[NCSG-PC] Latin diacritics public comment

[farzaneh badii]

Thanks a lot Tapani.
NCSG PC, tomorrow is the deadline, please weigh in if you have any
objections.

Added to Tapani is a section on the first ever human rights assessment that
been done on a PDP. We don't have the time to also comment on their public
interest analysis but would be good if there is a volunteer.


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ThmEn9d9YOkFK1qy5PY04ixXKzBqWTslX85LCSKT7_U/edit?tab=t.0


Farzaneh


On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 12:43 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Tapani
>
> Here is the Google doc:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ThmEn9d9YOkFK1qy5PY04ixXKzBqWTslX85LCSKT7_U/edit?tab=t.0
>
> We also need to respond to GPI analysis and HRIA analysis they have done.
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 12:00 PM Tapani Tarvainen <
> 00001e7f5908374c-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I am drafting a public comment about the initial report of the Latin
>> Script Diacritics PDP. It has been open for comments for over a month
>> already, my apologies for being a bit late here, but there's still a
>> week to go, deadline is February 23.
>>
>> They are using a guided submission form, which makes it a bit hard to
>> collaborate on the comment. I haven't yet arranged my ideas to fit
>> that, but I'll get around to it.
>>
>> I don't have pretty, submission-ready text yet, but as time is short,
>> here's roughly what I'm going to say:
>>
>> The main substantive thing is that they should allow characters that
>> for purposes of DNS behave just as if they were diacritics even if
>> they aren't by Unicode definition, like đ and ø.
>>
>> (Unicode definition does not agree with the original linguistic one,
>> it was just convenient to use to save time in the WG. In any case here
>> it's in effect just a proxy for "Latin extensions that are visually
>> confusable with base ASCII characters".)
>>
>> I'm also going to comment about the requirement that the base ASCII
>> version of the TLD is always needed (that is, you couldn't have
>> things like .sjö and .sjó without also having .sjo).
>>
>> I'm also a bit uneasy about how the single-entity principle
>> requirement is done, but maybe it won't be worth commenting on.
>>
>> I'll re-read the report in detail and may come up with other stuff to
>> say, but probably nothing big.
>>
>> Anyway, any ideas about this would be welcome. Feel free to comment
>> here or write to me directly, as you like. (I'll try to overcome my
>> distaste for googlish things and make a shareable google doc to draft
>> this on, but not today.)
>>
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20260223/293b8ae8/attachment.htm>