Cyrillic GP make-up call from previous week
Agenda, as proposed by the Chair (Wednesday 16 September; 12 noon UTC): 1. Introducing of newcomers from Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Russia. 2. Draft of the letter to Russian linguists. Current state of affairs. Vladimir Shadrunov. 3. Suggestions on text of "Proposal..." taking into account the remarks of the Integration Panel and 4. Proposition on including/excluding of the conflict points in "Proposal..." 5. Propositions on new version of working plan (paragraph 3.5) Adobe C
Dear ALL, Please, find attach. It's new version of "Proposal..." I tried take into account the remarks and comments of the IP, but it's previously draft - the most important and significant comments waiting from members of the Cyrillic Generation Panel I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal. Regards, Yuri
I am sorry but I have trouble to understand this paragraph, particularly: "I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal." So, the plan was not changed because you agree with it, or because of suggestions not yet incorporated in it? Double negatives are complicated. -- dk@
On 15 сент. 2015, at 15:48, Yuriy Kargapolov <yvk@uanic.info> wrote:
Dear ALL,
Please, find attach. It's new version of "Proposal..." I tried take into account the remarks and comments of the IP, but it's previously draft - the most important and significant comments waiting from members of the Cyrillic Generation Panel I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal.
Regards,
Yuri <Setting up the Cyrillic Generation Panel_v2.2.docx> _______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
Dear all, It's mine fault that I am probably (again) on the plain during the time of conference call, and I want to apologize for not being there for the second time. But mine apologies will be filled with this long mail to all of You. I will try to make some suggestions, trying to solve our "productiveness" for almost a year. Starting with some simple results and facts so far: 1. Our proposal was rejected 2. We need more participants 3. We need to work 4. Possible effects of our fail - no new cc or gTLD on Cyrillic script Therefor I think we need different approach - this one was not productive. In the attach You can find the document which I call MFR (Minimum Facts Repertoire) needed for Integration Panel approval. It's a document based entirely on current Proposal... Why I did it? Well: Structure of the current Proposal... did not follow all, or missed some rules that was written in Sarmad's first document (also in attach). We raised some good points too early, f.e. Cyrillic - Old Church Slavonic variant. Why early? Because we can add those points (some of them are tasks) in the future, when we finish ANY job here, on "basic" Cyrillic. Also, we must be aware that we are doing things under existing MSR-2, and our job is NOT what was in Proposal... (quote): 118.The Cyrillic Generation Panel have aim – forming recommendations for current and future versions of the MSR and, as final result, forming of LGR. This is not our task nor aim. There is a procedure for shaping MSR-3, which is not the aim of our work. Our aim is well described in full name of this doc> Proposal for the Generation Panel (GP) for the Cyrillic Script Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone . It's about making rules for root zone, not proposing anything for MSR. Even if it's somehow our task, it cannot be our primary task or obligatory thing, and we do not need this as a statement with obligation for us in Proposal... which we can, or cannot fulfill. Of course, there is a lot of text in current Proposal... Mine version is more-less without text. Text is needed in MFR. Personally, I would like to avoid history (we are not historians) and as I proposed in MFR, it can be written in last paragraph. We are not here to show ICANN our historic roots, how good is Cyrillic, or something else - we are here to do our job. I hope that this work is not about politics, history or culture. Strongly suggest that You look at Work plan. I made minor changes, but not enough - we need to say precisely when and what we are going to do. Keep in mind that our work plan can be changed, in collaboration with IP during the work, if something occurs (maybe second script for our work - Old Church Slavonic variant). Also, if we need F2F meetings - we need to plan this also. You can find two planed F2F meetings in MFR. According to all of this, I would like to hear Your opinion about this doc. Sorry, I didn't have the time to put some wording and labels. On the other hand, I think that Vladimir and Dmitry are far more better than me in English, so they can put some text in doc, if You all think that it's ok. Also, I would like to hear Sarmad's opinion on the doc, its structure and what we can do to make this MFR better. @Yuriy - we need to reset things. Your work so far was great, big and very good, all congrats from my side, but we need a work done not only by You. Let us do something. And best thing is that we will have (I hope) some fresh blood who will add some more spices to our work. @all - let's make our Proposal with necessary minimum, so we can FINALLY start our work. With deep respect and regards to all of You, and wishes for fruitful discussion on the conference call, Dusan p.s. - if You find MFR useful and good start point, I will provide editable version (doc). On 15.9.2015 21:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk wrote:
I am sorry but I have trouble to understand this paragraph, particularly:
"I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal."
So, the plan was not changed because you agree with it, or because of suggestions not yet incorporated in it?
Double negatives are complicated.
-- dk@
On 15 сент. 2015, at 15:48, Yuriy Kargapolov <yvk@uanic.info> wrote:
Dear ALL,
Please, find attach. It's new version of "Proposal..." I tried take into account the remarks and comments of the IP, but it's previously draft - the most important and significant comments waiting from members of the Cyrillic Generation Panel I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal.
Regards,
Yuri <Setting up the Cyrillic Generation Panel_v2.2.docx> _______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
--- Ova e-pošta je provjerena na viruse Avast protuvirusnim programom. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Excellent draft, Dusan. I have finally seen something that feels worth submitting to ICANN. Of course there need to be discussion about it (especially timeline) but generally its sensible. Agreed with your points about history and focus, although I would like to keep background information about languages using Cyrillic and perhaps few sentences on history. Also, as we do not have experts on all languages in the group (this is evident from the full list of participants), perhaps it would be nice to mark languages we know in the first table. I would be happy to edit/write small textual descriptions where necessary. Vladimir? -- dk@
On 16 сент. 2015, at 02:46, Dusan Stojicevic <dusan@dukes.in.rs> wrote:
Dear all,
It's mine fault that I am probably (again) on the plain during the time of conference call, and I want to apologize for not being there for the second time. But mine apologies will be filled with this long mail to all of You. I will try to make some suggestions, trying to solve our "productiveness" for almost a year.
Starting with some simple results and facts so far: 1. Our proposal was rejected 2. We need more participants 3. We need to work 4. Possible effects of our fail - no new cc or gTLD on Cyrillic script
Therefor I think we need different approach - this one was not productive. In the attach You can find the document which I call MFR (Minimum Facts Repertoire) needed for Integration Panel approval. It's a document based entirely on current Proposal... Why I did it? Well: Structure of the current Proposal... did not follow all, or missed some rules that was written in Sarmad's first document (also in attach). We raised some good points too early, f.e. Cyrillic - Old Church Slavonic variant. Why early? Because we can add those points (some of them are tasks) in the future, when we finish ANY job here, on "basic" Cyrillic. Also, we must be aware that we are doing things under existing MSR-2, and our job is NOT what was in Proposal... (quote): 118. The Cyrillic Generation Panel have aim – forming recommendations for current and future versions of the MSR and, as final result, forming of LGR. This is not our task nor aim. There is a procedure for shaping MSR-3, which is not the aim of our work. Our aim is well described in full name of this doc> Proposal for the Generation Panel (GP) for the Cyrillic Script Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone . It's about making rules for root zone, not proposing anything for MSR. Even if it's somehow our task, it cannot be our primary task or obligatory thing, and we do not need this as a statement with obligation for us in Proposal... which we can, or cannot fulfill.
Of course, there is a lot of text in current Proposal... Mine version is more-less without text. Text is needed in MFR. Personally, I would like to avoid history (we are not historians) and as I proposed in MFR, it can be written in last paragraph. We are not here to show ICANN our historic roots, how good is Cyrillic, or something else - we are here to do our job. I hope that this work is not about politics, history or culture.
Strongly suggest that You look at Work plan. I made minor changes, but not enough - we need to say precisely when and what we are going to do. Keep in mind that our work plan can be changed, in collaboration with IP during the work, if something occurs (maybe second script for our work - Old Church Slavonic variant). Also, if we need F2F meetings - we need to plan this also. You can find two planed F2F meetings in MFR.
According to all of this, I would like to hear Your opinion about this doc. Sorry, I didn't have the time to put some wording and labels. On the other hand, I think that Vladimir and Dmitry are far more better than me in English, so they can put some text in doc, if You all think that it's ok. Also, I would like to hear Sarmad's opinion on the doc, its structure and what we can do to make this MFR better.
@Yuriy - we need to reset things. Your work so far was great, big and very good, all congrats from my side, but we need a work done not only by You. Let us do something. And best thing is that we will have (I hope) some fresh blood who will add some more spices to our work. @all - let's make our Proposal with necessary minimum, so we can FINALLY start our work.
With deep respect and regards to all of You, and wishes for fruitful discussion on the conference call, Dusan p.s. - if You find MFR useful and good start point, I will provide editable version (doc).
On 15.9.2015 21:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk wrote: I am sorry but I have trouble to understand this paragraph, particularly:
"I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal."
So, the plan was not changed because you agree with it, or because of suggestions not yet incorporated in it?
Double negatives are complicated.
