Thanks for the opportunity for commenting on the draft proposal made by Korean Generation Panel. Below are my comments. [comment-1] As Chinese, Japanese, and Korean (collectively called CJK) languages use the same script (called 'Han' in Chinese, 'Kanji' in Japanese, and 'Hanja' in Korean) as a part of their writing systems, three generation panels have coordinated in defining their respective repertoires and variants. Through tough coordination, CJK Generation Panels (GPs) have successfully agreed upon the definition of variants. All the variants agreed upon were between Han characters. The implicit assumption all the way through their coordination was that there were no variants between Hanja and Hangul (in Korean case) and between Kanji, Katakana, and Hiragana (in Japanese case). However, I found that in the proposed Korean RootLGR draft, variants between Hangul characters and Hanja characters are defined, which have not been considered at all in those three GP's coordination effort. In other words, although definition of variants between Hanja and Hangul characters impacts Chinese users and Japanese users, such effect (e.g., "blocking Chinese label by applying for Hangul label") has not been investigated. I don't imply that I do not agree on such variant definitions made by KGP. I may respect KGP's strong wish to define similar-looking characters as variants (although I personally am against it as in [comment-2]). However, JGP needs time to assess whether such definitions do harm or not through consultation with Japanese community. I believe CGP is in the same situation. [comment-2] I have a general concern in defining variants between Hanja characters and Hungul characters based on visual similarity. If Hanja characters and Hungul characters can be mixed in composing a Korean word (as proposed in draft LGR), it should be considered that Hanja script and Hungul scripts collectively constitute "ONE Korean script". as in the case of Japanese language, which has this kind of "ONE Japanese script" status that consists of Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana UNICODE scripts. If this is the case for Korean writing system, defining variants between Hanja and Hungul is equivalent to defining variants within a script, i.e., mutually similar-looking Hangul characters, mutually similar-looking Hanja characters, or even mutually similar-looking ASCII characters should become the candidates for variants. I think defining variants within ONE script based only on visual similarity is not a good idea, especially when such similarity is defined without universally acceptable criteria. Hiro Hotta JPRS and JGP