[ChineseGP] [Japanesegp] FINAL CALL RE: Draft letter to IP regarding ~40 unresolved variant sets

[Edmon Chung]

My apologies for dropping this.

1. Ok.
2. I think while "before next gTLD application round starts" is intended, we
should not be explicit because it may send a wrong message to the GNSO that
this is a "prerequisite" for the next round (i.e. that it may hold up the
next round), which I do not believe is what we want to say.

If the above is acceptable, I will try to send the letter to IP before our
meeting.

Edmon



> -----Original Message-----
> From: hotta at jprs.co.jp [mailto:hotta at jprs.co.jp]
> Sent: Saturday, 8 October 2016 19:23 PM
> To: Edmon Chung <edmon at registry.asia>
> Cc: 'chinesegp at icann.org' <ChineseGP at icann.org>; JapaneseGP at icann.org;
> 'koreanGP at icann.org' <KoreanGP at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Japanesegp] FINAL CALL RE: [ChineseGP] Draft letter to IP
regarding
> ~40 unresolved variant sets
> 
> Dear Edmon,
> 
> Thank you for your effort.
> 
> Generally, I support it.
> 
> My comments are :
> 
> (1)
> > In view of the many IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs already in the root
> > without IDN
>
potential^
> 
> > Variants, and operational experience and understanding from the
> > Chinese VIP
> 
> (2)
> What does "within the next few years" imply?
>           "Before next gTLD application round starts" or just
>           "not so far future"?
>           If "before next gTLD application round starts" is intended,
>           it should be expressed clearly.
> 
> Hiro
> 
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 18:09:35 +0800
> "Edmon Chung" <edmon at registry.asia> wrote:
> > Here is an updated draft incorporating the suggestions from the meeting.
> >
> > - emphasize this is one of 3 options we are looking into
> > - de-emphasize actual number of IDN variant sets being considered
> >
> > Please take a look and provide your comments.
> > Barring significant edits, we will plan to send this to the IP 1 week
> > from today.
> >
> > Edmon
> >
> >
> > ============================================
> > Subject: Seeking Advice from the IP on Opinion on Appropriateness for
> > Considering Initial and Subsequent Versions of the CJK LGRs for
> > certain CJK Han Characters
> > ============================================
> >
> > Dear IP,
> >
> > After extensive deliberations, we are first of all happy to report
> > that many of the identified differences between the CJK communities
> > (in particular between Korean and Chinese definition of IDN Variant
> > sets) for a majority of the Han character and IDN Variant sets have
> > been resolved.  We are positive that we can eventually resolve the
> > issues for all characters.  Nevertheless, at present, it appears that
> > there may be around 50-60 IDN Variant sets (involving around 100-150
> > Han characters) that will remain unresolved (between CGP and KGP), until
much
> more investigation can be considered.
> >
> > In view of the many IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs already in the root
> > without IDN
>
potential^
> 
> > Variants, and operational experience and understanding from the
> > Chinese VIP Case Study Report that a significant percentage of queries
> > do go to the IDN Variant domains, which means that the Chinese Domain
> > Name experience for users around the world is currently
> > disenfranchised further every day the CJK LGRs cannot be implemented.
> > Therefore, we believe there is urgency to move forward with the CJK
> > LGRs even if a small number of IDN Variant sets remain unresolved.
> >
> > As such, we are looking at a few options to provisionally handle these
> > unresolved IDN Variant sets.  One of the options involve rescinding
> > the characters of concern.  While we consider the different options,
> > we would like to seek the the IP's confirmation and advice on the
> > following 2 interrelated but separate items:
> >
> >
> > 1. Is it reasonable to expect the possibility of updating the CJK LGRs
> > within the next few years after a first version is implemented?
> >
> > Given the complex linguistic history and differing level of
> > operational experience in Han character IDN registrations and usage, a
> > small number of characters (and corresponding IDN Variant sets) will
> > require much more extensive discussion internally and jointly before
> > full consensus may be reached.  There is now an interest between the
> > CJK LGRs to set aside this small group of characters in order for a