-- dk@
On 15 сент. 2015, at 15:48, Yuriy Kargapolov <yvk@uanic.info> wrote:
Dear ALL,
Please, find attach. It's new version of "Proposal..." I tried take into account the remarks and comments of the IP, but it's previously draft - the most important and significant comments waiting from members of the Cyrillic Generation Panel I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal.
Regards,
Yuri <Setting up the Cyrillic Generation Panel_v2.2.docx> _______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
Ova e-pošta je provjerena na viruse Avast protuvirusnim programom. www.avast.com
<Proposal for the Generation Panel 3.0 MFR.pdf> <Template for Proposal for Setting up the Generation Panel.docx> _______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
Dear Yuriy, Dusan, All, The proposal seems to contain most of the information requested at the stage of the proposal. As suggested, the discussion of inclusions into the MSR can go in parallel. However, you may want to add that Cyrillic GP work will be based on the latest version of MSR, as per the requirement of the Procedure. We can do a detailed analysis of the proposal and give detailed comments, when the Cyrillic GP are ok to proceed with this document. Regards, Sarmad From: cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Yuriy Kargapolov Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:42 PM To: Dusan Stojicevic <dusan@dukes.in.rs> Cc: cyrillicgp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Cyrillicgp] New version of "Proposal..." (draft) for comments Dear ALL, Good and acceptable new draft of "Proposal...". This draft really easier and clear for the current period. I think we can be based on this one. @Dusan Thanks a lot for nice work! @ Sarmad, Whether the Dusan's structure can to be combined with the requirements that have been set out in "Template for Proposal..."? Can we change the format? For my part, I appeal for support for the format, which offered Dusan. @Dmitry I apologize if not precisely gave definition to a some nuances of the situation. 1) we have comments submitted by IP 2) the small part of them were not has not been taken into account by me 3) one such observations were remarks to work plan 4) but I didn't want to make all the changes to the text until it has received proposals from members of the panel. Dusan did it. Regards, Yuri Wednesday, September 16, 2015, 2:46:13 AM, you wrote: Dear all, It's mine fault that I am probably (again) on the plain during the time of conference call, and I want to apologize for not being there for the second time. But mine apologies will be filled with this long mail to all of You. I will try to make some suggestions, trying to solve our "productiveness" for almost a year. Starting with some simple results and facts so far: 1. Our proposal was rejected 2. We need more participants 3. We need to work 4. Possible effects of our fail - no new cc or gTLD on Cyrillic script Therefor I think we need different approach - this one was not productive. In the attach You can find the document which I call MFR (Minimum Facts Repertoire) needed for Integration Panel approval. It's a document based entirely on current Proposal... Why I did it? Well: Structure of the current Proposal... did not follow all, or missed some rules that was written in Sarmad's first document (also in attach). We raised some good points too early, f.e. Cyrillic - Old Church Slavonic variant. Why early? Because we can add those points (some of them are tasks) in the future, when we finish ANY job here, on "basic" Cyrillic. Also, we must be aware that we are doing things under existing MSR-2, and our job is NOT what was in Proposal... (quote): 118. The Cyrillic Generation Panel have aim – forming recommendations for current and future versions of the MSR and, as final result, forming of LGR. This is not our task nor aim. There is a procedure for shaping MSR-3, which is not the aim of our work. Our aim is well described in full name of this doc> Proposal for the Generation Panel (GP) for the Cyrillic Script Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone . It's about making rules for root zone, not proposing anything for MSR. Even if it's somehow our task, it cannot be our primary task or obligatory thing, and we do not need this as a statement with obligation for us in Proposal... which we can, or cannot fulfill. Of course, there is a lot of text in current Proposal... Mine version is more-less without text. Text is needed in MFR. Personally, I would like to avoid history (we are not historians) and as I proposed in MFR, it can be written in last paragraph. We are not here to show ICANN our historic roots, how good is Cyrillic, or something else - we are here to do our job. I hope that this work is not about politics, history or culture. Strongly suggest that You look at Work plan. I made minor changes, but not enough - we need to say precisely when and what we are going to do. Keep in mind that our work plan can be changed, in collaboration with IP during the work, if something occurs (maybe second script for our work - Old Church Slavonic variant). Also, if we need F2F meetings - we need to plan this also. You can find two planed F2F meetings in MFR. According to all of this, I would like to hear Your opinion about this doc. Sorry, I didn't have the time to put some wording and labels. On the other hand, I think that Vladimir and Dmitry are far more better than me in English, so they can put some text in doc, if You all think that it's ok. Also, I would like to hear Sarmad's opinion on the doc, its structure and what we can do to make this MFR better. @Yuriy - we need to reset things. Your work so far was great, big and very good, all congrats from my side, but we need a work done not only by You. Let us do something. And best thing is that we will have (I hope) some fresh blood who will add some more spices to our work. @all - let's make our Proposal with necessary minimum, so we can FINALLY start our work. With deep respect and regards to all of You, and wishes for fruitful discussion on the conference call, Dusan p.s. - if You find MFR useful and good start point, I will provide editable version (doc). On 15.9.2015 21:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk wrote: I am sorry but I have trouble to understand this paragraph, particularly: "I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal." So, the plan was not changed because you agree with it, or because of suggestions not yet incorporated in it? Double negatives are complicated. On 15 сент. 2015, at 15:48, Yuriy Kargapolov <mailto:yvk@uanic.info> <yvk@uanic.info> <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> Cyrillicgp@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp _______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing lis <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> Cyrillicgp@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp _____ <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> Ova e-pošta je provjerena na viruse Avast protuvirusnim programom. <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> www.avast.com -- З повагою, Голова Регламентного комітету, Ю. Каргаполов <mailto:yvk@uanic.info> mailto:yvk@uanic.info
Thanks Sarmad. What is the information that is missing from Dusan draft so we can add it? (Except for "MSR to be updated" you mention.)
On 16 сент. 2015, at 14:54, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Yuriy, Dusan, All, The proposal seems to contain most of the information requested at the stage of the proposal. As suggested, the discussion of inclusions into the MSR can go in parallel. However, you may want to add that Cyrillic GP work will be based on the latest version of MSR, as per the requirement of the Procedure. We can do a detailed analysis of the proposal and give detailed comments, when the Cyrillic GP are ok to proceed with this document. Regards, Sarmad
From: cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Yuriy Kargapolov Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:42 PM To: Dusan Stojicevic <dusan@dukes.in.rs> Cc: cyrillicgp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Cyrillicgp] New version of "Proposal..." (draft) for comments
Dear ALL,
Good and acceptable new draft of "Proposal...". This draft really easier and clear for the current period. I think we can be based on this one.
@Dusan Thanks a lot for nice work!
@ Sarmad, Whether the Dusan's structure can to be combined with the requirements that have been set out in "Template for Proposal..."? Can we change the format? For my part, I appeal for support for the format, which offered Dusan.
@Dmitry I apologize if not precisely gave definition to a some nuances of the situation. 1) we have comments submitted by IP 2) the small part of them were not has not been taken into account by me 3) one such observations were remarks to work plan 4) but I didn't want to make all the changes to the text until it has received proposals from members of the panel. Dusan did it.
Regards, Yuri
Wednesday, September 16, 2015, 2:46:13 AM, you wrote:
Dear all,
It's mine fault that I am probably (again) on the plain during the time of conference call, and I want to apologize for not being there for the second time. But mine apologies will be filled with this long mail to all of You. I will try to make some suggestions, trying to solve our "productiveness" for almost a year.
Starting with some simple results and facts so far: 1. Our proposal was rejected 2. We need more participants 3. We need to work 4. Possible effects of our fail - no new cc or gTLD on Cyrillic script
Therefor I think we need different approach - this one was not productive. In the attach You can find the document which I call MFR (Minimum Facts Repertoire) needed for Integration Panel approval. It's a document based entirely on current Proposal... Why I did it? Well: Structure of the current Proposal... did not follow all, or missed some rules that was written in Sarmad's first document (also in attach). We raised some good points too early, f.e. Cyrillic - Old Church Slavonic variant. Why early? Because we can add those points (some of them are tasks) in the future, when we finish ANY job here, on "basic" Cyrillic. Also, we must be aware that we are doing things under existing MSR-2, and our job is NOT what was in Proposal... (quote): 118. The Cyrillic Generation Panel have aim – forming recommendations for current and future versions of the MSR and, as final result, forming of LGR. This is not our task nor aim. There is a procedure for shaping MSR-3, which is not the aim of our work. Our aim is well described in full name of this doc> Proposal for the Generation Panel (GP) for the Cyrillic Script Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone . It's about making rules for root zone, not proposing anything for MSR. Even if it's somehow our task, it cannot be our primary task or obligatory thing, and we do not need this as a statement with obligation for us in Proposal... which we can, or cannot fulfill.
Of course, there is a lot of text in current Proposal... Mine version is more-less without text. Text is needed in MFR. Personally, I would like to avoid history (we are not historians) and as I proposed in MFR, it can be written in last paragraph. We are not here to show ICANN our historic roots, how good is Cyrillic, or something else - we are here to do our job. I hope that this work is not about politics, history or culture.
