[governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other Latin ccTLDs?
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Tue Nov 1 09:21:06 EDT 2011
Dear George and others,
The relevance of IDNs to Internet Governance are in the "*multilingualism*"
policy category that was defined in the WGIG 2005 document.
I was going through the archives and found your email. You may be
interested in reading the Study Reports on the various variants, they are
open for comments and submissions, see:
I listened to certain speakers speak about IDN variants which are so very
exciting and interesting. You can access and view their study reports via
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/ The Cyrillic variant report is open
for comments until 16th November, 2011. Other variant reports are also
there (Arabic, Chinese, Greek, Latin etc). If you want to get submissions
in and quick, now is the time! :)
It is so interesting to see how certain scripts are politically charged,
the similarity in phonetics or confusingly similar script. Whilst IDNs have
been around for some time, I am sensing that it will only accelerate in its
prominence in the not too distant future.
The existing ITU model has closed memberships and this is true even for the
Dedicated Working Group on International Internet Related Public Policy
issues. This is a *closed group* I might add. Is there anyone on this list
that is a member of this group I would be interested to ask some policy
questions on the subject matter and we can discuss offlist.
I am on record for asking At Large whether there is some level of
interface between ICANN and this Dedicated Working Group. This Dedicated
Working Group was established under Resolution 75. Membership is only
exclusive for member states and the current chair is Mr Majed Al Mazyed
from Saudi Arabia.
Resolution 133 deals from the ITU Plenipotentiary deals with the role of
administrations of member states in the management of
internationalized(multilingual)
domain names. [see
http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/intgov/resoultions_2010/PP-10/RESOLUTION_133.pdf
]
I should also state that the 2009 Council Resolution 1305 [which we are
denied access unless you are a member state invited Member States to
recognise the scope of the work of ITU on international Internet-related
public policy matters.] I will say that the approach of the ITU to close
discussions on internet policy and limit it to member states is worrying.
2012 will be a critical year within the ITU as they will be revising alot
of resolutions and positions etc to "make it more relevant".
I am not in anyway criticising ITU and have *great respect* for the degree
of capacity building and recognise the role that they play but I strongly
disagree with the policy exclusionary development processes within the ITU.
The ICC also publicly in 2005 issued a Statement to tell ITU about what it
thought of ITU's role in the development of global internet policies and
think that the statement would be available on the ICC website.
There are some who have been vocal of wanting to see more efficient policy
processes and are debating what enhanced cooperation.
As civil society how can the voice of consumers be represented or at least
other critical stakeholders within policy development space? I think that
these are legitimate questions that require consideration.
I would also be interested to learn from other individuals or organisations
that deal with IDN other than the ITU Dedicated Working Group and ICANN. If
you can point me to URLs, that would be great.
I am also aware of the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on the
management of the Internet protocol address resources in the public
interest (see:
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1678299&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColorIntranet=EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383
)
Tobias Mahler who is on this list had raised issues with s.9 of this
Declaration on another list.
It will be great to see all those working on these policies to share
resources and information, so that at the end of the day, consumer
interests and end users are protected.*
*
I was wondering whether civil society or individual members would like to
put in submissions, then they are at liberty to do so.
Best Regards,
Sala
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:41 AM, George Todoroff <george_todoroff at imap.cc>wrote:
> Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other Latin ccTLDs?
>
> Bulgaria has proposed for an IDN ccTLD the string .бг (Cyrillic
> for .bg, or U+0431 U+0433), but the proposal was turned down by
> the ICANN DNS Stability panel in May 2010 without any arguments
> or an option for appeal.
>
> The proposed string is composed of two characters:
> U+0431 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER BE (б) and
> U+0433 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER GHE (г)
>
> Reading the tables, provided with Unicode Technical Standard
> #39,
> (http://www.unicode.org/Public/security/revision-04/confusables.txt
> )
> I see that confusable characters are only:
>
> 0431 ; 0036 ; SL # ( б → 6 ) CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER BE → DIGIT SIX
> #
>
> 0433 ; 0072 ; ML # ( г → r ) CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER GHE → LATIN
> SMALL LETTER R #
>
> As a result, we see that the applied string .бг could be
> confused only with the string .6r, which does not exist.
>
> The Russian case
>
> Opponents to the Bulgarian proposal say that Russia first wanted
> to apply for .ру (Cyrillic for .ru), but then selected another
> one, because .ру was found to be confusingly similar with the
> Paraguayan ccTLD .py , and because of this, Bulgaria must be
> obedient and select another IDN string.
>
> Looking again at Unicode Technical Standard #39, I see that:
>
> 0440 ; 0070 ; ML # ( р → p ) CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER ER → LATIN
> SMALL LETTER P #
>
> 0443 ; 0079 ; ML # ( у → y ) CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER U → LATIN
> SMALL LETTER Y #
>
> We have absolute similarity here! Very different than the
> Bulgarian case with 50% similarity.
>
> Russia selected and received the .рф (Cyrillic for .rf) string.
> Looking for a third time at Unicode Technical Standard #39, I
> see that:
>
> 0440 ; 0070 ; MA # ( р → p ) CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER ER → LATIN
> SMALL LETTER P #
>
> 0444 ; 0278 ; ML # ( ф → ɸ ) CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER EF → LATIN
> SMALL LETTER PHI#
>
> What do we have here? One similar character, and one not similar
> to a Latin basic character. So, how is this different from the
> Bulgarian case? Its the same! How the Russian string was
> approved, and the Bulgarian – not???
>
>
> The DNS Stability panel rankings
>
> [6] Both characters are visually identical to an ISO 646 Basic Version
> (ISO 646-BV) character.
> [5] One character is visually identical to, and one character is
> visually confusable with, an ISO 646-BV character.
> [4] Both characters are visually confusable with, but neither character
> is visually identical to, an ISO 646-BV character.
> [3] One character is visually distinct from, and one character is
> visually identical to, an ISO 646-BV character.
> [2] One character is visually distinct from, and one character is
> visually confusable with, an ISO 646-BV character.
> [1] Both characters are visually distinct from an ISO 646-BV character.
>
> The panel said that Bulgaria fails under [4] or [5], so the
> string is not accepted, because rank [4] or more is not good.
>
> But, from my findings here, the Bulgarian (as the Russian)
> strings fail under [2] or [3], and its perfectly fine to be
> approved.
>
> Security proposals
>
> As another participant in the public comment forum said, two
> security proposals must be implemented:
>
> “1. All names in the .бг (.bg) IDN ccTLD must be registered only
> with Cyrillic letters.”
> “2. All names in the .бг (.bg) IDN ccTLD must contain at least
> one letter, which can be visually distinguished from the Latin
> alphabet (one of the letters: б, г, д, ж, и, й, л, п, ф, ц, ч,
> ш, щ, ъ, ь, ю, я).” (“г“ may fail off this list, because of my
> findings.)
>
> Examples
>
> There must be really conservative people in the DNS Stability
> panel, who don`t like seeing domains like:
> - раурал.бг because people would confuse it with paypal.br
> Come on, раурал.бг and paypal.br ? Compare with paypal.it and
> paypal.lt ?
>
> Others are afraid of seeing:
> - руса.бг and pyca.br (whatever this means in Brazilian Portuguese) -
> check the second security proposal. The first domain can`t exist.
>
> - - - - -
>
> Dear DNS Stability panel members, what is wrong here?
> Dear ICANN Board members, Bulgaria needs an appeal procedure!
>
> Cheers,
> George Todoroff
> --
> george_todoroff at imap.cc
>
> --
> http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
--
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111102/a743ef90/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list