Re: Character Variant Deployment at VeriSign

[James Seng <jseng@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If we were to divide the IDN space into two side

(a) resolution involving end-users, IDNA-clients, apps developers, etc

(b) IDN registration & administration involving registrants, Registries, 
Registrars, NICs etc

The goal for the JET document is really for (b), not (a). This is not to 
say that the we totally ignore the end-users. If the deployment of 
registration policy helps the end-users, that would be nice but our 
priority is on (b).

That is why there is a focus on reducing dispute and less on "reducing 
confusing to end-users". We understand that such method is incomplete 
and we clearly stated that "the issues for CJK variants are complex and 
the guideline only forms part of the solutions".

On a more personal note, I would advise that you dont go near the 
slippery slope of "reducing confusion for all end-users". This would 
more likely going to re-open the questions of how variants (particularly 
TC-SC) in in IDNA/Nameprep.

-James Seng

> This might make sense to the registrants, but it will still be confusing
> to end users for whom X and Y are variants, and I think we should
> be trying to help all users, not just registrants.  And even the
> registrants, after they discover that their domains are being confused
> by some users, might start complaining.
>
> AMC