- ChineseGP - lists.icann.org

Draft agenda for CJK Beijing meeting 20th-21st
by 王伟 March 7, 2016

March 7, 2016

Dear All As we discussed in first CJK joint meeting yesterday, the preliminary agenda is attached. Please let anyone know whether any correction should be made. Regards WANG Wei

1 0

Emeraude Rm
by Dillon, Chris March 6, 2016

March 6, 2016

Dear colleagues, Please note that the Emeraude Rm is not easy to find. Set out early. There is a sign for the Hotel du Golf on the right of the main building. Follow the path, turning right at one point. Eventually there is a building on the left which has a revolving door and then wine bottles on the ground floor. Take the lift to the 2nd floor and the room is opposite the lift. (You’ll thank me!) Regards, Chris.

1 0

[reminder] CJK meeting at 15:30UTC on Sunday 6 March 2016
by HiroHOTTA March 6, 2016

March 6, 2016

6 Mar 2016 Proposed by Hiro [agenda] CJK coordination meeting on 6 Mar 2016 date/time March 6 2016 15:30-16:40 place Emeraude room remote participation https://icann.adobeconnect.com/lgr/ participants (as of Saturday) CGP on site : Chris Dillon remote : Wang Wei, Kenny Huang, Declan MA, Jiankang YAO JGP on site : Hiro Hotta, Yuri Takamatsu remote : Yoshiro Yoneya KGP on site : KIM Kyongsok, Eung-jun Jeon advisor : Edmon Chung ICANN : Sarmad Hussain agenda 1. each GP Updates CGP slides attached JGP slides attached KGP oral 2. update on action items from Dublin (see below) 3. Clarification of issues to be discussed in Marrakech 3.1 issues to be discussed in Marrakech - does each GP have something to talk with IP/ICANN? + if so, when the talk will be scheduled / with whom 3.2 logistics of Beijing Meeting - agenda setting - chair etc. 4. AOB Hiro Action Items from Dublin (items still remaining are highlighted with '**D?**') ------------------------------------------------------------------------ @@ 18 Oct [CJK-only] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KGP will send 37 variant groups to all the CJK [KGP] ->e-mail already sent on 16 Sep "Review of K (Korean) and C (Chinese) variant groups" 16 Sep "K-LGR v0.3 (2015.08.13.)" ->done 2. check the presentation of "CJK GP Update" and send comments to Hiro if necessary by the end of 19 Oct. [CJK] ->done (presented in 21 Oct. public session) 3. amend the letter to ICANN [Wang Wei] ->done (brought to 19 Oct. CJK+IP meeting) 4. amend the letter to ICANN [Hiro] ->done (brought to 19 Oct. CJK+IP meeting) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ @@ 19 Oct [CJK+IP] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Send current version of repertoire and possible variant to IP [CGP, JGP, KGP] ->not yet (but is now replaced by action item-3 on 22 Oct [CJK+IP]) 2. have further discussion of CJK Integration Algorithm (v0.4) in 22 Oct CJK only meeting ->done (discussed in 22 Oct. CJK-only meeting) 3. CGP will investigate letter-1 (CGP) before 22 Oct CJK coordination meeting.[CGP] ->done (discussed in 22 Oct. CJK+IP meeting) 4. CGP will check the ratio of the labels which contain both traditional character and simplified character in .CN (and .TW) registration data. [CGP] **D1** ->not yet ------------------------------------------------------------------------ @@ 22 Oct [CJK+IP] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Prof.Kim will tell CJK whether the repertoire ver0.3 is the proposed stable baseline of Korean LGR-alpha version or not ->not yet **D2** - Yoneya will re-write the name of the title from "Algorithm" to "Procedure" and add some explanation (especially regarding 'review') to the "Algorithm" (now "Procedure") document ->not yet **D3** - CJK will share their own repertoire and variants in both XML and excel format ->not yet (this is the replacement of 19 Oct. Action Item 1) **D4** - CJK will check and confirm the template of Root LGR proposal and ask for IP's advice if necessary **D5** ->not yet step1: Yoneya will send the edited template to CJK mailing lists which includes differentiation mark <common> for CJK and <individual> for each GP step2: CJK will check the drafted template and confirm step3: ask for IP's advice if necessary ------------------------------------------------------------------------ @@ 22 Oct [CJK-only] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - CGP will investigate the .CN (and .TW) registry database to know the maximum number of labels that are variant of each other in .CN (and .TW) **D6** ->not yet - KGP will consider whether to make a joint statement with C and J in KGP LGR proposal **D7** ->not yet - Wang Wei will check the date of CDNC meeting in Dec 2015 and share with CJK **D8** ->not yet - KGP will share the concrete schedule to CGP and JGP **D9** ->not yet - Yoneya will draft a temporary schedule for each step of CJK integration procedure and send it to Kenny for his check. After that. Yoneya and Kenny will share it with CJK mailing lists to solicit their opinions about the schedule **D10** ->not yet ===