> > first version of the CJK LGRs to be implemented, enabling IDN Variants
> > for the corresponding IDN gTLDs and ccTLDs to be used.
> >
> > The CJK GPs nevertheless is concerned whether it is possible to submit
> > a version of the CJK LGRs for consideration and thereupon immediately
> > start work on the remaining characters, with an aim to update to a
> > next version of the CJK LGRs within a few years (e.g. in 2 to 3 years'
> > time).  We are seeking the IP's confirmation and opinion on whether it
> > is a reasonable expectation that such an approach would be appropriate
> > given the context of the situation, understanding the overarching
> > principles of stability and security.
> >
> >
> > 2. If the around unresolved characters are to be first disallowed for
> > application, how should it be implemented in the first version of the
> > CJK LGRs?
> >
> > We have identified around a number of IDN Variant sets in the Han
> > character repertoire shared among CJK communities for which a
> > divergence in the definition of IDN Variant relationship cannot be
> > immediately resolved (especially between CGP and KGP).  Therefore, the
> > CJK GPs would like to provisionally disallow application of IDN TLD
> > strings involving those characters for the first version of the CJK
LGRs.
> >
> > The CJK GPs have identified 2 potential approaches to effect such
> > disallowance:
> >
> > Method A: to not include the Affected Characters in the repertoire of
> > the CJK LGRs
> >
> > Method B: to include the Affected Characters in the repertoire, but
> > assign them with type="invalid"
> >
> > Advantage of Method A may be that the resulting CJK LGRs would be
> > "cleaner", i.e. that no character is "invalid" for all 3 communities
> > but yet included in the LGR.  However, Method B has the advantage of
> > being more complete, i.e. explicitly indicating to the public and to
> > technical implementers that the CJK Han repertoire should really
> > include those characters, and prompt interested implementers to find
> > out more about the background for why they are assigned as "invalid".
> >
> > We believe both methods should yield the same result technically, i.e.
> > that the Affected Characters are not allowed for inclusion in a TLD
string.
> > However, we ask the opinion of the IP, which Method is more
> > appropriate? And if there is a preference from the IP, what the
> > rationale is?  Further, we ask if the IP has other suggestions?
> >
> >
> > Finally, we understand and are committed to document the rationale and
> > specifics of the provisional withholding of the unresolved IDN Variant
> > sets (and corresponding Affected Characters) should the above action be
taken.
> > Again, we emphasize that this is one of the few options we are
considering.
> >
> > We look forward to your advice and feedback on the matter.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: chinesegp-bounces at icann.org
> > > [mailto:chinesegp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> > > Sent: Friday, 30 September 2016 13:47 PM
> > > To: 'chinesegp at icann.org' <ChineseGP at icann.org>;
> > > JapaneseGP at icann.org; 'koreanGP at icann.org' <KoreanGP at icann.org>
> > > Subject: [ChineseGP] Draft letter to IP regarding ~40 unresolved
> > > variant
> > sets
> > >
> > > Hi Everyone,
> > > Please find below a draft of a letter to the IP regarding the method
> > > of
> > handling the
> > > ~40 unresolved variant sets we discussed in Taipei.
> > > Edmon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ============================================
> > >
> > > Dear IP,
> > >
> > > After extensive deliberations, we are first of all happy to report
> > > that
> > many of the
> > > identified differences between the CJK communities (in particular
> > > between
> > Korean
> > > and Chinese definition of IDN Variant sets) for a majority of the
> > > Han
> > character and
> > > IDN Variant sets have been resolved.  We are positive that we can
> > eventually
> > > resolve the issues for all characters.  Nevertheless, at present, it
> > appears that there
> > > may be around 40 IDN Variant sets (involving around 100 Han
> > > characters)
> > that will
> > > remain unresolved (between CGP and KGP), until much more
> > > investigation can
> > be
> > > considered.
> > >
> > > In view of the many IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs already in the root
> > > without
> > IDN
> > > Variants, and operational experience and understanding from the
> > > Chinese
> > VIP Case
> > > Study Report that a significant percentage of queries do go to the
