[ChineseGP] ToDo : draft letters to IP and ICANN

[HiroHOTTA]

                                                        19 March, 2016
                                                        Hiro Hotta, JGP


              Two letters from CJK GPs to ICANN and IP


1. Confirmation of the purpose/content of the letters

I described below about the intention and brief content of the 
letters we are supposed to formally send to IP and ICANN.
If the below is confirmed in CJK coordination meeting, draft of 
the letters will be crafted and reviewed by all CJK GP members.


2. result of Marrakech Meeting

CJK met on Sunday 6 and Thursday 10 March 2016 and concluded that
CJK will send the two (2) formal letters, 
  (letter-a) to IP
          requesting for the rationale of IP's request to reduce
          allocatable variants
  (letter-b) to ICANN
          requesting for the enhancement of TLD application process 
          to enable more than one applied-for labels to be allocated, 
          even if LGR blocks one of them when another of them is 
          input to LGR


3. proposed letters

3.1 letter-a to IP

  This is a simple letter asking for their rationale in writing. 
  Such rationale may be essential for all the GPs to determine the 
  allocatability in some of the LGR.

  So far, IP seems 
    - to accept the following three Chinese labels that are 
      variants of each other
        * applied for
        * all traditional
        * all all simplified
    - to reject the Japanese labels that are variants of each other 
      even if every variant label is EQUALY VALID as a Japanese 
      word
  We need to know the clear criteria for acceptance and rejection.

3.2 letter-b to ICANN

  This is a letter requesting ICANN to incorporate our request to 
  be included in the future TLD application procedure.

  ICANN says that once a label is decided to be blocked by the 
  LGR, such a label cannot be definitely allocated at the moment of 
  the application and also in the future. 
  However there are cases where 
    (x) blocked label-A and its variant label-B are equally needed 
        to be allocated at the time of application in the case 
        even if LGR does not implement the demand of the language 
        community
    (y) blocked label-B will be needed to be allocated even if the 
        applicant did not know that label-B is one of the blocked 
        variant of label-A or label-B will be needed to become 
        allocatable in the future 

  (x) can be implemented if the application procedure can review 
  more than one label as input at the same time and give both of 
  them a green light.

  (y) can be implemented if the application procedure can notify 
  the applicant about the blocked labels and allow the applicant 
  to ask for giving 'allocatable' to some of blocked variant 
  labels.

/END

Hiro