<div dir="ltr">Hi Edmon,<div><br></div><div>Document received. Thanks you for drafting the letter. It looks good</div><div>for me.</div><div><br></div><div>Yours</div><div><br></div><div>Kenny Huang</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 4 October 2016 at 15:39, Edmon Chung <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:edmon@registry.asia" target="_blank">edmon@registry.asia</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Here is an updated draft incorporating the suggestions from the meeting.<br>
<br>
- emphasize this is one of 3 options we are looking into<br>
- de-emphasize actual number of IDN variant sets being considered<br>
<br>
Please take a look and provide your comments.<br>
Barring significant edits, we will plan to send this to the IP 1 week from<br>
today.<br>
<br>
Edmon<br>
<br>
<br>
==============================<wbr>==============<br>
Subject: Seeking Advice from the IP on Opinion on Appropriateness for<br>
Considering Initial and Subsequent Versions of the CJK LGRs for certain CJK<br>
Han Characters<br>
==============================<wbr>==============<br>
<br>
Dear IP,<br>
<br>
After extensive deliberations, we are first of all happy to report that many<br>
of the identified differences between the CJK communities (in particular<br>
between Korean and Chinese definition of IDN Variant sets) for a majority of<br>
the Han character and IDN Variant sets have been resolved. We are positive<br>
that we can eventually resolve the issues for all characters. Nevertheless,<br>
at present, it appears that there may be around 50-60 IDN Variant sets<br>
(involving around 100-150 Han characters) that will remain unresolved<br>
(between CGP and KGP), until much more investigation can be considered.<br>
<br>
In view of the many IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs already in the root without IDN<br>
Variants, and operational experience and understanding from the Chinese VIP<br>
Case Study Report that a significant percentage of queries do go to the IDN<br>
Variant domains, which means that the Chinese Domain Name experience for<br>
users around the world is currently disenfranchised further every day the<br>
CJK LGRs cannot be implemented. Therefore, we believe there is urgency to<br>
move forward with the CJK LGRs even if a small number of IDN Variant sets<br>
remain unresolved.<br>
<br>
As such, we are looking at a few options to provisionally handle these<br>
unresolved IDN Variant sets. One of the options involve rescinding the<br>
characters of concern. While we consider the different options, we would<br>
like to seek the the IP's confirmation and advice on the following 2<br>
interrelated but separate items:<br>
<br>
<br>
1. Is it reasonable to expect the possibility of updating the CJK LGRs<br>
within the next few years after a first version is implemented?<br>
<br>
Given the complex linguistic history and differing level of operational<br>
experience in Han character IDN registrations and usage, a small number of<br>
characters (and corresponding IDN Variant sets) will require much more<br>
extensive discussion internally and jointly before full consensus may be<br>
reached. There is now an interest between the CJK LGRs to set aside this<br>
small group of characters in order for a first version of the CJK LGRs to be<br>
implemented, enabling IDN Variants for the corresponding IDN gTLDs and<br>
ccTLDs to be used.<br>
<br>
The CJK GPs nevertheless is concerned whether it is possible to submit a<br>
version of the CJK LGRs for consideration and thereupon immediately start<br>
work on the remaining characters, with an aim to update to a next version of<br>
the CJK LGRs within a few years (e.g. in 2 to 3 years' time). We are<br>
seeking the IP's confirmation and opinion on whether it is a reasonable<br>
expectation that such an approach would be appropriate given the context of<br>
the situation, understanding the overarching principles of stability and<br>
security.<br>
<br>
<br>
2. If the around unresolved characters are to be first disallowed for<br>
application, how should it be implemented in the first version of the CJK<br>
LGRs?<br>
<br>
We have identified around a number of IDN Variant sets in the Han character<br>
repertoire shared among CJK communities for which a divergence in the<br>
definition of IDN Variant relationship cannot be immediately resolved<br>
(especially between CGP and KGP). Therefore, the CJK GPs would like to<br>
provisionally disallow application of IDN TLD strings involving those<br>
characters for the first version of the CJK LGRs.<br>
<br>
The CJK GPs have identified 2 potential approaches to effect such<br>
disallowance:<br>
<br>
Method A: to not include the Affected Characters in the repertoire of the<br>
CJK LGRs<br>
<br>
Method B: to include the Affected Characters in the repertoire, but assign<br>
them with type="invalid"<br>
<br>
Advantage of Method A may be that the resulting CJK LGRs would be "cleaner",<br>
i.e. that no character is "invalid" for all 3 communities but yet included<br>
in the LGR. However, Method B has the advantage of being more complete,<br>
i.e. explicitly indicating to the public and to technical implementers that<br>
the CJK Han repertoire should really include those characters, and prompt<br>
interested implementers to find out more about the background for why they<br>
are assigned as "invalid".<br>
<br>
We believe both methods should yield the same result technically, i.e. that<br>
the Affected Characters are not allowed for inclusion in a TLD string.<br>
However, we ask the opinion of the IP, which Method is more appropriate? And<br>
if there is a preference from the IP, what the rationale is? Further, we<br>
ask if the IP has other suggestions?<br>
<br>
<br>
Finally, we understand and are committed to document the rationale and<br>
specifics of the provisional withholding of the unresolved IDN Variant sets<br>
(and corresponding Affected Characters) should the above action be taken.<br>
Again, we emphasize that this is one of the few options we are considering.<br>
<br>
We look forward to your advice and feedback on the matter.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org">chinesegp-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org">chinesegp-bounces@<wbr>icann.org</a>] On<br>
> Behalf Of Edmon Chung<br>
