- ChineseGP - lists.icann.org

FINAL CALL RE: Draft letter to IP regarding ~40 unresolved variant sets
by Edmon Chung Nov. 4, 2016

Nov. 4, 2016

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 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(a)icann.org [mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org] On > Behalf Of Edmon Chung > Sent: Friday, 30 September 2016 13:47 PM > To: 'chinesegp(a)icann.org' <ChineseGP(a)icann.org>; JapaneseGP(a)icann.org; > 'koreanGP(a)icann.org' <KoreanGP(a)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(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/chinesegp

5 8

Seeking Advice from the IP on Opinion on Appropriateness for Considering Initial and Subsequent Versions of the CJK LGRs for certain CJK Han Characters
by Edmon Chung Nov. 4, 2016

Nov. 4, 2016

Dear Members of the 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 Variants, and operational experience and understanding from the Chinese VIP Case Study Report that a significant percentage of queries do potentially 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, Edmon Chung cc: CJK Generation Panels

1 0

[lgr] FW: ICANN News Alert -- Proposal for Lao Script Root Zone‬ Label Generation Rules (LGR)
by Sarmad Hussain Oct. 25, 2016

Oct. 25, 2016

Dear All, We are happy to inform you that Lao Generation Panel has finalized their proposal for the root zone LGR, which has been posted for Public Comment at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lao-lgr-2016-10-24-en. Lao GP is the fifth to complete the proposal, after Armenian, Arabic, Georgian and Khmer GPs. The completed proposals and their status is available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lgr-proposals-2015-12-01-en. We look forward to your feedback on the proposal. Regards, Sarmad Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Proposal for Lao Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR) <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DQMFaQ…>[icann.org]News Alerthttps://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-24-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> _____Proposal for Lao Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)24 October 2016Open Date:24 October 2016Close Date:10 December 2016Originating Organization:Global Domains DivisionCategories/Tags:Top-Level DomainsBrief Overview:The Lao script community has formed the Lao script Generation Panel (GP),which in turn has developed a P roposal for the Lao Script Root Zone LabelGeneration Rules (Proposal[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> and Proposal Documentation[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> ). As per the LGR Procedure[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… aGPwPcaw I-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=5sWNVjO5N9NLK5FJ2gq-QS-70kuOOd5Lwm4boGNz-Jw&s=9jArcHxKR9zxAz-5AkRADvmzrSEpEpU7NBiwCoVnpfU&e=> , this proposal is being posted for public comments to allow thosewho have not participated in the Lao script GP to make their views known tothe GP. Based on the feedback, the Lao script GP will finalize the proposalfor submission for integration into the Label Generation Rules for the RootZone.Link:https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lao-lgr-2016-10-24-en[i…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…> _______________________________________________ lgr mailing list lgr(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lgr

1 0

CGP Proposal 20161012
by 王伟 Oct. 12, 2016

Oct. 12, 2016

Dear Sarmad CGP revised the proposal document due to the IP’s feedback to the last version.. The updates of the document has been presented and discussed in the CJK meeting and CDNC meeting held in Taiwan. The conclusion of the meetings are also added into the attached document. Please help forward the proposal to IP for further comments. Thanks you very much indeed. Best Regards WANG Wei

2 1

[lgr] LGR Toolset, User-Guide, Source Available
by Sarmad Hussain Oct. 7, 2016

Oct. 7, 2016

Dear All, We are pleased to announce that the LGR Toolset is now available online with its complete functions. We have also released a short user-guide which gives details of accessing the tool (pg. 3) and how to use it. Finally the source code of the tool has also been released with BSD license. Please visit https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lgr-toolset-2015-06-21-en for details (or alternatively go to LGR Toolset link from the IDN Program webpage at www.icann.org/idn <http://www.icann.org/idn> ). Regards, Sarmad _______________________________________________ lgr mailing list lgr(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lgr

1 0

Draft letter to IP regarding ~40 unresolved variant sets
by Edmon Chung Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

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,

1 0

material for Topic2 discussion
by HiroHOTTA Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

Dear CJK colleagues, Here I send you the Topic2 material to be discussed on Thursday&Friday meeting. Topic2 (letter to ICANN requesting labels with any combination of characters to be allocatable) Hiro

