[vip] Suggested BoF at the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles

[Asmus Freytag]

On 9/8/2014 9:17 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/8/2014 6:48 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> On Sep 8, 2014, at 12:51 AM, Cary Karp <cary at karp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Considering the elements of the Latin script that can safely be included
>>>> in the code point repertoire for IDN labels in the root zone is a topic
>>>> of significant interest. It will be dealt with by a dedicated Latin
>>>> Script Generation Panel, the formation of which is imminent.
>>> It seems like this is the first that that panel has been discussed on this mailing list. It is not even listed on https://community.icann.org/display/croscomlgrprocedure/All+Panels+Status+Updates, much less declared "imminent".
>>>
>>> Has that page been abandoned? It is very useful for those of us following the LGR discussions.
>> No, I don't think the page hasn't been abandoned.
> That's good to hear.

Oops, I made an edit and ended up with a double negative....


>
>> It's just that it doesn't track all details in the pre-formation stage of a generation panel in real-time.
> Of course, I was not expecting "real-time", but given that there is great detail of the pre-formation of the other panels, I figured that this panel would be the same.
The stages are:

1) interest documented (someone filled an SOI)
2) proposal submitted  (members and sponsoring group identified, scope 
proposed)
3) seated (proposal approved)

Future stages would be

4) LGR submitted
5) LGR approved

That strikes me as about the correct granularity for reporting.

>> For the formation of a GP to be "imminent" there would have to be a submitted proposal to ICANN first. As far as I know, that has not happened for Latin. What might be "imminent" is that an initial group is getting together who will be able to submit a formal proposal. That would be good news.
> Indeed, it would.

So, I'm as curious as you to hear who will be the spear carrier for the 
Latin GP.
>
>>>> The final report of the ICANN VIP Study Group for the Latin Script
>>>> <https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/latin-vip-issues-report-07oct11-en.pdf>
>>>> provides an extensive listing of the code points that can be considered
>>>> by that GP. The report also comments on a range of issues involved in
>>>> collating a subset of the full Latin repertoire for any specific
>>>> purpose. The report therefore has obvious potential as a seed document
>>>> for the work of the GP.
>>> Yes, definitely.
>> Actually, it would have to be the intersection between the list in that document and the Maximal Starting Repertoire published in June. (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-06-20-en)
> Yes, of course. I hope that anyone wanting to be on the Latin panel would understand that interaction.
Not only that, but since the VIP report there has been quite a bit of 
(script-generic) discussion of the variant (and repertoire) issue. Some 
of  that is reflected in the "Overview and Rationale" document 
associated with the MSR.

That document is worth reading, as is, of course the Procedure (see the 
"Quick Guide Kit" 
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/43989034/Generation%20Panels-IDN%20Root%20Zone%20Label%20Generation%20Rules-Quick%20Guide%20Kit.pdf)


>
>>>> I would therefore like to propose a BoF early during the ICANN meeting
>>>> in Los Angeles to discuss bridging the work of the Latin VIP group and
>>>> the impending Latin Script GP. The BoF could also consider other key
>>>> issues in extending the current ASCII repertoire into the IDN facet of
>>>> the root zone, if nothing else, as a warm-up exercise for any sessions
>>>> on the subject that ICANN might otherwise be planning. (BoF = “Birds of
>>>> a Feather” -- an ad hoc gathering of people with a shared interest in a
>>>> topic preliminary to structured action on it.)
>>>>
>>>> Are any other list members interested in this?
>>> I am interested in attending such a BoF session.
>> If I am in LA I would be happy to attend and to contribute within the limitations imposed on me as Integration Panel member.
> It would probably be useful to have at least one Integration Panel member there to describe the expected interactions with the Latin panel, just as it has been useful for the other potential panels and one real panel so far.
That's why I would plan to attend if I'm in LA. If not, I'm sure one of 
my colleagues will,

A./
>
> --Paul Hoffman