> Sent: Friday, 30 September 2016 13:47 PM<br>
> To: '<a href="mailto:chinesegp@icann.org">chinesegp@icann.org</a>' <<a href="mailto:ChineseGP@icann.org">ChineseGP@icann.org</a>>; <a href="mailto:JapaneseGP@icann.org">JapaneseGP@icann.org</a>;<br>
> '<a href="mailto:koreanGP@icann.org">koreanGP@icann.org</a>' <<a href="mailto:KoreanGP@icann.org">KoreanGP@icann.org</a>><br>
> Subject: [ChineseGP] Draft letter to IP regarding ~40 unresolved variant<br>
sets<br>
><br>
> Hi Everyone,<br>
> Please find below a draft of a letter to the IP regarding the method of<br>
handling the<br>
> ~40 unresolved variant sets we discussed in Taipei.<br>
> Edmon<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ==============================<wbr>==============<br>
><br>
> Dear IP,<br>
><br>
> After extensive deliberations, we are first of all happy to report that<br>
many of the<br>
> identified differences between the CJK communities (in particular between<br>
Korean<br>
> and Chinese definition of IDN Variant sets) for a majority of the Han<br>
character and<br>
> IDN Variant sets have been resolved. We are positive that we can<br>
eventually<br>
> resolve the issues for all characters. Nevertheless, at present, it<br>
appears that there<br>
> may be around 40 IDN Variant sets (involving around 100 Han characters)<br>
that will<br>
> remain unresolved (between CGP and KGP), until much more investigation can<br>
be<br>
> considered.<br>
><br>
> In view of the many IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs already in the root without<br>
IDN<br>
> Variants, and operational experience and understanding from the Chinese<br>
VIP Case<br>
> Study Report that a significant percentage of queries do go to the IDN<br>
Variant<br>
> domains, which means that the Chinese Domain Name experience for users<br>
around<br>
> the world is currently disenfranchised further every day the CJK LGRs<br>
cannot be<br>
> implemented. Therefore, we believe there is urgency to move forward with<br>
the CJK<br>
> LGRs even if a small number of IDN Variant sets remain unresolved.<br>
><br>
> As such, we are seeking the IP's confirmation and advice on the following<br>
2<br>
> interrelated but separate items:<br>
><br>
><br>
> 1. Is it reasonable to expect the possibility of updating the CJK LGRs<br>
within the next<br>
> few years after a first version is implemented?<br>
><br>
> Given the complex linguistic history and differing level of operational<br>
experience in<br>
> Han character IDN registrations and usage, a small number of characters<br>
(and<br>
> corresponding IDN Variant sets) will require much more extensive<br>
discussion<br>
> internally and jointly before full consensus may be reached. There is now<br>
an interest<br>
> between the CJK LGRs to set aside this small group of characters in order<br>
for a first<br>
> version of the CJK LGRs to be implemented, enabling IDN Variants for the<br>
> corresponding IDN gTLDs and ccTLDs to be used.<br>
><br>
> The CJK GPs nevertheless is concerned whether it is possible to submit a<br>
version of<br>
> the CJK LGRs for consideration and thereupon immediately start work on the<br>
> remaining characters, with an aim to update to a next version of the CJK<br>
LGRs<br>
> within a few years (e.g. in 2 to 3 years' time). We are seeking the IP's<br>
confirmation<br>
> and opinion on whether it is a reasonable expectation that such an<br>
approach would<br>
> be appropriate given the context of the situation, understanding the<br>
overarching<br>
> principles of stability and security.<br>
><br>
><br>
> 2. If the around 40 groups of characters are to be first disallowed for<br>
application, how<br>
> should it be implemented in the first version of the CJK LGRs?<br>
><br>
> We have identified around 40 IDN Variant sets in the Han character<br>
repertoire<br>
> shared among CJK communities for which a divergence in the definition of<br>
IDN<br>
> Variant relationship cannot be immediately resolved (especially between<br>
CGP and<br>
> KGP). Therefore, the CJK GPs would like to provisionally disallow<br>
application of<br>
> IDN TLD strings involving those characters for the first version of the<br>
CJK LGRs.<br>
><br>
> The CJK GPs have identified 2 potential approaches to effect such<br>
><br>
> Method A: to not include the Affected Characters in the repertoire of the<br>
CJK LGRs<br>
><br>
> Method B: to include the Affected Characters in the repertoire, but assign<br>
with<br>
> type="invalid"<br>
><br>
> Advantage of Method A may be that the resulting CJK LGRs would be<br>
"cleaner", i.e.<br>
> that no character is "invalid" for all 3 communities but yet included in<br>
the LGR.<br>
> However, Method B has the advantage of being more complete explicitly and<br>
> indicating to the public and to technical implementers that the CJK Han<br>
repertoire<br>
> should really include those characters, and prompt interested implementers<br>
to find<br>
> out more about the background for why they are assigned as "invalid".<br>
><br>
> We believe both methods should yield the same result technically, i.e.<br>
that the<br>
> Affected Characters are not allowed for application in a TLD. However, we<br>
ask the<br>
> opinion of the IP, of which Method is more appropriate, and if there is a<br>
preference<br>
> from the IP perhaps what the rationale is for the preference. Further, we<br>
ask if the IP<br>
> has other suggestions?<br>
><br>
><br>
> Finally, we also understand and are committed to document the rationale<br>
and<br>
> specifics of the provisional withholding of the 40 IDN Variant sets (and<br>
> corresponding Affected Characters) should the above action be taken.<br>
><br>
> We look forward to your consideration and feedback on the matter.<br>
><br>
> Sincerely,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> ChineseGP mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:ChineseGP@icann.org">ChineseGP@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/chinesegp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/chinesegp</a><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
ChineseGP mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ChineseGP@icann.org">ChineseGP@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/chinesegp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/chinesegp</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>