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

HiroHOTTA hotta at jprs.co.jp
Thu Nov 3 07:02:51 UTC 2016 

Dear Edmon, 

Thanks.

I'm OK with the text.

Now I believe we should invite IP to our tomorrow's meeting 
 (2) Fri 4 Nov 13:45-15:00
      Coordination Meeting for CJK GPs with IP - 1 (IDN) [C] @ MR1.10

Edmon, 
am I corrent?

Hiro


On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 14:21:44 +0800
"Edmon Chung" <edmon at registry.asia> wrote:
> 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
> > >
>

More information about the ChineseGP mailing list