Dear All, I would also like to summarize my contribution to the discussion in the call yesterday on various topics, for those who were not able to attend. And also share some additional suggestions for the Cyrillic GP members to consider. 1. The Generation Panel should focus on developing the proposal for its formation. This includes completing the following information (kindly refer to the proposal template for further details): a. Scope of work – script, Unicode code point ranges, etc. based on MSR-1 (or MSR-2 if proposal is submitted after MSR-2 is released – expected in April) b. Languages and Geographies covered. This should be a fairly comprehensive list of languages, along with their ISO codes and where they are spoken. The websites www.omniglot.com <http://www.omniglot.com> and www.ethnologue.com <http://www.ethnologue.com> are excellent reference points for gathering such information. Organizing the languages in families or groups is a great idea. You can see Section 1.2, 1.3 and Appendix A of Arabic GP proposal <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/43976436/Arabic%20Script%20...> to get an idea of how others have done it. c. Description of members – most of this is already completed (a few members need to complete their information). However, this should not delay the proposal process, if those who have (almost) completed the information meet the general diversity requirements of such a panel. Please also note that there is a possibility of adding more members later on, in case additional people are interested in volunteering eventually. So current members is not a closed set. d. Work Plan and timelines – this is currently unfinished and needs focus from all members. Regarding work plan, it is good to have details, but a high level plan should also suffice at this stage. It could include the following stages: Formation Phase: i. Proposal for forming the Generation Panel for Cyrillic Analysis Phase: ii. Analysis of code points for inclusion iii. Analysis of variants within Cyrillic script iv. Analysis of cross-script variants with Latin and Greek v. Development of Whole Label Evaluation rules Documentation Phase: vi. Documentation of ii-v above vii. Development of LGR in XML format viii. Submission of proposal to ICANN Finalization Phase: ix. Release of Proposal by ICANN for public comment x. Finalization of Proposal by Cyrillic GP based on public feedback xi. Submission to Integration Panel for review 2. You may put additional data in the proposal, e.g. language tables, etc. However, if you put such data, which is essentially part of the Analysis phase, at this stage it only complicates and delays the development and evaluation process of this proposal. So the suggestion is avoid adding analysis in the proposal for formation and keep the proposal activity focused on the information requested – and leave the analysis to later stages. 3. Though it may be useful to document list of potential issues, it is not required for the proposal development stage. You could add such a list to the proposal but, again, its analysis is not required at this stage (to complete the proposal). That would be done in the analysis phase. Such a list would not be complete at this stage, before analysis is undertaken. 4. When you are planning the work, it would be useful if you plan sharing your results with community at the end of each analysis-step ii-v – This is not required by the process, but helps to ensure there are no surprises later when the proposal is released for public comments at stage ix. 5. For the characters of the language which are not encoded at this time, the Cyrillic GP proposal does not need to wait for them at this stage. Once those characters are encoded, and are stable across a few versions of Unicode, the Cyrillic GP can reconvene and add those letters (if needed) to the Cyrillic portion of LGR – after undergoing the same review process. 6. LGR for the Root Zone has to conservatively include the languages using Cyrillic script. The current recommendation from Integration Panel is that the languages should be in active use. They suggest using the EGIDS scale (https://www.ethnologue.com/about/language-status) and include languages which have a value of 0-4. However, the community can also consider additional languages, if a case can be made for their active use. The www.ethnologue.com <http://www.ethnologue.com> website gives EGIDS scale of most languages (e.g. for Russian see http://www.ethnologue.com/language/rus. The “Language Status” says it is 1 (national)). However, this work should be taken up in the analysis phase. Hope this is helpful. Please feel free to let me know if you have any queries. Regards, Sarmad From: cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dusan Stojicevic Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 1:03 AM To: cyrillicgp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Cyrillicgp] Proposal - table 3 and Part 1 Dear all, My suggestion on the small regional groups (SG) raised again some questions. Let me try here to give You concrete explanation of the idea, with names based on our proposal: 1. Balkan SG will cover Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Serbia, Bulgaria, part of Rusyn people Mirjana Tasic Adviser for Strategy and Development Serbia Serbian National Internet Domain Registry - RNIDS native: Serbian communication: English Nelly Stoyanova independent expert Bulgaria Native: Bulgarian, Communication: English Dušan Stojičević Chairman of the Managing Board Serbia Serbian National Internet Domain Registry - RNIDS Native: Serbian Communication: English Daniel Kalchev Bulgarian Registry Bulgaria Register.bg native: Bulgarian, communication: English, Russian Sanja Simonova Macedonian Registry Macedonia Macedonian Academic And Research Network-MARnet Iliya Bazlyankov .САЙТ & .ОНЛАЙН gTLDs Registry Bulgaria CORE Association Native: Bulgarian, Communication: English Cyrillic script in Bosnia & Herzegovina is the same one like in Serbia (Serbian minority in BH use Cyrillic script). Montenegro case was explained earlier, and I will try, personally, to invite someone from Montenegro to join our work. Rusyn case was explained earlier. With this list of members, we covered the whole Balkan area. On the meeting today, 3 out of 6 was there. This was the number of active members for almost every meeting - Mirjana, Iliya, myself (and on the beginning Daniel). How to became a member - You are already a member of one of the four defined groups. How to organize the work in SG - it's not specified. If there is a need for SG to organize some meetings or similar things, we can use the list, private mails or organize some skype calls. Maybe there is a need to name a leader of every SG, the one member who will send the results to the chair and organize the work inside the group. I hope that this was helpful. Regards, Dusan On 1.4.2015 15:47, Vladimir Shadrunov wrote: Thanks everyone for the call today. There were some very good suggestions on the call on how to amend the Proposal document such as creating a comprehensive list of Cyrillic languages. I've reviewed the draft Proposal once again and I think Table 3 that lists the characters used in different languages should be removed for the time being from the Proposal document. This is all good work and we should definitely use it at some later stage, but inclusion it here can actually delay ICANN's evaluation of the Proposal. Further, I'm of two minds regarding the introductory part 1 (paragraphs 100 - 116). While it does contain interesting facts, I'm not yet sure if all of them are relevant enough for the purposes of this document. Would appreciate hearing others' point of view on this. So my input as a summary: - remove Table 3 - strip down introductory part 1 Thanks, Vladimir _______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp _____ <http://www.avast.com/> Ova e-pošta je provjerena na viruse Avast protuvirusnim programom. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>

