Received: from [10.187.41.144] ([14.0.168.118]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail01.dotasia.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u2J9o31b019886 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 19 Mar 2016 17:50:07 +0800 Return-Path: From: "Edmon" To: , "Edmon Chung" Cc: , References: <14b001d18128$02191c10$064b5430$@registry.asia> <20160319164804.A392.2448D065@jprs.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <20160319164804.A392.2448D065@jprs.co.jp> Subject: Re: [Japanesegp] scenario consideration Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 17:50:01 +0800 Keywords: m.sent.edmon@dot.asia Message-ID: <0AC50A2F-FD49-4C34-9505-3F4E028BFA3F@dot.asia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQFLnXeSPtW+QMqyI4a7OY7g5bSyCAGVzAUfAbdNGT8= thanks for the quick feedback. the slides will need more context in = general. slide4 10% of queries to idn.cn =E9=AB=94... will find another example then... am just boarded myself = will check further when i land. but i thought i picked it from the 162 = chars unacceptable by kgp. i might have made mistake. slide 5 and 10 ok slide13 i meant to say that at least that is possible even if remote. but = reverse i.e. slide 14 is not. admit it is not likely going to happen but = if the names are not delegated, just reserved and it becomes clear that = breaking apart the variant pair is correct i think there is at least = higher chance to break later rather than to bond later. that was the = point of the slides. short answer. just my view. i will qualify it better. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: HiroHOTTA Sent: 19 March 2016 3:48:06 PM HKT To: Edmon Chung Cc: ChineseGP@icann.org, JapaneseGP@icann.org Subject: Re: [Japanesegp] scenario consideration Hi Edmon,=20 just have seen first slides, but am sending my feeling before going=20 to the flight gate of Haneda. please give slide# to each slide. slide4 More elaboration needed for "CNNIC statistics show that=20 10% of DNS queries are for the IDN variant". Does this mean 10% of .CN DNS queries are for IDNs that=20 have variants? Or, does this mean 10% of IDN.CN queries=20 are for variat IDNs that are not registered in DNS? slide5 =E2=80=9Cnew character form=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cold character = form=E2=80=9D recognized=20 as variants should be rewrote as=20 =E2=80=9Cnew character form=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cold character = form=E2=80=9D recognized=20 as variants in many cases by some Japanese people slide10 "string similarity" should be more clear in definition , such as=20 "visual similarity" or "meaning similarity" or ... from slide6 and onward it should be stated that '=E9=AB=94' is (not)=20 in J repertoire / K repertoire slide 13 is the tile #=E2=80=9CConservativeness=E2=80=9D in beginning. Can be = Relaxed=20 in the Future" is a general statement or (y)our wish ot general=20 purpose or ... Hiro On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 23:08:16 +0800 "Edmon Chung" wrote: > Hi Everyone, >=20 > As proposed, please find attached slides attempting to describe = possible > scenarios to approach Han coordination focusing on the CGP/KGP = disparities > at this time. This incorporates some suggestions/comments from the = CDNC > meetings just concluded. >=20 > I have not included KGP in the distribution, looking for feedback from = JGP > and CGP first, or perhaps at our meeting. >=20 > Edmon