Hi, Ryan, You say it best. And what’s more, CGP needs to make our work and future negotiation with J and K publicly known. Regards, Declan Ma ZDNS 在 2014年7月1日，下午2:18，Ryan Tan YH <ryan@sgnic.sg> 写道：
Hi Wang Wei,
Thanks. I agree with the proposed next steps though we should keep the reduction of the CGP character set as a possible future strategy as events unfold. This is in case eventually the CJK cannot agree on the final set of variants for some overlapping codepoints. In that case a reduction of CGP character set may mitigate some (and hopefully all) problems.
It is too early to tell really. My sense it is still some way to go before K *and* J form their GP (and they may not) and produce their respective character sets. CGP can only complete our tasks on hand and navigate each obstacle along the way.
Regards, Ryan
Wang Wei wrote, On 30/6/2014 11:34 PM:
Sorry guys
“If some modification request is unignorable, a safer way would be modifying CDNC table first.”
发件人: chinesegp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org] 代表 Wang Wei 发送时间: 2014年6月30日 21:37 收件人: ChineseGP@icann.org 主题: [ChineseGP] follow up to London meeting
Dear all
In London meeting, Kenny and I joined the coordination meeting and workshop, discussed with IP and representatives from K and J.
Here are some conclusions and tasks for the next step:
1) Except for the coordination reason, the CGP Initial Character set will keep EXACTLY the same with CDNC table, to eliminate the unnecessary question of consistency and inconsistency from IP or other communities. In other words, though there is no clear compulsory requirement for consistency between TLD and SLD, different experts expressed different opinions on the issue, the change to current SLD repertoire should be carried out restrainedly and conservatively. If some modification request is ignorable, a safer way would be modifying CDNC table first.
2) Adding expert from Malaysia and some other area.
3) Kenny will ask Japan community and Korea community to confirm if they agree or disagree with the coordination rules described in Asmus’s slide (attached pdf 1) and ICANN document (attached pdf 2, appendix F) Especially on the setting of “variant mapping” and “variant type”
CGP is fine with the proposed solution from ICANN, personally I hope it’s OK with J and K too. But if J or K doesn’t accept that rule, we probably need a formal joint statement for IP, then we need to propose a new feasible alternative for IP, and of course, more negotiation with IP since they already published the attached PDF2 and went through public comments.
4) Our target is to finish the job before next ICANN meeting (October), it is not changed. But it depends on the coordination rules for repertoire and variants. Once the joint repertoire were made, I would be optimistic about instituting generation rules in a short time. Otherwise, if we can’t reach an agreement with J and K, we won’t move a single step toward the generation rules.
Please voice your opinions as fully as possible~
Regards Wang Wei
_______________________________________________ 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