[Gnso-epdp-idn-team] primary labels and consequences of retiring them

[Tan Tanaka, Dennis]

And this is the question I post to this group. Do we need to always have a label designated as “primary”, and if so, what function will it serve?

My current thinking is that the primary label serves its purpose to determine the set of ALL variant labels — allocatable and blocked. Beyond this point the set is established (disposition values are captured), and so, I would argue, a “primary” label no longer have utility (other than a data point to indicate how the set was formed, and/or potential re-calculation due to rz-lgr changes). Each applied-for/delegated label should have equal standing in the set, IMO. But perhaps I am missing something.

Dennis

From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 at 3:54 AM
To: Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland at knipp.de>
Cc: "gnso-epdp-idn-team at icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] primary labels and consequences of retiring them


Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I think the procedure of the retirement needs to have a check for the existence of the primary and if not - election of the new one.
Maxim Alzoba
On Jul 26, 2022, at 09:42, Michael Bauland <michael.bauland at knipp.de<mailto:michael.bauland at knipp.de>> wrote:

Hi Dennis,

On 25.07.2022 21:46, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Gnso-epdp-idn-team wrote:

 A few additional comments on 2.3 re: use of “primary label”

   * Some questions I reckon we will face throughout: what is the
     “primary” label? what function does it serve? should we use such
     nomenclature? … some background notes:
   * When we talk about variants in a set, it is important to note which
     of all labels is the source for variant label calculation, or as we
     have adopted: the primary label. As a way of context, first, the
     variant relationship between two code points must satisfy the
     symmetrical property (there are other properties, but not relevant
     to this topic). This means, if ‘A’ is a variant of ‘B’, then ‘B’ is
     a variant of ‘A’. Second, any variant relationship is also assigned
     a disposition value: allocatable or blocked. The disposition value
     is unidirectional. Which means, a variant relationship could yield
     an ‘allocatable’ variant in one direction (e.g., AàB: allocatable),
     but a ‘blocked’ variant in the other direction (e.g., BàA: blocked).
     These rules are encoded in the LGR.
   * As we progress in our deliberations about the lifecycle of gTLDs it
     is important to understand (and remember) how the various variant
     labels and disposition values came to be (to discern which ones are
     allocatable/withheld or blocked). However, I believe we need to
     remain open (or at least give thoughtful consideration) to cases
     where one TLD label in the set needs to be handled separately e.g.,
     retirement, and the implications of this one change applies to the
     rest of the labels in the set. For instance, what if the registry
     operator wants to retire the “primary” label and continue to operate
     the rest of variants. In this case, it would be unwise, perhaps, to
     re-assign the attribute of “primary” to another label in the set,
     because that might change the profile of the set as a whole (of
     course, this would depend what “primary” means and how it is used).

This is a very good point. Especially with asymmetric disposition we
have a real problem if a primary label is retired and the other variants
are kept. There might arise a situation in which none of the remaining
variants can be made primary, because it would entail one of the other
existing variants to become blocked instead of allocatable.

The question would then be
* Do we allow a variant set to exist without a primary label?
* Will retiring a primary label require the registry to select another
primary label and thereby possibly force them to retire other variants
together with the former primary label?

Take the following quite simple example.
Applied for primary label: bıß
Allocatable Variants: biß, bıss, biss

So, someone might have all four labels in the Root zone at some point.

If they now retire the primary label bıß, the other three labels could
not exist at the time (without bıß also existing).

Case 1:
biß is made new primary
Consequence: bıss becomes a blocked variant.

Case 2:
bıss is made new primary
Consequence: biß becomes a blocked variant.

Case 3:
biss is made a new primary
Consequence: both bıss and biß become blocked variants.


Even though the example is not very likely, it's certainly possible and
in other scripts might be similar examples that are more likely.


So, to summarise my points:
* Initially, we need a primary label to determine the disposition value
of all variants.
* Retiring a primary label may cause problems and we need to decide how
to deal with these problems.

Best regards,

Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-idn-team/attachments/20220726/135369e0/attachment.html>