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

[Edmon Chung]

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
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