Strongly suggest that You look at Work plan. I made minor changes, but not enough - we need to say precisely when and what we are going to do. Keep in mind that our work plan can be changed, in collaboration with IP during the work, if something occurs (maybe second script for our work - Old Church Slavonic variant). Also, if we need F2F meetings - we need to plan this also. You can find two planed F2F meetings in MFR.
According to all of this, I would like to hear Your opinion about this doc. Sorry, I didn't have the time to put some wording and labels. On the other hand, I think that Vladimir and Dmitry are far more better than me in English, so they can put some text in doc, if You all think that it's ok. Also, I would like to hear Sarmad's opinion on the doc, its structure and what we can do to make this MFR better.
@Yuriy - we need to reset things. Your work so far was great, big and very good, all congrats from my side, but we need a work done not only by You. Let us do something. And best thing is that we will have (I hope) some fresh blood who will add some more spices to our work. @all - let's make our Proposal with necessary minimum, so we can FINALLY start our work.
With deep respect and regards to all of You, and wishes for fruitful discussion on the conference call, Dusan p.s. - if You find MFR useful and good start point, I will provide editable version (doc).
On 15.9.2015 21:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk wrote: I am sorry but I have trouble to understand this paragraph, particularly: "I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal." So, the plan was not changed because you agree with it, or because of suggestions not yet incorporated in it? Double negatives are complicated. On 15 сент. 2015, at 15:48, Yuriy Kargapolov <yvk@uanic.info>Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp _______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing lisCyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
Ova e-pošta je provjerena na viruse Avast protuvirusnim programom. www.avast.com
--
З повагою, Голова Регламентного комітету, Ю. Каргаполов mailto:yvk@uanic.info _______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
Dear All, Thank you for the revised proposal. This version of the Cyrillic GP proposal is acceptable. The GP may consider the following feedback while finalizing the proposal: 1. It would be good to refer to MSR as the base of the further work, as per the Procedure 2. Empty or sparse sub-sections from Section 4 may be cleaned and/or expanded 3. The membership of the panel should be enhanced to cover the languages from "Central Asia", however it would not impact the proposal acceptance at this stage 4. It would be good to have linguists in the panel, even if the current panel shows a diversity in languages; however it would not impact the proposal acceptance at this stage as the linguists can be brought on board later. We would request the Cyrillic GP to consider the feedback and share the finalized version of the proposal for us to proceed with seating the panel. Regards, Sarmad From: Dmitry Kohmanyuk [mailto:dk@hostmaster.ua] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 6:55 PM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> Cc: Yuriy Kargapolov <yvk@uanic.info>; Dusan Stojicevic <dusan@dukes.in.rs>; cyrillicgp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Cyrillicgp] New version of "Proposal..." (draft) for comments Thanks Sarmad. What is the information that is missing from Dusan draft so we can add it? (Except for "MSR to be updated" you mention.) On 16 сент. 2015, at 14:54, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> > wrote: Dear Yuriy, Dusan, All, The proposal seems to contain most of the information requested at the stage of the proposal. As suggested, the discussion of inclusions into the MSR can go in parallel. However, you may want to add that Cyrillic GP work will be based on the latest version of MSR, as per the requirement of the Procedure. We can do a detailed analysis of the proposal and give detailed comments, when the Cyrillic GP are ok to proceed with this document. Regards, Sarmad From: <mailto:cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org> cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org [ <mailto:cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org> mailto:cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Yuriy Kargapolov Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:42 PM To: Dusan Stojicevic < <mailto:dusan@dukes.in.rs> dusan@dukes.in.rs> Cc: <mailto:cyrillicgp@icann.org> cyrillicgp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Cyrillicgp] New version of "Proposal..." (draft) for comments Dear ALL, Good and acceptable new draft of "Proposal...". This draft really easier and clear for the current period. I think we can be based on this one. @Dusan Thanks a lot for nice work! @ Sarmad, Whether the Dusan's structure can to be combined with the requirements that have been set out in "Template for Proposal..."? Can we change the format? For my part, I appeal for support for the format, which offered Dusan. @Dmitry I apologize if not precisely gave definition to a some nuances of the situation. 1) we have comments submitted by IP 2) the small part of them were not has not been taken into account by me 3) one such observations were remarks to work plan 4) but I didn't want to make all the changes to the text until it has received proposals from members of the panel. Dusan did it. Regards, Yuri Wednesday, September 16, 2015, 2:46:13 AM, you wrote: Dear all, It's mine fault that I am probably (again) on the plain during the time of conference call, and I want to apologize for not being there for the second time. But mine apologies will be filled with this long mail to all of You. I will try to make some suggestions, trying to solve our "productiveness" for almost a year. Starting with some simple results and facts so far: 1. Our proposal was rejected 2. We need more participants 3. We need to work 4. Possible effects of our fail - no new cc or gTLD on Cyrillic script Therefor I think we need different approach - this one was not productive. In the attach You can find the document which I call MFR (Minimum Facts Repertoire) needed for Integration Panel approval. It's a document based entirely on current Proposal... Why I did it? Well: Structure of the current Proposal... did not follow all, or missed some rules that was written in Sarmad's first document (also in attach). We raised some good points too early, f.e. Cyrillic - Old Church Slavonic variant. Why early? Because we can add those points (some of them are tasks) in the future, when we finish ANY job here, on "basic" Cyrillic. Also, we must be aware that we are doing things under existing MSR-2, and our job is NOT what was in Proposal... (quote): 118. The Cyrillic Generation Panel have aim – forming recommendations for current and future versions of the MSR and, as final result, forming of LGR. This is not our task nor aim. There is a procedure for shaping MSR-3, which is not the aim of our work. Our aim is well described in full name of this doc> Proposal for the Generation Panel (GP) for the Cyrillic Script Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone . It's about making rules for root zone, not proposing anything for MSR. Even if it's somehow our task, it cannot be our primary task or obligatory thing, and we do not need this as a statement with obligation for us in Proposal... which we can, or cannot fulfill. Of course, there is a lot of text in current Proposal... Mine version is more-less without text. Text is needed in MFR. Personally, I would like to avoid history (we are not historians) and as I proposed in MFR, it can be written in last paragraph. We are not here to show ICANN our historic roots, how good is Cyrillic, or something else - we are here to do our job. I hope that this work is not about politics, history or culture. Strongly suggest that You look at Work plan. I made minor changes, but not enough - we need to say precisely when and what we are going to do. Keep in mind that our work plan can be changed, in collaboration with IP during the work, if something occurs (maybe second script for our work - Old Church Slavonic variant). Also, if we need F2F meetings - we need to plan this also. You can find two planed F2F meetings in MFR. According to all of this, I would like to hear Your opinion about this doc. Sorry, I didn't have the time to put some wording and labels. On the other hand, I think that Vladimir and Dmitry are far more better than me in English, so they can put some text in doc, if You all think that it's ok. Also, I would like to hear Sarmad's opinion on the doc, its structure and what we can do to make this MFR better. @Yuriy - we need to reset things. Your work so far was great, big and very good, all congrats from my side, but we need a work done not only by You. Let us do something. And best thing is that we will have (I hope) some fresh blood who will add some more spices to our work. @all - let's make our Proposal with necessary minimum, so we can FINALLY start our work. With deep respect and regards to all of You, and wishes for fruitful discussion on the conference call, Dusan p.s. - if You find MFR useful and good start point, I will provide editable version (doc). On 15.9.2015 21:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk wrote: I am sorry but I have trouble to understand this paragraph, particularly: "I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal." So, the plan was not changed because you agree with it, or because of suggestions not yet incorporated in it? Double negatives are complicated. On 15 сент. 2015, at 15:48, Yuriy Kargapolov <mailto:yvk@uanic.info> <yvk@uanic.info> <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> Cyrillicgp@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp _______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing lis <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> Cyrillicgp@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp _____ <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> Ova e-pošta je provjerena na viruse Avast protuvirusnim programom. <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> www.avast.com -- З повагою, Голова Регламентного комітету, Ю. Каргаполов <mailto:yvk@uanic.info> mailto:yvk@uanic.info _______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
Dear Sarmad, Great news! ----- Yuri Tuesday, September 22, 2015, 12:16:08 PM, you wrote:
Dear All,
Thank you for the revised proposal.
This version of the Cyrillic GP proposal is acceptable. The GP may consider the following feedback while finalizing the proposal:
1. It would be good to refer to MSR as the base of the further work, as per the Procedure
2. Empty or sparse sub-sections from Section 4 may be cleaned and/or expanded
3. The membership of the panel should be enhanced to cover the languages from "Central Asia", however it would not impact the proposal acceptance at this stage
4. It would be good to have linguists in the panel, even if the current panel shows a diversity in languages; however it would not impact the proposal acceptance at this stage as the linguists can be brought on board later.
We would request the Cyrillic GP to consider the feedback and share the finalized version of the proposal for us to proceed with seating the panel.
Regards, Sarmad
From: Dmitry Kohmanyuk [mailto:dk@hostmaster.ua] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 6:55 PM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> Cc: Yuriy Kargapolov <yvk@uanic.info>; Dusan Stojicevic <dusan@dukes.in.rs>; cyrillicgp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Cyrillicgp] New version of "Proposal..." (draft) for comments
Thanks Sarmad. What is the information that is missing from Dusan draft so we can add it?
