[ChineseGP] questions to be asked about the number of allocatable variants

[HiroHOTTA]

Dear IP/CGP/JGP/KGP,
Following are among the questions to be asked to IP and intended to
be discussed in the session held at 13:00 KST (4:00 UTC) today.
Hiro

=============

issues regarding "the number of allocatable variants"

=============

proposal by IP: 

  the number of allocatable variant strings should be small, 
  e.g., at most 3, as the result of RootLGR


issue-1

      "what kinds of variant strings are preferred to be applied 
      for" cannot be predicted and should not be assumed in 
      RootLGR (at least in Japanese case, for example)

      <reasoning>

  In Japanese case, all the characters are considered to be independent.
  Namely, all the strings of any combination of any characters in the 
  repertoire are designed to be allocatable by different TLD applicants.

  However, JGP knows that CGP wants to define variants in RootLGR, and 
  JGP currently intends to compromise by basically importing variant 
  definitions from CGP. This means that such strings that have variants 
  in C will be packaged also in J, although they are originally 
  intended to be independent.

  From Japanese point of view, as all the characters are considered 
  to be originally independent, all the strings in the package should 
  be allocatable even if they can be delegated to the same applicant. 
  Moreover, the probability of some applicant's intention to apply 
  for a specific string in the package is equal for all the strings 
  in the package. 


issue-2

      If limitation of the number of delegated variant strings 
      is intended to be implemented, it should be done in 
      application phase or application evaluation phase - not 
      by RootLGR

      <reasoning>

  As discussed in (1), the probability of "which string is preferred" 
  depends on the specific string that is applied for or that is 
  accessed by the users. Namely, it depends on how much the specific 
  string is well-known to the users. This means it's not possible for 
  us to define WLE before asking each applicant about which variant 
  strings they want to apply for.

  In that case, if we want to limit the number of delegated strings or 
  to assess whether it is appropriate for the applied-for string picked 
  up from the package, we need to engage measures after application(s) 
  of specific string(s) is(are) made.

==