1 0

Re: [ChineseGP] [Koreangp] Need your response : CJK sessions at ICANN55
by HiroHOTTA March 6, 2016

March 6, 2016

Thanks and noted. Hiro On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:23:39 +0000 <ejjeon(a)youme.com> wrote: > Dear all > > I shall join in person, too. > > I apologize sincerely to reply late. > > Regards. > > Jeon, Eung - Jun > > 2016. 3. 1. ?? 3:01 KIM Kyongsok <gimgs0(a)gmail.com> ??: > > >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 1:35 AM, HiroHOTTA <hotta(a)jprs.co.jp> wrote: > >> Dear all, > >> > >> Could each of you express your intention on the participation > >> in a meeting on Sunday 15:30-1700 at Emeraude room? Please > >> respond by the end of Thursday, 3 March. > >> - you will join in person > > > > I (KIM, K.) will join in person. > > > > Thanks. > > > > KIM, K. > > > >> - you will join remotely > >> - you will not join > >> > >> > >> ==== background ==== > >> > >> As all of you know. ICANN kindly booked rooms for us to meet as below > >> > >>> Sunday 15:30-1700, room TBD Coordination Meeting between CJK GPs > >>> only (Closed) > >>> Monday 1530-1645; room TBD Coordination Meeting between CJK GPs > >>> and IP (Closed) > >>> Thursday 0900-1015; room TBD Coordination Meeting between CJK GPs > >>> and IP (Closed) > >>> Thursday 10:30-11:45; room TBD Coordination Meeting between CJK GPs only > >>> (Closed) > >> > >> However, CGP/JGP/KGP have not confirmed to meet in Marrakech. > >> It seems no one is very interested in having CJK coordination > >> meeting in Marrakech. It may be because we haven't had progress > >> after Dublin. > >> > >> After seeing this situation, let me propose for us to meet on > >> Sunday 15:30-1700 at Emeraude room with remote participation > >> informally. Then and there, we will decide whether we will hold > >> CJK meetings on Monday and Thursday. > >> > >> Could each of you express your intention on the participation > >> in an informal meeting on Sunday 15:30-1700 at Emeraude room? > >> - will join in person > >> - will join remotely > >> - will not join > >> > >> If enough intention is not received, let's cancel all the meetings > >> even if the cancellation is against ICANN's expectation.. > >> > >> Best, > >> Hiro > >> > >> > >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 17:32:10 +0000 > >> Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org> wrote: > >>> Dear All, > >>> > >>> We have planned for the usual four CJK sessions at ICANN 55, but wanted to > >>> reconfirm with you if you are intending to meet on the same schedule. > >>> > >>> Sunday 15:30-1700, room TBD Coordination Meeting between CJK GPs > >>> only (Closed) > >>> Monday 1530-1645; room TBD Coordination Meeting between CJK GPs > >>> and IP (Closed) > >>> Thursday 0900-1015; room TBD Coordination Meeting between CJK GPs > >>> and IP (Closed) > >>> Thursday 10:30-11:45; room TBD Coordination Meeting between CJK GPs only > >>> (Closed) > >>> > >>> We look forward to your feedback. