifier which single characters would also be.
> 
> Chuck
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:patrik@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 2:46 AM
>> To: edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'jig'
>> Subject: Re: [jig] SSAC report on Single Character IDN TLDs
>> 
>> On 3 feb 2012, at 18:55, Edmon Chung wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes, I think we are probably saying pretty much the same thing too.
>> The subtle, and critical difference is perhaps whether the excuse for
>> ICANN to withhold/discriminate single character IDN TLD implementation
>> is appropriate.
>> 
>> What SSAC says is that the rules for what codepoints are what I think
>> you call "easy" and "hard" does not exist, and they must exist before
>> single character TLDs are accepted.
>> 
>>> The same logic if applied would result in ICANN not being able to
>> identify what is a 2 character string (and so on).  i.e. if one cannot
>> determine whether a string is 1 character long, how can one determine
>> whether a string is 2 characters long, and so on.
>> 
>> No, because specific rules exists for 2 character labels.
>> 
>>> To illustrate the point:
>>> - if one cannot determine whether "o" should be considered confusing
>> with "0"
>>> - neither can one determine whether "oo" should be considered
>> confusing with "00"
>> 
>> Wrong, rules exists for the 2nd of the two.
>> 
>>   Patrik
> 
> 


------ End of Forwarded Message

Attachment: signature.asc
Description:



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy