[NCSG-PC] Internationalized Domain Names and string similarity reviews

[Farell FOLLY]

Dear Tomslin,

Well done. This is actually a very good summary.

@__f_f__

Best regards
____________________________________

Lt-Colonel Farell FOLLY, Ir
GNSO Councillor
linkedin.com/in/farellf  






> On 30 Apr 2022, at 08:58, 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/ <https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomslin/>
> <EPDP Team Meeting 30 Slides - E3 E1 E3a.pdf>_______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20220503/9a0f9ca3/attachment.htm>