Internationalized Domain Names and string similarity reviews

[Tomslin Samme-Nlar]

Hi Farzi,

Thanks for your input.
"Only requested allocatable" refers to only those variants requested for by
an applicant during a round. Those variants of the primary label *not*
requested (even though they can be) for by an applicant will not be
included in the string similarity review.
On the other hand "all allocatable" refers to all possible variants of a
primary label which are not blocked (not allowed to be applied for possibly
due to failing previous similarity reviews, visually similar to another or
for some other security & stability reasons).

I hope that helps?

Tomslin
@Twitter: https://twitter.com/tomsleen
@LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomslin/


On Wed, 4 May 2022 at 22:29, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20220504/17d23582/attachment.htm>