[ChineseGP] 答复: follow up to London meeting

[Ryan Tan YH]

Hi Wang Wei,

Thanks. I agree with the proposed next steps though we should keep the 
reduction of the CGP character set as a possible future strategy as 
events unfold. This is in case eventually the CJK cannot agree on the 
final set of variants for some overlapping codepoints. In that case a 
reduction of CGP character set may mitigate some (and hopefully all) 
problems.

It is too early to tell really. My sense it is still some way to go 
before K *and* J form their GP (and they may not) and produce their 
respective character sets. CGP can only complete our tasks on hand and 
navigate each obstacle along the way.

Regards,
Ryan

Wang Wei wrote, On 30/6/2014 11:34 PM:
>
> Sorry guys
>
> “If some modification request is unignorable, a safer way would be 
> modifying CDNC table first.”
>
> *发件人:*chinesegp-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:chinesegp-bounces at icann.org] *代表 *Wang Wei
> *发送时间:*2014年6月30日21:37
> *收件人:*ChineseGP at icann.org
> *主题:*[ChineseGP] follow up to London meeting
>
> Dear all
>
>          In London meeting, Kenny and I joined the coordination 
> meeting and workshop, discussed with IP and representatives from K and J.
>
>          Here are some conclusions and tasks for the next step:
>
> 1)Except for the coordination reason, the CGP Initial Character set 
> will keep EXACTLY the same with CDNC table, to eliminate the 
> unnecessary question of consistency and inconsistency from IP or other 
> communities.
>
> In other words, though there is no clear compulsory requirement for 
> consistency between TLD and SLD, different experts expressed different 
> opinions on the issue, the change to current SLD repertoire should be 
> carried out restrainedly and conservatively.
>
> If some modification request is ignorable, a safer way would be 
> modifying CDNC table first.
>
> 2)Adding expert from Malaysia and some other area.
>
> 3)Kenny will ask Japan community and Korea community to confirm if 
> they agree or disagree with the coordination rules described in 
> Asmus’s slide (attached pdf 1) and ICANN document (attached pdf 2, 
> appendix F)
>
> Especially on the setting of “variant mapping” and “variant type”
>
> CGP is fine with the proposed solution from ICANN, personally I hope 
> it’s OK with J and K too.
>
> But if J or K doesn’t accept that rule, we probably need a formal 
> joint statement for IP, then we need to propose a new feasible 
> alternative for IP, and of course, more negotiation with IP since they 
> already published the attached PDF2 and went through public comments.
>
> 4)Our target is to finish the job before next ICANN meeting (October), 
> it is not changed.
>
> But it depends on the coordination rules for repertoire and variants.
>
> Once the joint repertoire were made, I would be optimistic about 
> instituting generation rules in a short time.
>
> Otherwise, if we can’t reach an agreement with J and K, we won’t move 
> a single step toward the generation rules.
>
> Please voice your opinions as fully as possible~
>
> Regards
>
> Wang Wei
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ChineseGP mailing list
> ChineseGP at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/chinesegp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/chinesegp/attachments/20140701/1c1a4fe1/attachment.html>