Dear Wang Wei, IANA IDN Repository is based on per TLD and per Language/Script; it could be different mapping table between TLDs on same Language/Script, so IP can not challenge CGP table is different from CDNC table. Even more is CGP must coordination with JGP and KGP, it is a compromise output. I am glad if IP can convince JPG and KGP to follow CDNC table rules. Regards, Nai-Wen Hsu Linlin Zhou 於 2018/2/11 上午 10:57 寫道:
Dear Wang Wei, Thanks for sharing the latest updates of CGP work. Chinese Domain Name Consortium (CDNC) dedicated itself to researching the Chinese IDN table from its foundation in 2000. With the development of CDNC, the Joint Engineering Team (JET), which was composed of members of CNNIC, TWNIC, KRNIC, and JPNIC as well as other individual experts in linguistics and domain name, has been established. JET members published RFC3743 (April 2004) and RFC4713 (October 2006) as the Chinese registration guideline.
In parallel, the CDNC IDN table was developed and submitted in 2005. This table is currently adopted by .cn, .tw , .hk, .mo and .sg, as well as many new gTLD applicants, such as, .公司, .网络,.网址, .top, which can be found on the IANA website. With over a decade of operation experience, this table has been proved to be the best practice in the area of Chinese domain registration. The CDNC IDN Table is the basis for the Chinese LGR work from the very beginning. Conflicts can be hardly avoided, but we should think deeply and take actions carefully on which rule should be given the priority.
Regards, Linlin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn
*发件人：* 王伟 <mailto:wangwei@cnic.cn> *发送时间：* 2018-02-07 17:35 *收件人：* ChineseGP@icann.org <mailto:ChineseGP@icann.org> *主题：* [ChineseGP] CGP work updates Dear All CGP generated a new version of CGP LGR Proposal according to the discussion with IP in ICANN60 Abu Dhabi As explained in the attached “CGP-LGR-Proposal-1.1-201712”, Kenny, Ning KONG and I designed an engineering method to eliminate the over production of allocatable labels caused by multiple allocatable variant mappings. This compromise solution could help limit the number of allocatable labels under 4. CGP sent out the proposal to IP in Dec, 2017 and got the feedback document from IP last week (please refer the attached "CGP-LGR20171212-report_20180130_Clean"). According the feedback document, IP accepted most part of the CGP LGR Proposal. But there is a new issue raised up, that about 50 variant groups and their variant mappings were challenged by IP. IP compared the variant mappings of these groups in CDNC, dotAsia and Unihan, questioned that whether these variant mappings need further investigation and reconsideration. In previous work, CGP focused on CDNC and dotAsia, seldom referred Unihan table. When CDNC and dotAsia faced with conflicts on some specific variant mappings, CGP took CDNC rules first. However, IP studied these conflicts as well as Unihan, gave out a different opinion and their suggestions. As suggested, CGP might need another round of variant mapping review work on those 50 variant groups. I will discuss with Kenny to see how we proceed with the next step work. As always, opinions and comments of all CGP members are important to the work. Please feel free to express your suggestions in the mailing list. Best Regards, Wei WNAG _______________________________________________ ChineseGP mailing list ChineseGP@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/chinesegp
_______________________________________________ ChineseGP mailing list ChineseGP@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/chinesegp