(Except for "MSR to be updated" you mention.)
On 16 сент. 2015, at 14:54, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> > wrote:
Dear Yuriy, Dusan, All,
The proposal seems to contain most of the information requested at the stage of the proposal. As suggested, the discussion of inclusions into the MSR can go in parallel. However, you may want to add that Cyrillic GP work will be based on the latest version of MSR, as per the requirement of the Procedure.
We can do a detailed analysis of the proposal and give detailed comments, when the Cyrillic GP are ok to proceed with this document.
Regards,
Sarmad
From: <mailto:cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org> cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org [ <mailto:cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org> mailto:cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Yuriy Kargapolov Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:42 PM To: Dusan Stojicevic < <mailto:dusan@dukes.in.rs> dusan@dukes.in.rs> Cc: <mailto:cyrillicgp@icann.org> cyrillicgp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Cyrillicgp] New version of "Proposal..." (draft) for comments
Dear ALL,
Good and acceptable new draft of "Proposal...".
This draft really easier and clear for the current period.
I think we can be based on this one.
@Dusan
Thanks a lot for nice work!
@ Sarmad,
Whether the Dusan's structure can to be combined with the requirements that have been set out in "Template for Proposal..."?
Can we change the format? For my part, I appeal for support for the format, which offered Dusan.
@Dmitry
I apologize if not precisely gave definition to a some nuances of the situation.
1) we have comments submitted by IP
2) the small part of them were not has not been taken into account by me
3) one such observations were remarks to work plan
4) but I didn't want to make all the changes to the text until it has received proposals from members of the panel. Dusan did it.
Regards,
Yuri
Wednesday, September 16, 2015, 2:46:13 AM, you wrote:
Dear all,
It's mine fault that I am probably (again) on the plain during the time of conference call, and I want to apologize for not being there for the second time.
But mine apologies will be filled with this long mail to all of You. I will try to make some suggestions, trying to solve our "productiveness" for almost a year.
Starting with some simple results and facts so far:
1. Our proposal was rejected
2. We need more participants
3. We need to work
4. Possible effects of our fail - no new cc or gTLD on Cyrillic script
Therefor I think we need different approach - this one was not productive.
In the attach You can find the document which I call MFR (Minimum Facts Repertoire) needed for Integration Panel approval. It's a document based entirely on current Proposal...
Why I did it? Well:
Structure of the current Proposal... did not follow all, or missed some rules that was written in Sarmad's first document (also in attach).
We raised some good points too early, f.e. Cyrillic - Old Church Slavonic variant. Why early? Because we can add those points (some of them are tasks) in the future, when we finish ANY job here, on "basic" Cyrillic.
Also, we must be aware that we are doing things under existing MSR-2, and our job is NOT what was in Proposal... (quote):
118. The Cyrillic Generation Panel have aim – forming recommendations for current and future versions of the MSR and, as final result, forming of LGR.
This is not our task nor aim. There is a procedure for shaping MSR-3, which is not the aim of our work. Our aim is well described in full name of this doc>
Proposal for the Generation Panel (GP) for the Cyrillic Script Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone . It's about making rules for root zone, not proposing anything for MSR.
Even if it's somehow our task, it cannot be our primary task or obligatory thing, and we do not need this as a statement with obligation for us in Proposal... which we can, or cannot fulfill.
Of course, there is a lot of text in current Proposal... Mine version is more-less without text. Text is needed in MFR.
Personally, I would like to avoid history (we are not historians) and as I proposed in MFR, it can be written in last paragraph.
We are not here to show ICANN our historic roots, how good is Cyrillic, or something else - we are here to do our job. I hope that this work is not about politics, history or culture.
Strongly suggest that You look at Work plan. I made minor changes, but not enough - we need to say precisely when and what we are going to do. Keep in mind that our work plan can be changed, in collaboration with IP during the work, if something occurs (maybe second script for our work - Old Church Slavonic variant).
Also, if we need F2F meetings - we need to plan this also. You can find two planed F2F meetings in MFR.
According to all of this, I would like to hear Your opinion about this doc. Sorry, I didn't have the time to put some wording and labels. On the other hand, I think that Vladimir and Dmitry are far more better than me in English, so they can put some text in doc, if You all think that it's ok.
Also, I would like to hear Sarmad's opinion on the doc, its structure and what we can do to make this MFR better.
@Yuriy - we need to reset things. Your work so far was great, big and very good, all congrats from my side, but we need a work done not only by You.
Let us do something. And best thing is that we will have (I hope) some fresh blood who will add some more spices to our work.
@all - let's make our Proposal with necessary minimum, so we can FINALLY start our work.
With deep respect and regards to all of You, and wishes for fruitful discussion on the conference call,
Dusan
p.s. - if You find MFR useful and good start point, I will provide editable version (doc).
On 15.9.2015 21:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk wrote:
I am sorry but I have trouble to understand this paragraph, particularly: "I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal." So, the plan was not changed because you agree with it, or because of suggestions not yet incorporated in it? Double negatives are complicated.
On 15 сент. 2015, at 15:48, Yuriy Kargapolov <mailto:yvk@uanic.info> <yvk@uanic.info> <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> Cyrillicgp@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing lis <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> Cyrillicgp@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
Dear Yuriy, The template is just suggestive. The Cyrillic GP can certainly develop their own format. Regards, Sarmad From: cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Yuriy Kargapolov Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:42 PM To: Dusan Stojicevic <dusan@dukes.in.rs> Cc: cyrillicgp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Cyrillicgp] New version of "Proposal..." (draft) for comments Dear ALL, Good and acceptable new draft of "Proposal...". This draft really easier and clear for the current period. I think we can be based on this one. @Dusan Thanks a lot for nice work! @ Sarmad, Whether the Dusan's structure can to be combined with the requirements that have been set out in "Template for Proposal..."? Can we change the format? For my part, I appeal for support for the format, which offered Dusan. @Dmitry I apologize if not precisely gave definition to a some nuances of the situation. 1) we have comments submitted by IP 2) the small part of them were not has not been taken into account by me 3) one such observations were remarks to work plan 4) but I didn't want to make all the changes to the text until it has received proposals from members of the panel. Dusan did it. Regards, Yuri Wednesday, September 16, 2015, 2:46:13 AM, you wrote: Dear all, It's mine fault that I am probably (again) on the plain during the time of conference call, and I want to apologize for not being there for the second time. But mine apologies will be filled with this long mail to all of You. I will try to make some suggestions, trying to solve our "productiveness" for almost a year. Starting with some simple results and facts so far: 1. Our proposal was rejected 2. We need more participants 3. We need to work 4. Possible effects of our fail - no new cc or gTLD on Cyrillic script Therefor I think we need different approach - this one was not productive. In the attach You can find the document which I call MFR (Minimum Facts Repertoire) needed for Integration Panel approval. It's a document based entirely on current Proposal... Why I did it? Well: Structure of the current Proposal... did not follow all, or missed some rules that was written in Sarmad's first document (also in attach). We raised some good points too early, f.e. Cyrillic - Old Church Slavonic variant. Why early? Because we can add those points (some of them are tasks) in the future, when we finish ANY job here, on "basic" Cyrillic. Also, we must be aware that we are doing things under existing MSR-2, and our job is NOT what was in Proposal... (quote): 118. The Cyrillic Generation Panel have aim – forming recommendations for current and future versions of the MSR and, as final result, forming of LGR. This is not our task nor aim. There is a procedure for shaping MSR-3, which is not the aim of our work. Our aim is well described in full name of this doc> Proposal for the Generation Panel (GP) for the Cyrillic Script Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone . It's about making rules for root zone, not proposing anything for MSR. Even if it's somehow our task, it cannot be our primary task or obligatory thing, and we do not need this as a statement with obligation for us in Proposal... which we can, or cannot fulfill. Of course, there is a lot of text in current Proposal... Mine version is more-less without text. Text is needed in MFR. Personally, I would like to avoid history (we are not historians) and as I proposed in MFR, it can be written in last paragraph. We are not here to show ICANN our historic roots, how good is Cyrillic, or something else - we are here to do our job. I hope that this work is not about politics, history or culture. Strongly suggest that You look at Work plan. I made minor changes, but not enough - we need to say precisely when and what we are going to do. Keep in mind that our work plan can be changed, in collaboration with IP during the work, if something occurs (maybe second script for our work - Old Church Slavonic variant). Also, if we need F2F meetings - we need to plan this also. You can find two planed F2F meetings in MFR. According to all of this, I would like to hear Your opinion about this doc. Sorry, I didn't have the time to put some wording and labels. On the other hand, I think that Vladimir and Dmitry are far more better than me in English, so they can put some text in doc, if You all think that it's ok. Also, I would like to hear Sarmad's opinion on the doc, its structure and what we can do to make this MFR better. @Yuriy - we need to reset things. Your work so far was great, big and very good, all congrats from my side, but we need a work done not only by You. Let us do something. And best thing is that we will have (I hope) some fresh blood who will add some more spices to our work. @all - let's make our Proposal with necessary minimum, so we can FINALLY start our work. With deep respect and regards to all of You, and wishes for fruitful discussion on the conference call, Dusan p.s. - if You find MFR useful and good start point, I will provide editable version (doc). On 15.9.2015 21:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk wrote: I am sorry but I have trouble to understand this paragraph, particularly: "I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal." So, the plan was not changed because you agree with it, or because of suggestions not yet incorporated in it? Double negatives are complicated. On 15 сент. 2015, at 15:48, Yuriy Kargapolov <mailto:yvk@uanic.info> <yvk@uanic.info> <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> Cyrillicgp@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp _______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing lis <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> Cyrillicgp@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp _____ <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> Ova e-pošta je provjerena na viruse Avast protuvirusnim programom. <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> www.avast.com -- З повагою, Голова Регламентного комітету, Ю. Каргаполов <mailto:yvk@uanic.info> mailto:yvk@uanic.info
Dear Sarmad, Thanks. Regards, Yuri Wednesday, September 16, 2015, 6:18:44 PM, you wrote:
Dear Yuriy,
The template is just suggestive. The Cyrillic GP can certainly develop their own format.