1 1

update slides
by 王伟 Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

Dear CJK colleagues, Here I send you the CGP update slides be presented on Thursday meeting. Hiro

1 0

Korean GP status update (klgp228_1)
by KIM Kyongsok Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

Dear all: Enclosed you will find Korean GP status update (klgp228_1) to be presented at CJK coord meeting on Sep 29, 2016, Thanks. -- 김 경석 KIM, Kyongsok

1 0

agenda of CJK LGR coordination meeting
by HiroHOTTA Sept. 28, 2016

Sept. 28, 2016

Dear all, Please find below the agenda we've confirmed so far. Dear TWNIC folks, I'd appreciate it if you could print out the agenda and distributed on Thursday. Hiro ================ agenda =================== LGR CJK Coordination Committee ==== <date/time> Day1 Thursday, 29 September, 2016 Day2 Friday, 30 September, 2016 <venue> TWNIC Office 4F-2, No. 9, Roosevelt Rd., Sec. 2, Taipei 100, Taiwan (in Chinese) 臺北市羅斯福路二段9號4樓之2 nearest station Guting (metro Green line and Yellow line intersection) (in Chinese) 古亭 <main topics> Topic1 (variant definition coordination) Topic2 (letter to ICANN requesting labels with any combination of characters to be allocatable) <participants> CGP(CN) ? ? CGP(TW) Kenny Huang Neiwen Shu Ai Chin Lu Prof. Shianshiong Tseng engineer A engineer B JGP(JP) Hiro Hotta Yoshiro Yoneya Yuri Takamatsu KGP(KR) KIM, K. SHIN S. CHO S. LEE D. JEON E. PARK M; ICANN Sarmad Hussain (remote) <agenda> Day1[29-Sept] {chaired by Hiro} 09:00-09:05 ( 5m) roll call 09:05-09:10 ( 5m) confirmation of meeting facilitator and note taker 09:10-09:20 (10m) confirmation of meeting agenda 09:20-09:50 (30m) general update by each GP CGP update (10m) JGP update (10m) KGP update (10m) 09:50-10:10 (20m) Q&A on general updates 10:10-10:30 (20m) break 10:30-12:00 (90m) discussion on Topic1 CGP detailed update (20m) KGP deta-ked update (20m) discussion (40m) goal setting of this meeting for Topic1 (10m) 12:00-13:30 (90m) lunch break {chaired by Kenny} 13:30-15:00 (90m) discussions on Topic1 (continued) 15:00-15:20 (20m) break 15:20-16:50 (90m) discussions on Topic1 (continued) 16:50-17:15 (25m) Day 1 wrap up Day1 summary Day2 schedule confirmation Day2[30-Sept] {chaired by Hiro} 09:00-09:05 ( 5m) roll call 09:05-09:30 (25m) review of Day1 & goal (re)setting of Topic1 {chaired by Kenny} 09:30-10:50 (80m) discussions on Topic1 (continued) 10:50-11:10 (20m) Topic1 summary and future planning 11:10-11:30 (20m) break {chaired by Hiro} 11:30-12:00 (30m) introduction to Topic2 goal setting of this meeting for Topic2 (10m) 12:00-13:30 (90m) lunch break 13:30-15:00 (90m) Topic2 discussion (90m) 15:00-15:20 (20m) break 15:20-16:40 (80m) discussion on Topic2 (continued) 16:40-16:50 (10m) Topic1 summary and future planning 16:50-17:10 (20m) wrap up for confirmation of Day1&2 Topic1 summary and future plan Topic2 summary and future plan whole plan of LGR proposal to ICANN Hyderabad meeting preparation 17:10-17:30 (20m) AOB ============================== <how to participate remotely> Adobe Connect ? IDN Meeting room: How to connect: Link to Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/idn/ *Upon logging into Adobe Connect, a pop up window will provide you the option to Dial Out to your Phone. Enter your Phone Number* (Remember to change the Country Code if needed). After joining the call, as a courtesy to others and the presenters, please MUTE your phone. This can be done by selecting *6 on your keypad. To UNMUTE select *6 again. If you are Unable to log into Adobe Connect and can only join via phone: https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=1064158692&num=1-719-4 57-1414 Participant Passcode: 1064158692 ====

1 1