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

HiroHOTTA hotta at jprs.co.jp
Fri Nov 4 03:32:00 UTC 2016 

Thanks, Edmon.

Dear Sarmad, 
Now, we've confirmed that IP's attendance is needed today.
> >  (2) Fri 4 Nov 13:45-15:00
> >       Coordination Meeting for CJK GPs with IP - 1 (IDN) [C] @ MR1.10

Hiro


On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 11:07:42 +0800
"Edmon Chung" <edmon at registry.asia> wrote:
> Yes, will send out the email to them now.
> And will meet you all at 11 first and then later with IP in the afternoon.
> Edmon
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: hotta at jprs.co.jp [mailto:hotta at jprs.co.jp]
> > Sent: Thursday, 3 November 2016 15:03 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,
> > 
> > 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