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Sarmad > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: japanesegp-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:japanesegp-bounces@icann.org] On > >>> Behalf Of HiroHOTTA > >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 9:00 PM > >>> To: ChineseGP(a)icann.org; JapaneseGP(a)icann.org; KoreanGP(a)icann.org > >>> Subject: Re: [Japanesegp] CJK sessions at ICANN55 > >>> > >>> Dear CJK folks, > >>> > >>> As of 14 June 2016, > >>> Below is the responses I've got so far. > >>> 'll wait for others. > >>> > >>> [CGP] > >>> WANG Wei : b. not attend Marrakech > >>> Declan Ma : b. not attend Marrakech > >>> Kenny Huang : b. not attend Marrakech > >>> YAN Zhiwei : b. not attend Marrakech > >>> Dillon, Chris : a. attend ICANN Marrakech > >>> > >>> [JGP] > >>> Hiro HOTTA : a. attend ICANN Marrakech > >>> Yoshiro YONEYA : c. decide depending on wheher there will be CJK > >>> coordination meeting in Marrakech > >>> Yuri TAKAMATSU : a. attend ICANN Marrakech > >>> > >>> [KGP] > >>> KIM Kyongsok : d. not yet known > >>> Dongman Lee : d. not yet known > >>> Minjung Park : d. not yet known > >>> Chang Ki Jang : b. not attend Marrakech > >>> > >>> Hiro > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 08:14:29 +0900 > >>> HiroHOTTA <hotta(a)jprs.co.jp> wrote: > >>>> Dear CJK folks, > >>>> > >>>> May I have the sense of the possibility to have a formal/informal CJK > >>>> meeting in Marrakech? > >>>> > >>>> For that purpose, could you share whether you will a. attend ICANN > >>>> Marrakech b. not attend Marrakech c. decide depending on wheher there > >>>> will be CJK coordination meeting > >>>> in Marrakech > >>>> d. not yot known > >>>> > >>>> Hiro > >>>> > >>>> Forwarded by HiroHOTTA <hotta(a)jprs.co.jp> > >>>> ----------------------- Original Message ----------------------- > >>>> From: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org> > >>>> To: ヘ〓ー <wangwei(a)cnic.cn>, > >>>> "hotta(a)jprs.co.jp" <hotta(a)jprs.co.jp>, > >>>> "KIM Kyongsok (gimgs0(a)gmail.com)" <gimgs0(a)gmail.com>, > >>>> Edmon Chung <edmon(a)registry.asia> > >>>> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 17:35:05 +0000 > >>>> Subject: CJK sessions at ICANN55 > >>>> ---- > >>>> > >>>> Dear All, > >>>> > >>>> We have been scheduling four CJK GP coordination sessions at recent > >>>> ICANN meetings, one each on afternoons of Sunday and Monday, and two > >>>> on Thursday morning, e.g. the following schedule is from Dublin meeting: > >>>> > >>>> Sunday 1300-1400 Coordination Meeting between CJK GPs only > >>>> Monday 1530 - 1645 Coordination Meeting between CJK GPs and IP > >>>> Thursday 0800 ィC 0915 Coordination Meeting between CJK GPs > >>> and IP > >>>> Thursday 09:15-10:30 Coordination Meeting between CJK GPs only > >>>> > >>>> We are now planning for sessions at ICANN55 in Morocco. Would you > >>>> like us to schedule the same for this upcoming meeting? Else please > >>> suggest changes. > >>>> > >>>> A response by early next week would be appreciated. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Sarmad > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --------------------- Original Message Ends -------------------- > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> japanesegp mailing list > >>> japanesegp(a)icann.org > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/japanesegp > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Koreangp mailing list > >> Koreangp(a)icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/koreangp > > > > > > > > -- > > ? ?? KIM, Kyongsok > > _______________________________________________ > > Koreangp mailing list > > Koreangp(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/koreangp >