Regards, Sarmad
From: cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Yuriy Kargapolov Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:42 PM To: Dusan Stojicevic <dusan@dukes.in.rs> Cc: cyrillicgp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Cyrillicgp] New version of "Proposal..." (draft) for comments
Dear ALL,
Good and acceptable new draft of "Proposal...".
This draft really easier and clear for the current period.
I think we can be based on this one.
@Dusan
Thanks a lot for nice work!
@ Sarmad,
Whether the Dusan's structure can to be combined with the requirements that have been set out in "Template for Proposal..."?
Can we change the format? For my part, I appeal for support for the format, which offered Dusan.
@Dmitry
I apologize if not precisely gave definition to a some nuances of the situation.
1) we have comments submitted by IP
2) the small part of them were not has not been taken into account by me
3) one such observations were remarks to work plan
4) but I didn't want to make all the changes to the text until it has received proposals from members of the panel. Dusan did it.
Regards,
Yuri
Wednesday, September 16, 2015, 2:46:13 AM, you wrote:
Dear all,
It's mine fault that I am probably (again) on the plain during the time of conference call, and I want to apologize for not being there for the second time.
But mine apologies will be filled with this long mail to all of You. I will try to make some suggestions, trying to solve our "productiveness" for almost a year.
Starting with some simple results and facts so far:
1. Our proposal was rejected
2. We need more participants
3. We need to work
4. Possible effects of our fail - no new cc or gTLD on Cyrillic script
Therefor I think we need different approach - this one was not productive.
In the attach You can find the document which I call MFR (Minimum Facts Repertoire) needed for Integration Panel approval. It's a document based entirely on current Proposal...
Why I did it? Well:
Structure of the current Proposal... did not follow all, or missed some rules that was written in Sarmad's first document (also in attach).
We raised some good points too early, f.e. Cyrillic - Old Church Slavonic variant. Why early? Because we can add those points (some of them are tasks) in the future, when we finish ANY job here, on "basic" Cyrillic.
Also, we must be aware that we are doing things under existing MSR-2, and our job is NOT what was in Proposal... (quote):
118. The Cyrillic Generation Panel have aim – forming recommendations for current and future versions of the MSR and, as final result, forming of LGR.
This is not our task nor aim. There is a procedure for shaping MSR-3, which is not the aim of our work. Our aim is well described in full name of this doc>
Proposal for the Generation Panel (GP) for the Cyrillic Script Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone . It's about making rules for root zone, not proposing anything for MSR.
Even if it's somehow our task, it cannot be our primary task or obligatory thing, and we do not need this as a statement with obligation for us in Proposal... which we can, or cannot fulfill.
Of course, there is a lot of text in current Proposal... Mine version is more-less without text. Text is needed in MFR.
Personally, I would like to avoid history (we are not historians) and as I proposed in MFR, it can be written in last paragraph.
We are not here to show ICANN our historic roots, how good is Cyrillic, or something else - we are here to do our job. I hope that this work is not about politics, history or culture.
Strongly suggest that You look at Work plan. I made minor changes, but not enough - we need to say precisely when and what we are going to do. Keep in mind that our work plan can be changed, in collaboration with IP during the work, if something occurs (maybe second script for our work - Old Church Slavonic variant).
Also, if we need F2F meetings - we need to plan this also. You can find two planed F2F meetings in MFR.
According to all of this, I would like to hear Your opinion about this doc. Sorry, I didn't have the time to put some wording and labels. On the other hand, I think that Vladimir and Dmitry are far more better than me in English, so they can put some text in doc, if You all think that it's ok.
Also, I would like to hear Sarmad's opinion on the doc, its structure and what we can do to make this MFR better.
@Yuriy - we need to reset things. Your work so far was great, big and very good, all congrats from my side, but we need a work done not only by You.
Let us do something. And best thing is that we will have (I hope) some fresh blood who will add some more spices to our work.
@all - let's make our Proposal with necessary minimum, so we can FINALLY start our work.
With deep respect and regards to all of You, and wishes for fruitful discussion on the conference call,
Dusan
p.s. - if You find MFR useful and good start point, I will provide editable version (doc).
On 15.9.2015 21:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk wrote:
I am sorry but I have trouble to understand this paragraph, particularly: "I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal." So, the plan was not changed because you agree with it, or because of suggestions not yet incorporated in it? Double negatives are complicated.
On 15 сент. 2015, at 15:48, Yuriy Kargapolov <mailto:yvk@uanic.info> <yvk@uanic.info> <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> Cyrillicgp@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing lis <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> Cyrillicgp@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
_____
Ova e-pošta je provjerena na viruse Avast protuvirusnim programom.
<https://www.avast.com/antivirus> www.avast.com
Dear all, I think that Dusan's document is a good step forward. If the other members agree, I propose that we start using Dusan's document, to make the changes, additions and deletions, in order to get, in a relatively short time, our proposal for Cyrillic GP. At a first glance, in Dusan's document, one point is missing, 2.2 Panel diveristy but it can be easily added. We also should agree how shall we submit our changes to the document, how everyone will be informed that there was an action ongoing, how shall we agree on document changes, and who will be responsible to add changes to the document. In Yuri's document, there are a lot of informations that can help us to finish our first task. I also want to stress you attention that there is no information that our group is trying to form Cyrillic GP on the https://community.icann.org/display/croscomlgrprocedure/Generation+Panels although, other panels are somehow described there. May be Sarmad could help us with this. Best regards Mirjana Tasic ________________________________________ Od: cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org <cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org> u ime korisnika Yuriy Kargapolov <yvk@uanic.info> Poslato: 16. septembar 2015. 17:25 Za: Sarmad Hussain Cc: cyrillicgp@icann.org Tema: Re: [Cyrillicgp] New version of "Proposal..." (draft) for comments Dear Sarmad, Thanks. Regards, Yuri Wednesday, September 16, 2015, 6:18:44 PM, you wrote:
Dear Yuriy,
The template is just suggestive. The Cyrillic GP can certainly develop their own format.
Regards, Sarmad
From: cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Yuriy Kargapolov Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:42 PM To: Dusan Stojicevic <dusan@dukes.in.rs> Cc: cyrillicgp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Cyrillicgp] New version of "Proposal..." (draft) for comments
Dear ALL,
Good and acceptable new draft of "Proposal...".
This draft really easier and clear for the current period.
I think we can be based on this one.
@Dusan
Thanks a lot for nice work!
@ Sarmad,
Whether the Dusan's structure can to be combined with the requirements that have been set out in "Template for Proposal..."?
Can we change the format? For my part, I appeal for support for the format, which offered Dusan.
@Dmitry
I apologize if not precisely gave definition to a some nuances of the situation.
1) we have comments submitted by IP
2) the small part of them were not has not been taken into account by me
3) one such observations were remarks to work plan
4) but I didn't want to make all the changes to the text until it has received proposals from members of the panel. Dusan did it.
Regards,
Yuri
Wednesday, September 16, 2015, 2:46:13 AM, you wrote:
Dear all,
It's mine fault that I am probably (again) on the plain during the time of conference call, and I want to apologize for not being there for the second time.
But mine apologies will be filled with this long mail to all of You. I will try to make some suggestions, trying to solve our "productiveness" for almost a year.
Starting with some simple results and facts so far:
1. Our proposal was rejected
2. We need more participants
3. We need to work
4. Possible effects of our fail - no new cc or gTLD on Cyrillic script
Therefor I think we need different approach - this one was not productive.
In the attach You can find the document which I call MFR (Minimum Facts Repertoire) needed for Integration Panel approval. It's a document based entirely on current Proposal...
Why I did it? Well:
Structure of the current Proposal... did not follow all, or missed some rules that was written in Sarmad's first document (also in attach).
We raised some good points too early, f.e. Cyrillic - Old Church Slavonic variant. Why early? Because we can add those points (some of them are tasks) in the future, when we finish ANY job here, on "basic" Cyrillic.