Thanks Yuri, I may have a full day event on Apr 9th-10th (still waiting for the confirmation). I can't yet confirm if I'll be able to join. Should be able on Wed 8th though. I don't have a preference regarding the means of communication. We usually used Google Hangouts for groups of 4-5 people, I don't have much experience with group calls using other software. Adobe Connect and GotoMeeting usually worked ok for me, but seems some other people had issues with setting them up. As to regular calls I would prefer 13-15 UTC - there's a better probability that I'll be available than at 10 UTC. Wed-Thu are the best days for it. One suggestion would be to use the same time (Wed 12 UTC) as the main group, but on alternate weeks. I'll have a look at the agenda and subjects next week. Best regards, Vladimir On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Yuriy Kargapolov <yvk@uanic.info> wrote:

Dear All,

During conf-call (April,1) was raised question on small working groups (SWG), in particular, for region "Russia-Ukraine-Belarus" (RUB)

This SWG cover Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, part of Rusin (Transcarpatian) and ethnic minority languages in Russia.

The members of SWG RUB:

Name, Surname

Position

Country

Organization

Languages (native: , communication:)

Vladimir Shadrunov

independent expert

United Kingdom

Vladimir Consulting Ltd.

Native: Russian, Communication: English

Yulia Morenets

independent expert

(Representative of TaC)

France

Together against Cybercrime

Native: Russian

Communication: English, French

Yuriy Kargapolov

Ukrainian .УКР Registry

Ukraine

UANIC

native: Russian, Ukrainian

communication: English

Dmitry Kohmanyuk

Ukrainian .UA Registry

Ukraine

Hostmaster

native: Ukrainian, Russian

communication: English

Oleksandr Tsaruk

independent expert

Ukraine

Ukrainian Parliament

native: Ukrainian, Russian

communication: English

Alexander Ilin

Russian Registry

Russia

TCI LLC

Native: Russian, Communication: English

Yuriy Honcharuk

Ukrainian .УКР Registry

Ukraine

UANIC

native: Russian, Ukrainian

communication: English

Sergey Povalishev

Belorussian Registry

Belorussia

Reliable Software Inc.

native: Russian, Belarusian

communication: English

Alexei Sozonov

.РУС gTLD Registry

Russia

Rusnames Limited

native: Russian

communication: English

I propose to hold the first conf-call in this format on April 9 at 10:00 UTC via Skype (my nicname yvk777) and during skype-conf decide how we will communicate in the future for what proposed agenda:

A. 3 "organisational" points for duscussion:

A.1) how we should organize conf-call in SWG?

(a) via Skype

(b) via Viber

(c) via ICANN means of communications

(d) any propositions?

A.2) how often and when we should organize conf-call?

(a) every 1 week or...

(b) every Wed at 10:00 UTC

(c) every Thu at 10:00 UTC

(d) any propositions?

A.3) should we choose the leader of SWG?

His obligations: (a) organization of the group conf-calls, (b) the synthesis of the results, and (c) to send them to chair.

B. 2 "subject" point for duscussion:

B.1) the doc "Proposal for forming Cyrillic Generatiion Panel" in part concerned with SWG RUB (as known, deadline - end of April)

I will prepare short advance report on EGIDS levels relevant for our languages (https://www.ethnologue.com/about/language-status)

As plane result - the first evaluation languages which will include

B.2) items on "remove Tabel 3" and "strip down introductory part 1" - propose to discuss during SWG conf-call - as part of suggestions for "Proposal...".

Vladimir, would you prepare arguments "yes/no" and your subject propositions on these two items to conf-call on April 9?

Please, if anybody has suggestions, corrections, and additions to agenda of SWG RUB - send them.

Let me remind, that during the conf-call was adopted the suggestion of Sarmad - on base recommendation of Integration panel - on evaluation of a languages levels on EGIDS scale (from 4 and lower).

Thus, in work plan of SWG RUB should be include relevant evaluation tasks with regards of ethnic minority languages

----

Regards,

Yuri

On 1.4.2015 15:47, Vladimir Shadrunov wrote:

Thanks everyone for the call today. There were some very good suggestions on the call on how to amend the Proposal document such as creating a comprehensive list of Cyrillic languages.

I've reviewed the draft Proposal once again and I think Table 3 that lists the characters used in different languages should be removed for the time being from the Proposal document. This is all good work and we should definitely use it at some later stage, but inclusion it here can actually delay ICANN's evaluation of the Proposal.

Further, I'm of two minds regarding the introductory part 1 (paragraphs 100 - 116). While it does contain interesting facts, I'm not yet sure if all of them are relevant enough for the purposes of this document. Would appreciate hearing others' point of view on this.

So my input as a summary:

- remove Table 3

- strip down introductory part 1

Thanks,

Vladimir