1 0

Re: [ChineseGP] Integration Panel Considerations on 20151115 Chinese LGR draft
by 王伟 March 6, 2016

March 6, 2016

Dear Asmus, thank you for your valuable suggestion. We will keep working on it 发件人: Asmus Freytag [mailto:asmusf@ix.netcom.com] 发送时间: 2016年3月5日 7:51 收件人: 王伟 <wangwei(a)cnic.cn> 抄送: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org>; ChineseGP(a)icann.org; hotta(a)jprs.co.jp 主题: Re: Integration Panel Considerations on 20151115 Chinese LGR draft Dear Wang Wei, The Integration Panel has not been able to discuss your contribution as a full panel. Therefore, I will give you my personal feedback on some issues, with the hope that this will be useful for any deliberations you will have among yourselves or with the other IP members who will be at ICANN55. I will send, under separate cover an HTML version of your XML file. It provides a different way of looking at the data than the XML file, and you might find it useful. It's a rather large file, so I will send a compressed version. A./ Comments below: On 2/24/2016 10:00 PM, 王伟 wrote: Dear Asmus Thanks for reviewing CGP XML document and pointing out the problems in it. I have fixed the flaws about reference id, reflective type, usage of “blocked”, and etc. The XML looks much improved, but we haven't had the chance to test it yet. But I did run it through my tool. Lines 70409 -70410 had some minor issues: <action disp="allocatable" only-variants="r-simp r-trad r-both" common="original label"/> <action disp="blocked" any-variant="simp trad both r-simp r-trad r-both" "block any other mixed labels" /> common --> comment "block... --> comment="block I believe those where the only syntax issues I found. Before answer the questions in PDF, I’d to explain the development principles of CGP repertoire. 1) The core set of CGP repertoire is the intersection of CDNC table (the latest version 2015) and MSR 2) The intersection of China official Normalized Hanzi List for Common Use and MSR 3) The intersection of IICore and MSR (to include the other IIcore code points not covered in step 1 and 2) Considering the principles above, the answers are listed as below: Q1: The IP would like to know the rationale for adding the 22 IICORE characters that are not used in existing IDN tables (see Section 4.22). We note that over half of them are included in IICORE for support of Korean. A1: we added 22 IICore code points not for support of Korean, but to reach a maximum support of IICore. Noted. Q2: The IP would like to learn the reasoning by the CGP with regards to deciding which code points from the JO set to include. We were unable to identify a pattern to distinguish the 94 that were selected from the 50 that were excluded. For example, we can see that a few of these 50 have glyph shapes are distinctively ‘Japanese’ but on the other hand, many are shared with other IRG sources. A2: If a JP code point happens to be included in the above repertoire, CGP experts will analyze its variant relationship with others, whether or not it is a variant. We don’t intend to analyze every code point in JGP repertoire and discuss to add it into CGP repertoire. To understand this then, the cutoff you used for code points that are not specific to Chinese is the IICORE set and any partial coverage of the J0 set would be due to partial coverage of that set in IICORE? Q3: The IP wonders whether it is wise not to include the 7 characters that were deemed useful by DotAsia for Singapore and other Chinese constituencies (listed explicitly in Section 4.1). A3: thanks for reminding us that 7 characters from DotAsia. These 7 code points are not covered by the above 3 