Also, we must be aware that we are doing things under existing MSR-2, and our job is NOT what was in Proposal... (quote):
118. The Cyrillic Generation Panel have aim – forming recommendations for current and future versions of the MSR and, as final result, forming of LGR.
This is not our task nor aim. There is a procedure for shaping MSR-3, which is not the aim of our work. Our aim is well described in full name of this doc>
Proposal for the Generation Panel (GP) for the Cyrillic Script Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone . It's about making rules for root zone, not proposing anything for MSR.
Even if it's somehow our task, it cannot be our primary task or obligatory thing, and we do not need this as a statement with obligation for us in Proposal... which we can, or cannot fulfill.
Of course, there is a lot of text in current Proposal... Mine version is more-less without text. Text is needed in MFR.
Personally, I would like to avoid history (we are not historians) and as I proposed in MFR, it can be written in last paragraph.
We are not here to show ICANN our historic roots, how good is Cyrillic, or something else - we are here to do our job. I hope that this work is not about politics, history or culture.
Strongly suggest that You look at Work plan. I made minor changes, but not enough - we need to say precisely when and what we are going to do. Keep in mind that our work plan can be changed, in collaboration with IP during the work, if something occurs (maybe second script for our work - Old Church Slavonic variant).
Also, if we need F2F meetings - we need to plan this also. You can find two planed F2F meetings in MFR.
According to all of this, I would like to hear Your opinion about this doc. Sorry, I didn't have the time to put some wording and labels. On the other hand, I think that Vladimir and Dmitry are far more better than me in English, so they can put some text in doc, if You all think that it's ok.
Also, I would like to hear Sarmad's opinion on the doc, its structure and what we can do to make this MFR better.
@Yuriy - we need to reset things. Your work so far was great, big and very good, all congrats from my side, but we need a work done not only by You.
Let us do something. And best thing is that we will have (I hope) some fresh blood who will add some more spices to our work.
@all - let's make our Proposal with necessary minimum, so we can FINALLY start our work.
With deep respect and regards to all of You, and wishes for fruitful discussion on the conference call,
Dusan
p.s. - if You find MFR useful and good start point, I will provide editable version (doc).
On 15.9.2015 21:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk wrote:
I am sorry but I have trouble to understand this paragraph, particularly: "I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal." So, the plan was not changed because you agree with it, or because of suggestions not yet incorporated in it? Double negatives are complicated.
On 15 сент. 2015, at 15:48, Yuriy Kargapolov <mailto:yvk@uanic.info> <yvk@uanic.info> <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> Cyrillicgp@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing lis <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> Cyrillicgp@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
_____
Ova e-pošta je provjerena na viruse Avast protuvirusnim programom.
<https://www.avast.com/antivirus> www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
Dear all, Thanks, and as I promised, You can find doc in attach. Further suggestions> The lists (tables) of participants are confusing (too big, hard to follow). We should have one list (table), with all the information about every participant in one place. Also, we should have another (smaller) list about small groups. F.E. table could be like this> /Group Participants Languages (number of languages that will cover this small group)// / This suggestion is based on Dmitrys observation. Besides that, I want to thank Dmitry for volunteering to write small texts. I think You can start working asap. I hope that Vladimir or someone else could join Dmitry. If You think it's ok, I would like to suggest to consider deadline for finishing proposal. Dublin meeting (one month) is perfect for that. Do You agree? Regards, Dusan On 17.9.2015 23:06, Mirjana Tasic wrote:
Dear all,
I think that Dusan's document is a good step forward.
If the other members agree, I propose that we start using Dusan's document, to make the changes, additions and deletions, in order to get, in a relatively short time, our proposal for Cyrillic GP.
At a first glance, in Dusan's document, one point is missing,
2.2 Panel diveristy
but it can be easily added.
We also should agree how shall we submit our changes to the document, how everyone will be informed that there was an action ongoing, how shall we agree on document changes, and who will be responsible to add changes to the document.
In Yuri's document, there are a lot of informations that can help us to finish our first task.
I also want to stress you attention that there is no information that our group is trying to form Cyrillic GP on the
https://community.icann.org/display/croscomlgrprocedure/Generation+Panels
although, other panels are somehow described there. May be Sarmad could help us with this.
Best regards
Mirjana Tasic ________________________________________ Od: cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org <cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org> u ime korisnika Yuriy Kargapolov <yvk@uanic.info> Poslato: 16. septembar 2015. 17:25 Za: Sarmad Hussain Cc: cyrillicgp@icann.org Tema: Re: [Cyrillicgp] New version of "Proposal..." (draft) for comments
Dear Sarmad,
Thanks.
Regards, Yuri
Wednesday, September 16, 2015, 6:18:44 PM, you wrote:
Dear Yuriy, The template is just suggestive. The Cyrillic GP can certainly develop their own format. Regards, Sarmad From: cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Yuriy Kargapolov Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:42 PM To: Dusan Stojicevic <dusan@dukes.in.rs> Cc: cyrillicgp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Cyrillicgp] New version of "Proposal..." (draft) for comments Dear ALL, Good and acceptable new draft of "Proposal...". This draft really easier and clear for the current period. I think we can be based on this one. @Dusan Thanks a lot for nice work! @ Sarmad, Whether the Dusan's structure can to be combined with the requirements that have been set out in "Template for Proposal..."? Can we change the format? For my part, I appeal for support for the format, which offered Dusan. @Dmitry I apologize if not precisely gave definition to a some nuances of the situation. 1) we have comments submitted by IP 2) the small part of them were not has not been taken into account by me 3) one such observations were remarks to work plan 4) but I didn't want to make all the changes to the text until it has received proposals from members of the panel. Dusan did it. Regards, Yuri Wednesday, September 16, 2015, 2:46:13 AM, you wrote: Dear all, It's mine fault that I am probably (again) on the plain during the time of conference call, and I want to apologize for not being there for the second time. But mine apologies will be filled with this long mail to all of You. I will try to make some suggestions, trying to solve our "productiveness" for almost a year. Starting with some simple results and facts so far: 1. Our proposal was rejected 2. We need more participants 3. We need to work 4. Possible effects of our fail - no new cc or gTLD on Cyrillic script Therefor I think we need different approach - this one was not productive. In the attach You can find the document which I call MFR (Minimum Facts Repertoire) needed for Integration Panel approval. It's a document based entirely on current Proposal... Why I did it? Well: Structure of the current Proposal... did not follow all, or missed some rules that was written in Sarmad's first document (also in attach). We raised some good points too early, f.e. Cyrillic - Old Church Slavonic variant. Why early? Because we can add those points (some of them are tasks) in the future, when we finish ANY job here, on "basic" Cyrillic. Also, we must be aware that we are doing things under existing MSR-2, and our job is NOT what was in Proposal... (quote): 118. The Cyrillic Generation Panel have aim – forming recommendations for current and future versions of the MSR and, as final result, forming of LGR. This is not our task nor aim. There is a procedure for shaping MSR-3, which is not the aim of our work. Our aim is well described in full name of this doc> Proposal for the Generation Panel (GP) for the Cyrillic Script Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone . It's about making rules for root zone, not proposing anything for MSR. Even if it's somehow our task, it cannot be our primary task or obligatory thing, and we do not need this as a statement with obligation for us in Proposal... which we can, or cannot fulfill. Of course, there is a lot of text in current Proposal... Mine version is more-less without text. Text is needed in MFR. Personally, I would like to avoid history (we are not historians) and as I proposed in MFR, it can be written in last paragraph. We are not here to show ICANN our historic roots, how good is Cyrillic, or something else - we are here to do our job. I hope that this work is not about politics, history or culture. Strongly suggest that You look at Work plan. I made minor changes, but not enough - we need to say precisely when and what we are going to do. Keep in mind that our work plan can be changed, in collaboration with IP during the work, if something occurs (maybe second script for our work - Old Church Slavonic variant). Also, if we need F2F meetings - we need to plan this also. You can find two planed F2F meetings in MFR. According to all of this, I would like to hear Your opinion about this doc. Sorry, I didn't have the time to put some wording and labels. On the other hand, I think that Vladimir and Dmitry are far more better than me in English, so they can put some text in doc, if You all think that it's ok. Also, I would like to hear Sarmad's opinion on the doc, its structure and what we can do to make this MFR better. @Yuriy - we need to reset things. Your work so far was great, big and very good, all congrats from my side, but we need a work done not only by You. Let us do something. And best thing is that we will have (I hope) some fresh blood who will add some more spices to our work. @all - let's make our Proposal with necessary minimum, so we can FINALLY start our work. With deep respect and regards to all of You, and wishes for fruitful discussion on the conference call, Dusan p.s. - if You find MFR useful and good start point, I will provide editable version (doc). On 15.9.2015 21:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk wrote: I am sorry but I have trouble to understand this paragraph, particularly: "I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal." So, the plan was not changed because you agree with it, or because of suggestions not yet incorporated in it? Double negatives are complicated. On 15 сент. 2015, at 15:48, Yuriy Kargapolov <mailto:yvk@uanic.info> <yvk@uanic.info> <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> Cyrillicgp@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp _______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing lis <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> Cyrillicgp@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp _____
<https://www.avast.com/antivirus> Ova e-pošta je provjerena na viruse Avast protuvirusnim programom. <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> www.avast.com
Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp _______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
--- Ova e-pošta je provjerena na viruse Avast protuvirusnim programom. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Agreed with Mirjana. Re process - with all these modern tools aka wiki/Dropbox I propose pls school approach: One person is designated as editor. her responsibility is to combine all changes to document, including fixing typos. Everybody submits their edits to editor (via this list, so others see proposed changes and can comment.) Small changes can be described simply "add word After this sentence" etc - larges changes can be done in word format using track changes etc Editor posts document once updated. Role of chair remains to be as coordinator but he should be relieved from maintaining the document - his job is to herd cats and keep deadlines :) Similar process worked in RootLGR WG. (he/she are just role pronouns here). Editor should also review old document by Yuri and carefully extract all important data not yet integrated into new document for future work (for example, MSR III plans..) -- dk@
On 18 сент. 2015, at 00:06, Mirjana Tasic <Mirjana.Tasic@rnids.rs> wrote:
Dear all,
I think that Dusan's document is a good step forward.
