Internationalized Domain Names and string similarity reviews

[farzaneh badii]

Thanks Tomslin

I don’t understand what they mean by only allocatable and all allocatable
but I usually believe least conservative approach in allocation is better.



On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 2:59 AM Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear NCSG,
>
> The Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) EPDP team is currently discussing
> charter questions on how string similarity should be performed on variant
> labels of future TLD labels.
> 3 options described as *levels* were proposed as you will see on the
> attached slide deck and the team is to choose one of them. I'll try to
> summarize the description of the 3 levels below and indicate my preferred
> level.
>
> *Notes for those not familiar with the topic:*
>
>
>
>
> *In IDNs, a TLD has a primary label (P) and variants (v), which are labels
> in different languages and/or scripts of the primary label.Consider P1 as
> the applied-for primary gTLD 1 and P1 could have variant labels, say three
> for the sake of this discussion:○ P1v1: allocatable and requested for
> activation○ P1v2: allocatable but not requested○ P1v3: blocked*
>
> Now, the question is, during an application round, for string similarity
> reviews, should P with its variants P1v1, P1v2 & P1v3 be compared with
>
>    - *Level 1*:* Existing & applied for Primary labels + ONLY Requested
>    Allocatable Variants*
>       - *Pros*: (a) Limited pool of labels for comparison; (b) Simplest,
>       fastest & least expensive to conduct the review
>       - *Cons*: An entity may potentially not be able to apply for its
>       label variant (P1v2) in the future if another entity applies for a label or
>       variant which causes it to be visually confusable to P1v2.
>
>
>    - *Level 2: Existing & applied for Primary labels + ALL Allocatable
>    Variants*
>       - *Pros:* (a) Relatively manageable pool of labels for comparison,
>       except for certain TLDs in Arabic; (b)  Allows entities to ensure that all
>       of their allocatable strings and all other possible future similar strings
>       would be blocked. This creates predictability because all entities have
>       their original string and allocatable variants.
>       - *Cons*: (a) Certain TLDs in Arabic may have extremely large
>       number of allocatable variants, therefore more expensive than Level
>       1; (b) 7 scripts in RZ-LGR-5 have allocatable variants
>
>
>    - *Level 3: Existing & applied for Primary labels + ALL Variants
>    (Blocked & Allocatable)*
>       - *Pros*: Maximally conservative approach and may reduce the
>       possibility of visual confusability among all valid labels in an
>       application round.
>       - *Cons*: (a) Slowest, most complicated & expensive to conduct the
>       review; (b) 21 scripts in RZ-LGR-5 have variants; (c) Certain TLDs in
>       Arabic, Cyrillic & Latin may have extremely large number of blocked
>       variants; (d) May reject strings due to conflict with blocked variants that
>       will never be delegated.
>
> I previously gave my personal preference to the working group as being
> Level 2. However, the more I read through available information and listen
> to debate on this issue, the more I lean towards Level 1. Therefore, I
> would love to hear what NCSG members think so that the Policy Committee can
> agree on an official NCSG preference.
> I understand this is a bit of a complex topic, but* if we don't get any
> responses by Thursday May 5, we'll assume no official NCSG preference*.
>
> Warmly,
> Tomslin
> @LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomslin/
>
-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20220504/d3dfdc09/attachment.htm>