principles. We will have CDNC meeting in the coming March, and to discuss if a new 4th principle should be adopted, to allow all New gTLD application IDN code points. OK. This means that the issue is still open at this point. We'll wait for a report from CGP on the resolution. Q4: The IP would like to see a more detailed analysis of the 62 characters IICORE encoded in the block: CJK UNIFIED IDEOGRAPHS EXTENSION B and which are not included in the CLGR draft. These are all HKSCS characters and are specific to Cantonese. The main reason that they are encoded in Extension B (instead of the main block or Extension A) is because they were processed later by the IRG. The IP feels that any rationale for excluding them (whether or not this is because of their encoding in a Supplementary Plane), would need to be specifically documented by the Chinese Generation Panel. A4: we didn’t include the code points in extension B, whose coding length is 5 (from 2000 to 2A6D6), they are not fully support in IT systems in China. If IP thinks it is necessary and insist to include extension B, we will discuss it in the coming CDNC meeting. I would expect that such implementation issues are transient in nature and, over time, support for code points above U+FFFF will become more widespread and more reliable. For example, I expect Emoji are as popular in China as everywhere else, and IT systems will support them (not for IDNs, but for text and SMS of course). Most of them are supplementary characters in Unicode, which will put pressure on upgrading IT systems to handle code points beyond U+FFFF. Because the proposed restriction appears to impact a specific geographic region and user community, it would seem important to get direct input from representatives of that user community on how critical these are for Cantonese and how widespread their support is in IT systems for that language. While I'm sure that the IP understands the need to be conservative, when the impact is culturally one-sided like this, I'm sure the IP would like to have the documentation that the restrictions are supported by or at least acceptable to the affected user communities. The procedure requires us to avoid the impression of bias. I hope these answers could help. Please give us further advice and correction for the inadequacy of our work. I'm sure I'm speaking for the IP as a whole when I say that we are looking forward to getting a complete draft of an LGR proposal, with all the principles and background for the decisions fully discussed. Also, the <description> element in the XML file could be extended a bit to give a brief overview on the method used to calculated dispositions for variant labels. The idea is that there should be just enough information that a knowledgeable reader can understand the XML without having to read the full proposal, but not so much as to duplicate all the details from the latter. (The <description> would cite specific sections of the proposal document - as was done for LGR-1, which was just published). Hope you are having a good meeting, if you are attending ICANN55 A./ Best Regards Wang Wei 发件人: Asmus Freytag [mailto:asmusf@ix.netcom.com] 发送时间: 2015年12月18日 13:52 收件人: Wang Wei <wangwei(a)cnic.cn <mailto:wangwei@cnic.cn> > 抄送: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> > 主题: Integration Panel Considerations on 20151115 Chinese LGR draft Dear Wang Wei, please find attached the Integration Panel's review of the latest draft that you shared with us, complete with a few requests for additional information. These are about the repertoire at this point, we are still reviewing the variants. Thanks, A./