If the other members agree, I propose that we start using Dusan's document, to make the changes, additions and deletions, in order to get, in a relatively short time, our proposal for Cyrillic GP.
At a first glance, in Dusan's document, one point is missing,
2.2 Panel diveristy
but it can be easily added.
We also should agree how shall we submit our changes to the document, how everyone will be informed that there was an action ongoing, how shall we agree on document changes, and who will be responsible to add changes to the document.
In Yuri's document, there are a lot of informations that can help us to finish our first task.
I also want to stress you attention that there is no information that our group is trying to form Cyrillic GP on the
https://community.icann.org/display/croscomlgrprocedure/Generation+Panels
although, other panels are somehow described there. May be Sarmad could help us with this.
Best regards
Mirjana Tasic ________________________________________ Od: cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org <cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org> u ime korisnika Yuriy Kargapolov <yvk@uanic.info> Poslato: 16. septembar 2015. 17:25 Za: Sarmad Hussain Cc: cyrillicgp@icann.org Tema: Re: [Cyrillicgp] New version of "Proposal..." (draft) for comments
Dear Sarmad,
Thanks.
Regards, Yuri
Wednesday, September 16, 2015, 6:18:44 PM, you wrote:
Dear Yuriy,
The template is just suggestive. The Cyrillic GP can certainly develop their own format.
Regards, Sarmad
From: cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cyrillicgp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Yuriy Kargapolov Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:42 PM To: Dusan Stojicevic <dusan@dukes.in.rs> Cc: cyrillicgp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Cyrillicgp] New version of "Proposal..." (draft) for comments
Dear ALL,
Good and acceptable new draft of "Proposal...".
This draft really easier and clear for the current period.
I think we can be based on this one.
@Dusan
Thanks a lot for nice work!
@ Sarmad,
Whether the Dusan's structure can to be combined with the requirements that have been set out in "Template for Proposal..."?
Can we change the format? For my part, I appeal for support for the format, which offered Dusan.
@Dmitry
I apologize if not precisely gave definition to a some nuances of the situation.
1) we have comments submitted by IP
2) the small part of them were not has not been taken into account by me
3) one such observations were remarks to work plan
4) but I didn't want to make all the changes to the text until it has received proposals from members of the panel. Dusan did it.
Regards,
Yuri
Wednesday, September 16, 2015, 2:46:13 AM, you wrote:
Dear all,
It's mine fault that I am probably (again) on the plain during the time of conference call, and I want to apologize for not being there for the second time.
But mine apologies will be filled with this long mail to all of You. I will try to make some suggestions, trying to solve our "productiveness" for almost a year.
Starting with some simple results and facts so far:
1. Our proposal was rejected
2. We need more participants
3. We need to work
4. Possible effects of our fail - no new cc or gTLD on Cyrillic script
Therefor I think we need different approach - this one was not productive.
In the attach You can find the document which I call MFR (Minimum Facts Repertoire) needed for Integration Panel approval. It's a document based entirely on current Proposal...
Why I did it? Well:
Structure of the current Proposal... did not follow all, or missed some rules that was written in Sarmad's first document (also in attach).
We raised some good points too early, f.e. Cyrillic - Old Church Slavonic variant. Why early? Because we can add those points (some of them are tasks) in the future, when we finish ANY job here, on "basic" Cyrillic.
Also, we must be aware that we are doing things under existing MSR-2, and our job is NOT what was in Proposal... (quote):
118. The Cyrillic Generation Panel have aim – forming recommendations for current and future versions of the MSR and, as final result, forming of LGR.
This is not our task nor aim. There is a procedure for shaping MSR-3, which is not the aim of our work. Our aim is well described in full name of this doc>
Proposal for the Generation Panel (GP) for the Cyrillic Script Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone . It's about making rules for root zone, not proposing anything for MSR.
Even if it's somehow our task, it cannot be our primary task or obligatory thing, and we do not need this as a statement with obligation for us in Proposal... which we can, or cannot fulfill.
Of course, there is a lot of text in current Proposal... Mine version is more-less without text. Text is needed in MFR.
Personally, I would like to avoid history (we are not historians) and as I proposed in MFR, it can be written in last paragraph.
We are not here to show ICANN our historic roots, how good is Cyrillic, or something else - we are here to do our job. I hope that this work is not about politics, history or culture.
Strongly suggest that You look at Work plan. I made minor changes, but not enough - we need to say precisely when and what we are going to do. Keep in mind that our work plan can be changed, in collaboration with IP during the work, if something occurs (maybe second script for our work - Old Church Slavonic variant).
Also, if we need F2F meetings - we need to plan this also. You can find two planed F2F meetings in MFR.
According to all of this, I would like to hear Your opinion about this doc. Sorry, I didn't have the time to put some wording and labels. On the other hand, I think that Vladimir and Dmitry are far more better than me in English, so they can put some text in doc, if You all think that it's ok.
Also, I would like to hear Sarmad's opinion on the doc, its structure and what we can do to make this MFR better.
@Yuriy - we need to reset things. Your work so far was great, big and very good, all congrats from my side, but we need a work done not only by You.
Let us do something. And best thing is that we will have (I hope) some fresh blood who will add some more spices to our work.
@all - let's make our Proposal with necessary minimum, so we can FINALLY start our work.
With deep respect and regards to all of You, and wishes for fruitful discussion on the conference call,
Dusan
p.s. - if You find MFR useful and good start point, I will provide editable version (doc).
On 15.9.2015 21:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk wrote:
I am sorry but I have trouble to understand this paragraph, particularly: "I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal." So, the plan was not changed because you agree with it, or because of suggestions not yet incorporated in it? Double negatives are complicated.
On 15 сент. 2015, at 15:48, Yuriy Kargapolov <mailto:yvk@uanic.info> <yvk@uanic.info> <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> Cyrillicgp@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing lis <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> Cyrillicgp@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
_____
Ova e-pošta je provjerena na viruse Avast protuvirusnim programom.
<https://www.avast.com/antivirus> www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp _______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
Dear Dusan, all, Please apologize my silence, I was very busy these last weeks. I'll go through the last version by tonight and send my comments. I'll not be able to be on the call this afternoon, but promise to do the job and send the comments. With best regards, Yuliya Le 16.09.2015 01:46, Dusan Stojicevic a écrit :
Dear all,
It's mine fault that I am probably (again) on the plain during the time of conference call, and I want to apologize for not being there for the second time. But mine apologies will be filled with this long mail to all of You. I will try to make some suggestions, trying to solve our "productiveness" for almost a year.
Starting with some simple results and facts so far: 1. Our proposal was rejected 2. We need more participants 3. We need to work 4. Possible effects of our fail - no new cc or gTLD on Cyrillic script
Therefor I think we need different approach - this one was not productive. In the attach You can find the document which I call MFR (Minimum Facts Repertoire) needed for Integration Panel approval. It's a document based entirely on current Proposal... Why I did it? Well: Structure of the current Proposal... did not follow all, or missed some rules that was written in Sarmad's first document (also in attach). We raised some good points too early, f.e. Cyrillic - Old Church Slavonic variant. Why early? Because we can add those points (some of them are tasks) in the future, when we finish ANY job here, on "basic" Cyrillic. Also, we must be aware that we are doing things under existing MSR-2, and our job is NOT what was in Proposal... (quote): 118. The Cyrillic Generation Panel have aim - forming recommendations for current and future versions of the MSR and, as final result, forming of LGR. This is not our task nor aim. There is a procedure for shaping MSR-3, which is not the aim of our work. Our aim is well described in full name of this doc> Proposal for the Generation Panel (GP) for the Cyrillic Script Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone . It's about making rules for root zone, not proposing anything for MSR. Even if it's somehow our task, it cannot be our primary task or obligatory thing, and we do not need this as a statement with obligation for us in Proposal... which we can, or cannot fulfill.
