[ChineseGP] [Japanesegp] FINAL CALL RE: Draft letter to IP regarding ~40 unresolved variant sets
HiroHOTTA
hotta at jprs.co.jp
Sat Oct 8 11:23:14 UTC 2016
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