1 0

CJK f2f meeting
by Alireza Saleh March 6, 2016

March 6, 2016

Remote Participation: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/lgr/

1 0

Re: [ChineseGP] Integration Panel Considerations on 20151115 Chinese LGR draft
by 王伟 March 6, 2016

March 6, 2016

Dear Asmus Thanks for reviewing CGP XML document and pointing out the problems in it. I have fixed the flaws about reference id, reflective type, usage of “blocked”, and etc. Before answer the questions in PDF, I’d to explain the development principles of CGP repertoire. 1) The core set of CGP repertoire is the intersection of CDNC table (the latest version 2015) and MSR 2) The intersection of China official Normalized Hanzi List for Common Use and MSR 3) The intersection of IICore and MSR (to include the other IIcore code points not covered in step 1 and 2) Considering the principles above, the answers are listed as below: Q1: The IP would like to know the rationale for adding the 22 IICORE characters that are not used in existing IDN tables (see Section 4.22). We note that over half of them are included in IICORE for support of Korean. A1: we added 22 IICore code points not for support of Korean, but to reach a maximum support of IICore. Q2: The IP would like to learn the reasoning by the CGP with regards to deciding which code points from the JO set to include. We were unable to identify a pattern to distinguish the 94 that were selected from the 50 that were excluded. For example, we can see that a few of these 50 have glyph shapes are distinctively ‘Japanese’ but on the other hand, many are shared with other IRG sources. A2: If a JP code point happens to be included in the above repertoire, CGP experts will analyze its variant relationship with others, whether or not it is a variant. We don’t intend to analyze every code point in JGP repertoire and discuss to add it into CGP repertoire. Q3: The IP wonders whether it is wise not to include the 7 characters that were deemed useful by DotAsia for Singapore and other Chinese constituencies (listed explicitly in Section 4.1). A3: thanks for reminding us that 7 characters from DotAsia. These 7 code points are not covered by the above 3 principles. We will have CDNC meeting in the coming March, and to discuss if a new 4th principle should be adopted, to allow all New gTLD application IDN code points. Q4: The IP would like to see a more detailed analysis of the 62 characters IICORE encoded in the block: CJK UNIFIED IDEOGRAPHS EXTENSION B and which are not included in the CLGR draft. These are all HKSCS characters and are specific to Cantonese. The main reason that they are encoded in Extension B (instead of the main block or Extension A) is because they were processed later by the IRG. The IP feels that any rationale for excluding them (whether or not this is because of their encoding in a Supplementary Plane), would need to be specifically documented by the Chinese Generation Panel. A4: we didn’t include the code points in extension B, whose coding length is 5 (from 2000 to 2A6D6), they are not fully support in IT systems in China. If IP thinks it is necessary and insist to include extension B, we will discuss it in the coming CDNC meeting. I hope these answers could help. Please give us further advice and correction for the inadequacy of our work. Best Regards Wang Wei 发件人: Asmus Freytag [mailto:asmusf@ix.netcom.com] 发送时间: 2015年12月18日 13:52 收件人: Wang Wei <wangwei(a)cnic.cn <mailto:wangwei@cnic.cn> > 抄送: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> > 主题: Integration Panel Considerations on 20151115 Chinese LGR draft Dear Wang Wei, please find attached the Integration Panel's review of the latest draft that you shared with us, complete with a few requests for additional information. These are about the repertoire at this point, we are still reviewing the variants. Thanks, A./

2 3

Anyone will attend ICANN55 meeting?
by 王伟 March 5, 2016

March 5, 2016

Hi everyone I’d like to know if anyone of you is going to attend this ICANN meeting Since Kenny and I will both be absent, your participation really matters to moving forward to our goal. Regards Wang Wei

2 1

CJK meeting Remote participation
by Alireza Saleh March 5, 2016

March 5, 2016

Hi, Those who are joining the Sunday¹s CJK meeting from 15:30-16:40 remotely please use the following information: Adobe room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/lgr/ For those dialing in via phone or Skype can use the dial-in numbers found at View dial-in numbers <https://mtginfo.pgi.com/globalcallmanagement.asp?bwebid=9820041&cid=da6ee6b bd7ef5a1ed779fcee4d4a&confid=da6ce6bed7ed5a1ed77ffce64d4a&brandid=1> . The access code for the call is436 268 5274. If your country does not have a toll-free number listed, please login to Skype and dial any of the toll-free numbers available. Please kindly mention your preferred number if you require dial-out. Thanks Alireza

1 0

Re: [ChineseGP] CJK sessions at ICANN55
by HiroHOTTA March 4, 2016

March 4, 2016

Dear Sarmad, Alireza, CJK folks, CJK will meet on Sunday 15:30-17:00 at Emeraude room. There we will update each other about the situation of each GP. And then we will decide whether and how CJK will use the other 3 remaining slots on Monday and Thursday. We need a remote participation facility on Sunday. By this time, the following participants are confirmed. CGP on site : Chris Dillon remote : Wang Wei, Kenny Huang, Declan MA, Jiankang YAO JGP on site : Hiro Hotta, Yuri Takamatsu remote : Yoshiro Yoneya KGP on site : KIM Kyongsok And we hope you (Sarmad and Alireza) can attend the meeting as well. Regards, Hiro

2 2