Of course, there is a lot of text in current Proposal... Mine version is more-less without text. Text is needed in MFR. Personally, I would like to avoid history (we are not historians) and as I proposed in MFR, it can be written in last paragraph. We are not here to show ICANN our historic roots, how good is Cyrillic, or something else - we are here to do our job. I hope that this work is not about politics, history or culture.
Strongly suggest that You look at Work plan. I made minor changes, but not enough - we need to say precisely when and what we are going to do. Keep in mind that our work plan can be changed, in collaboration with IP during the work, if something occurs (maybe second script for our work - Old Church Slavonic variant). Also, if we need F2F meetings - we need to plan this also. You can find two planed F2F meetings in MFR.
According to all of this, I would like to hear Your opinion about this doc. Sorry, I didn't have the time to put some wording and labels. On the other hand, I think that Vladimir and Dmitry are far more better than me in English, so they can put some text in doc, if You all think that it's ok. Also, I would like to hear Sarmad's opinion on the doc, its structure and what we can do to make this MFR better.
@Yuriy - we need to reset things. Your work so far was great, big and very good, all congrats from my side, but we need a work done not only by You. Let us do something. And best thing is that we will have (I hope) some fresh blood who will add some more spices to our work. @all - let's make our Proposal with necessary minimum, so we can FINALLY start our work.
With deep respect and regards to all of You, and wishes for fruitful discussion on the conference call, Dusan p.s. - if You find MFR useful and good start point, I will provide editable version (doc).
On 15.9.2015 21:52, Dmitry Kohmanyuk wrote:
I am sorry but I have trouble to understand this paragraph, particularly:
"I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal."
So, the plan was not changed because you agree with it, or because of suggestions not yet incorporated in it?
Double negatives are complicated.
-- dk@
On 15 сент. 2015, at 15:48, Yuriy Kargapolov <yvk@uanic.info> wrote:
Dear ALL,
Please, find attach. It's new version of "Proposal..." I tried take into account the remarks and comments of the IP, but it's previously draft - the most important and significant comments waiting from members of the Cyrillic Generation Panel I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal.
Regards,
Yuri <Setting up the Cyrillic Generation Panel_v2.2.docx> _______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp [1]
_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp [1]
------------------------- [2] Ova e-pošta je provjerena na viruse Avast protuvirusnim programom. www.avast.com [2] _______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp [1] Links: ------ [1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp [2] https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Yuriy, Some comments from me. I have read this document and it seems to me we have way too much on “history” (and a bit on “politics” for example the Old Slavonic part). The problem I have with so much “history” is that most of this is not really facts, but various interpretations and we can’t really verify most of it. It is also confusing to include Glagolics, probably we should not mention another unrelated script at all — because even if both scripts were used for the same languages, the scripts do not even have a connection with each other. (or even if they do have any influence, this is scientific research topic outside of our work). I also have a problem with the institutional definition of my organization, Register.BG: it runs the .BG ccTLD only. The .БГ IDN ccTLD has not yet been approved by ICANN and we haven’t taken over Serbia (yet) <grin> Please fix this. In general, I think we could clean up the document a bit and make it easier to read. But this task might run in parralal with our main work. I have been thinking on how to automate/streamline the process of selecting approriate characters for the LGR, so that would also ease any future work on next versions. Hope to have it more formally defined so we can discuss it at the next call. Best Regards, Daniel Register.BG
On 15.09.2015 г., at 14:48, Yuriy Kargapolov <yvk@uanic.info> wrote:
Dear ALL,
Please, find attach. It's new version of "Proposal..." I tried take into account the remarks and comments of the IP, but it's previously draft - the most important and significant comments waiting from members of the Cyrillic Generation Panel I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal.
Regards,
Yuri<Setting up the Cyrillic Generation Panel_v2.2.docx>_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
Hi Daniel, Thanks. We are discussed on some conf-calls this situation and come to same conclusions. Dusan made optimized (secularization) version and now we will be discussing this one. It's will be base for final version of "Proposal..." Best Regards, Yuri Thursday, October 8, 2015, 1:20:53 PM, you wrote:
Yuriy,
Some comments from me.
I have read this document and it seems to me we have way too much on “history” (and a bit on “politics” for example the Old Slavonic part).
The problem I have with so much “history” is that most of this is not really facts, but various interpretations and we can’t really verify most of it. It is also confusing to include Glagolics, probably we should not mention another unrelated script at all — because even if both scripts were used for the same languages, the scripts do not even have a connection with each other. (or even if they do have any influence, this is scientific research topic outside of our work).
I also have a problem with the institutional definition of my organization, Register.BG: it runs the .BG ccTLD only. The .БГ IDN ccTLD has not yet been approved by ICANN and we haven’t taken over Serbia (yet) <grin> Please fix this.
In general, I think we could clean up the document a bit and make it easier to read. But this task might run in parralal with our main work.
I have been thinking on how to automate/streamline the process of selecting approriate characters for the LGR, so that would also ease any future work on next versions. Hope to have it more formally defined so we can discuss it at the next call.
Best Regards, Daniel Register.BG
On 15.09.2015 г., at 14:48, Yuriy Kargapolov <yvk@uanic.info> wrote:
Dear ALL,
Please, find attach. It's new version of "Proposal..." I tried take into account the remarks and comments of the IP, but it's previously draft - the most important and significant comments waiting from members of the Cyrillic Generation Panel I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal.
Regards,
Yuri<Setting up the Cyrillic Generation Panel_v2.2.docx>_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
-- З повагою, Голова Регламентного комітету, Ю. Каргаполов mailto:yvk@uanic.info
Hi, sorry, I wont be able to participate in the call today. For future calls let's either agree to a schedule that we'll hold without cancelling the calls, or please give longer notice for every call. A bit busy right now, and can't always accommodate calls on a short notice. Thanks, Vladimir On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> wrote:
Agenda, as proposed by the Chair (Wednesday 16 September; 12 noon UTC):
1. Introducing of newcomers from Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Russia.
2. Draft of the letter to Russian linguists. Current state of affairs. Vladimir Shadrunov.
3. Suggestions on text of "Proposal..." taking into account the remarks of the Integration Panel and 4. Proposition on including/excluding of the conflict points in "Proposal..."
5. Propositions on new version of working plan (paragraph 3.5)
Adobe C
_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
Likewise, I had conflicting meeting this day, sorry for missing the call. Agreed with Vladimir re scheduling. Also, I'd rather use Webex than Adobe connect but I guess it's a dream only.. -- dk@
On 16 сент. 2015, at 13:27, Vladimir Shadrunov <info@vlad.tel> wrote:
Hi, sorry, I wont be able to participate in the call today. For future calls let's either agree to a schedule that we'll hold without cancelling the calls, or please give longer notice for every call. A bit busy right now, and can't always accommodate calls on a short notice.
Thanks, Vladimir
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> wrote: Agenda, as proposed by the Chair (Wednesday 16 September; 12 noon UTC):
1. Introducing of newcomers from Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Russia.
2. Draft of the letter to Russian linguists. Current state of affairs. Vladimir Shadrunov.
3. Suggestions on text of "Proposal..." taking into account the remarks of the Integration Panel and 4. Proposition on including/excluding of the conflict points in "Proposal..."
5. Propositions on new version of working plan (paragraph 3.5)
Adobe C
_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
Dear All, Kindly note that we will have our regularly scheduled call next week, on Wednesday 23 Sept. at 12 noon UTC. I will resend the invitation. Agenda will be shared once it is suggested by the chairs. Regards, Sarmad From: Dmitry Kohmanyuk [mailto:dk@hostmaster.ua] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 6:22 PM To: Vladimir Shadrunov <info@vlad.tel> Cc: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; CyrillicGP@icann.org Subject: Re: [Cyrillicgp] Cyrillic GP make-up call from previous week Likewise, I had conflicting meeting this day, sorry for missing the call. Agreed with Vladimir re scheduling. Also, I'd rather use Webex than Adobe connect but I guess it's a dream only.. -- dk@ On 16 сент. 2015, at 13:27, Vladimir Shadrunov <info@vlad.tel <mailto:info@vlad.tel> > wrote: Hi, sorry, I wont be able to participate in the call today. For future calls let's either agree to a schedule that we'll hold without cancelling the calls, or please give longer notice for every call. A bit busy right now, and can't always accommodate calls on a short notice. Thanks, Vladimir On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> > wrote: Agenda, as proposed by the Chair (Wednesday 16 September; 12 noon UTC): 1. Introducing of newcomers from Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Russia. 2. Draft of the letter to Russian linguists. Current state of affairs. Vladimir Shadrunov. 3. Suggestions on text of "Proposal..." taking into account the remarks of the Integration Panel and 4. Proposition on including/excluding of the conflict points in "Proposal..." 5. Propositions on new version of working plan (paragraph 3.5) Adobe C _______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp _______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
participants (8)
-
Daniel Kalchev -
Dmitry Kohmanyuk -
Dusan Stojicevic -
Mirjana Tasic -
Sarmad Hussain -
Vladimir Shadrunov -
Yuliya Morenets -
Yuriy Kargapolov