> > > IDN
> > Variant
> > > domains, which means that the Chinese Domain Name experience for
> > > users
> > around
> > > the world is currently disenfranchised further every day the CJK
> > > LGRs
> > cannot be
> > > implemented.  Therefore, we believe there is urgency to move forward
> > > with
> > the CJK
> > > LGRs even if a small number of IDN Variant sets remain unresolved.
> > >
> > > As such, we are seeking the IP's confirmation and advice on the
> > > following
> > 2
> > > interrelated but separate items:
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. Is it reasonable to expect the possibility of updating the CJK
> > > LGRs
> > within the next
> > > few years after a first version is implemented?
> > >
> > > Given the complex linguistic history and differing level of
> > > operational
> > experience in
> > > Han character IDN registrations and usage, a small number of
> > > characters
> > (and
> > > corresponding IDN Variant sets) will require much more extensive
> > discussion
> > > internally and jointly before full consensus may be reached.  There
> > > is now
> > an interest
> > > between the CJK LGRs to set aside this small group of characters in
> > > order
> > for a first
> > > version of the CJK LGRs to be implemented, enabling IDN Variants for
> > > the corresponding IDN gTLDs and ccTLDs to be used.
> > >
> > > The CJK GPs nevertheless is concerned whether it is possible to
> > > submit a
> > version of
> > > the CJK LGRs for consideration and thereupon immediately start work
> > > on the remaining characters, with an aim to update to a next version
> > > of the CJK
> > LGRs
> > > within a few years (e.g. in 2 to 3 years' time).  We are seeking the
> > > IP's
> > confirmation
> > > and opinion on whether it is a reasonable expectation that such an
> > approach would
> > > be appropriate given the context of the situation, understanding the
> > overarching
> > > principles of stability and security.
> > >
> > >
> > > 2. If the around 40 groups of characters are to be first disallowed
> > > for
> > application, how
> > > should it be implemented in the first version of the CJK LGRs?
> > >
> > > We have identified around 40 IDN Variant sets in the Han character
> > repertoire
> > > shared among CJK communities for which a divergence in the
> > > definition of
> > IDN
> > > Variant relationship cannot be immediately resolved (especially
> > > between
> > CGP and
> > > KGP).  Therefore, the CJK GPs would like to provisionally disallow
> > application of
> > > IDN TLD strings involving those characters for the first version of
> > > the
> > CJK LGRs.
> > >
> > > The CJK GPs have identified 2 potential approaches to effect such
> > >
> > > Method A: to not include the Affected Characters in the repertoire
> > > of the
> > CJK LGRs
> > >
> > > Method B: to include the Affected Characters in the repertoire, but
> > > assign
> > with
> > > type="invalid"
> > >
> > > Advantage of Method A may be that the resulting CJK LGRs would be
> > "cleaner", i.e.
> > > that no character is "invalid" for all 3 communities but yet
> > > included in
> > the LGR.
> > > However, Method B has the advantage of being more complete
> > > explicitly and indicating to the public and to technical
> > > implementers that the CJK Han
> > repertoire
> > > should really include those characters, and prompt interested
> > > implementers
> > to find
> > > out more about the background for why they are assigned as "invalid".
> > >
> > > We believe both methods should yield the same result technically, i.e.
> > that the
> > > Affected Characters are not allowed for application in a TLD.
> > > However, we
> > ask the
> > > opinion of the IP, of which Method is more appropriate, and if there
> > > is a
> > preference
> > > from the IP perhaps what the rationale is for the preference.
> > > Further, we
> > ask if the IP
> > > has other suggestions?
> > >
> > >
> > > Finally, we also understand and are committed to document the
> > > rationale
> > and
> > > specifics of the provisional withholding of the 40 IDN Variant sets
> > > (and corresponding Affected Characters) should the above action be
taken.
> > >
> > > We look forward to your consideration and feedback on the matter.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ChineseGP mailing list
> > > ChineseGP at icann.org
> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/chinesegp
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > japanesegp mailing list
> > japanesegp at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/japanesegp
> >