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

Tue Oct 4 10:47:33 UTC 2016

Hi Edmon,

Document received. Thanks you for drafting the letter. It looks good
for me.

Yours

Kenny Huang

On 4 October 2016 at 15:39, 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
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> ChineseGP mailing list
> ChineseGP at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/chinesegp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/chinesegp/attachments/20161004/51a182f1/attachment-0001.html>