Logo
ICANN
ICANN
Filtered Search

Are you sure you want to sign out from http://www.icann.org?

If you want to sign out from both http://www.icann.org and ICANN Account, click here.

Public Comment

Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.

Contenido disponible solo en los siguientes idiomas

  • English

Name: Raymond Doctor
Date: 19 Nov 2025
Email: [email protected]
Original Public Comment: String Similarity Evaluation Data for New gTLD Program: Next Round
1. Are there any visually similar pairs of code points which are missing and should be added (with similarity category 1, 2 or 3)? If so, please list the missing pairs and similarity category (using the format: m, rn, 2).

NO

2. Are there any code point pairs that are currently included (similarity category 1, 2 or 3) but should be removed (changed to similarity category 4 or 5)? If so, please identify the pairs and the updated similarity category (using the format: m, rn, 2).

NO

3. Are there any pairs of code points for which the similarity category should be changed? If so, please identify the pairs and suggest the updated similarity category (using the format: m, rn, 2).

NO

4. For the pairs which are included mechanically due to transitivity, the similarity category is automatically set to Category 4 with comment “Imposed” added by default. Are there any “imposed” pairs of code points which should be updated to similarity category 1, 2, or 3? If so, please identify the pairs and suggest the updated similarity category (using the format: m, rn, 2).

NO

5. ASCII i and l (U+0069 LATIN SMALL LETTER I and U+006C LATIN SMALL LETTER L) are homoglyphs in mixed upper and lower case. Should mixed-case be considered in scope for the SSE Data?
Choice 1: Included in the similarity set with visual similarity Category 1 for the homoglyphs.
6. Given the methodology discussed in the String Similarity Evaluation Data for the New gTLD: Next Round related to Han script, does the visual similarity analysis provided for Chinese, Japanese and Korean scripts capture the potential visual similarity in Han script characters? If not, please provide examples and explain how the analysis may be updated.

DOES NOT APPLY TO INDIC

7. Appendix A provides details of four similarity sets which directly or transitively include the similarity between ASCII code points due to uppercase-lowercase conversion and variant definitions. Do you agree with the set?
Choice 1: Agree with the analysis in Appendix A and corresponding similarity sets identified in the data.
Other Comments

I have carefully gone through the Gujarati String Similarity evaluation and appreciate the care with which homoglyphs both intra and cross-script have been identified. I see no issues.