February 2019 - ChineseGP - lists.icann.org

[lgr] Public comment for Proposal for Hebrew Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules
by Pitinan Kooarmornpatana Feb. 22, 2019

Feb. 22, 2019

Dear all, The Hebrew scrip LGR is published for public comment at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/hebrew-lgr-2019-02-20-en Please see the announcement at https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-02-20-en Proposal for Hebrew Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules Open Date: 20 February 2019 Close Date: 18 April 2019 Originating Organization: Global Domains Division Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains Brief Overview: The Hebrew community has formed the Hebrew Script Generation Panel (GP), which in turn has developed a Proposal for Hebrew Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules (Proposal<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposal-hebrew-lgr-20feb19-en.…> and Supporting Document<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposal-hebrew-lgr-20feb19-en.…>). As per the LGRprocedure<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/lgr-procedure-20mar13-en.pdf>, this proposal is being posted for public comment to allow those who have not participated in the Hebrew Script GP to make their views known to the GP. Based on the feedback, the Hebrew Script GP will finalize the proposal for submission for integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone(RZ-LGR) Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/hebrew-lgr-2019-02-20-en Best Regards, Pitinan _______________________________________________ lgr mailing list lgr(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lgr

1 0

Appendix A CGP Repertoire [201902]
by 王伟 Feb. 15, 2019

Feb. 15, 2019

Dear All I just generated CGP proposal draft 1.3 according to the discussion in ICANN'63 meeting and the feedback from IP. The biggest changes are: 1) We take a conservative stance and rollback to Sept 2016 before C-K coordination meeting in Taipei. 2) We propose a new opinion on "visual similarity" issue which also has been express in the CJK public letter to ICANN as https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/wei-et-al-to-marby-25j… Please check the attached docs and feel free to comment. Best, Wei WANG

2 1

CGP proposal draft updates
by 王伟 Feb. 15, 2019

Feb. 15, 2019

Dear All I just generated CGP proposal draft 1.3 according to the discussion in ICANN'63 meeting and the feedback from IP. The biggest changes are: 1) We take a conservative stance and rollback to Sept 2016 before C-K coordination meeting in Taipei. 2) We propose a new opinion on "visual similarity" issue which also has been express in the CJK public letter to ICANN as https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/wei-et-al-to-marby-25j… Please check the attached docs and feel free to comment. Best, Wei WANG

1 0

on the issue of visual similarity
by Edmon Feb. 13, 2019

Feb. 13, 2019

Hi Everyone, Building on the correspondence already sent to ICANN: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence (Jan 25, 2019 https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/wei-et-al-to-marby-25j…) in a recent conversation, I came across a further realization that I think is useful to share here. In our previous discussion with ICANN and the IP, there was a question posed on whether the Latin GP would take into consideration the issues of the digits "0"/"1" and the letters "O"/"l"/"I". The response summarily provided was that because the rootzone did not allow for digits and hyphens the Latin GP would not have to tackle the issue. That logic is flawed. The development of the root zone LGR for Latin must take into consideration such visual similarities IF visual similarities are to be considered for ANY rootzone LGRs. That is because digits are "reserved names" and any new TLD proposed must NOT conflict with "reserved names". As such, IF visual similarities for any rootzone LGR needs to be considered, it must also be applied to the Latin GP for reserved names. I.e. whether "OOI" should be a "variant" or not with "001" or whether it should be handled by other string confusion mechanisms, in this case, string confusion with a reserved string. Of course, my position remains that these issues are and should correctly be addressed with such other string confusion mechanisms. Anyway, just a note for everyone so that we can more properly ask the question of ICANN and IP on the visual similarity issue. Edmon

2 3