[ChineseGP] (revised) Two letters from CJK GPs to ICANN and IP

[HiroHOTTA]

                                                        19 March, 2016
                                              (revised) 21 March, 2016
                                                        JGP


              Two letters from CJK GPs to ICANN and IP


1. Confirmation of the purpose/content of the letters

Description is given below about the intention and framework of the 
letters we are supposed to formally send to IP and ICANN. The purpose 
of the letters is to ask IP and ICANN to bridge a gap between the 
application procedure (including LGR) and CJK's demand.

If the below is confirmed by all of CJK GPs, draft letters will be 
crafted in full and reviewed by all CJK GP members. Then, they will 
be sent to IP and ICANN.


2. Result of Marrakech Meeting and Beijing Meeting Day1

CJK met on Sunday 6 and Thursday 10 March 2016, and concluded that
CJK will send the following two (2) formal letters, 

  (letter-a) to IP
          requesting the rationale of IP's request to reduce
          allocatable variants

  (letter-b) to ICANN
          requesting enhancement of TLD application process to 
          enable more than one applied-for labels in a variant 
          label group to be allocated, even if LGR blocks some of 
          them when one label is input to LGR

During Sunday 20 March Beijing Meeting, CJK GPs had an in-depth 
discussion about the purpose and content of the letters based on 
Hiro's material. There, CJK GPs agreed that 
  - CJK will jointly send letter-a to IP
  - CJK will consider more about the content of the letter based 
    on each GP's situation, although the joint statement empowers
    the message
      - C and J will jointly send a letter first
      - C and J will wait for K's decision to jon C and J
      - C / J / K will send a separate letter when each think 
        appropriate (no letter is also an option for each GP)

As an action item from Sunday 20 March Beijing Meeting, JGP was 
tasked to elaborate more on the letters by reflecting the 
comments given in the meeting. The below is the latest draft - 
with reflections of the comments as far as possible.


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 language/script LGRs.

  So far, IP seems 
    - to accept the limited number (typically less than 10) of Chinese 
      labels that are variants of each other - such labels are :
        * applied for label
        * all traditional label(s)
        * all simplified label(s)
    - to reject some of the Japanese labels that are variants of each 
      other even if every variant label (imported from CGP) is EQUALY 
      VALID as a Japanese word
        * A member of IP sent a mail to a member of JGP stating IP's 
          following position
            - Any allocatable variant must be individually justified. 
              The aim is to sufficiently reduce the number of 
              allocatable labels.

  We need to know the clear rationale and criteria for acceptance and 
  rejection determined by the LGR.

      [Hiro believes this demand is shared by all GPs, even 
       outside CJK. Especially, KGP will have just the same demand 
       as the following JGP example.
       The following Japanese example should go into Appendices, 
       because examples of just a single GP may make the readers 
       feel that this letter is intended to push a single GDP's 
       demand, although which is not the case]

  For example, Japanese characters are all independent and no 
  restriction rule exists regarding combination of the characters in a 
  word. Thus, JGP demands all characters to be independent (i.e., with 
  no variants) as a Japanese rule. However, JGP understands and 
  respects the necessity of CGP variants at TLD level and has 
  intention to import the definition of CGP variants. This makes 
  pseudo variant label groups for JGP, so to say. Even in such a case, 
  however, JGP demands all character combinations to be allocatable by 
 necessity.

  慶応義塾大学, 慶應義塾大学, 慶応義塾大學, 慶應義塾大學 constitute 
  a pseudo variant label group when CGP variant definition is imported 
  to JGP. All these four domain labels were applied for and delegated 
  to the same registrant (Keio University) as SLD of .jp and have been 
  used since then. This means the registrant wants to use all these 
  four strings as their domain labels. Note that if CGP's rule (no 
  mixture of traditional and simplified) is applied, two of them 
  will be marked as 'blocked' despite the registrant wants all four.

  As shown above, since all the characters are equally independent in 
  Japanese context, reducing allocatable labels within a pseudo 
  variant label group cannot be done automatically. If JGP is obliged 
  to reduce the number of allocatable labels, it's almost the same as 
  "random pick-up".

     [what else should be written here - from empirical study and 
      statistics]


3.2 letter-b to ICANN

     [where does the example of 台湾 fit?]

  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 exist following cases 

  (1) when allocatable labels set by LGR are limited despite of 
      the language community demand, there are cases where 
      applied-for label-A (which is marked 'allocatable') and its 
      variant label-B (which is marked 'blocked') are both wished 
      to be delegated. In some cases, additional blocked labels 
      (label-C, D, ...) may also be wished to be delegated.

      e.g., 慶応義塾大学, 慶應義塾大学, 慶応義塾大學, 慶應義塾大學 
            are Japanese variant labels when CGP variant definition 
            is imported to JGP. All these four domain labels were 
            applied for and delegated to the same registrant (Keio 
            University) as SLD of .jp. Note that if CGP's rule (no 
            mixture of traditional and simplified) is applied, two 
            of them will be marked as 'blocked' despite the 
            registrant wants all four.

  (2) label-B, which is marked as 'blocked' when label-A is applied 
      for LGR, is (or will be) wished to be delegated, in the case 
      where applicant did not know that label-B is one of the blocked 
      variant labels of label-A or label-B will be needed to be 
      delegated in the future. In some cases, additional blocked 
      labels (label-C, D, ...) may also be wished to be delegated.

            [Is the latter case (satisfying unknown future demand) 
             too demanding? ]

  (1) can be implemented if the application procedure can accept 
  a primary label (label-A) and additional variant labels (label-B, 
  C, D, ...) that the applicant wants at the time of application, 
  and the application procedure can give a green light to all 
  applied-for labels (label-A, B, C, D, ...). This can be 
  implemented by complement procedure for LGR, which wraps multiple 
  application of LGR. the maximum number of applied-for labels can 
  be limited to a reasonably-small concrete number (such as 4) by 
  the complement procedure. This is an automatic algorithmic 
  solution to (1).

  [first diagram of complement procedure will be inserted here]

  (2) 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. This can be a solution to (2) through human-intervention 
  in the application evaluation panel both for IDN ccTLD fast 
  track and for new gTLD application.

  [second diagram of complement procedure will be inserted here]

/END