Re: [Japanesegp] [Integrationpanel] FW: [ChineseGP] Examples of complicated domainname
Dear Yoneya-san, I appreciate these examples and I was able to verify that they do lead to the same domains. It would appear that there is a practice by some Japanese applicants to treat certain combinations of old and new Kanji as variants. And I think you have made your case that the selection of which variants to treat that way depends on the applicant (and presumably the meaning of the label) and therefore is not easily captured by a mechanical rule. I would appreciate if the JGP could include this analysis (and examples) in their LGR proposal as part of the rationale for their choice of assigning variant types. I expect it will influence the review by the Integration panel. Now, separately, there was the question raised "what about variants introduced by integration that are not 'semantic' variants in Japanese?". Are there cases of delegated labels where the variants are from that subset? It would appear that unlike the old vs. new Kanji variants they must be really rare (or non-existant), because they would be unrelated in Japanese. So it would be meaningless for an applicant to have a) registered both and b) directed them to the same domain. A./
-----Original Message----- From: chinesegp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Yoshiro YONEYA Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 6:57 PM To: IntegrationPanel@icann.org Cc: KoreanGP@icann.org; ChineseGP@icann.org; JapaneseGP@icann.org Subject: [ChineseGP] Examples of complicated domain name
Dear IP members,
For Japanese language, we have concept of variants. But it is different from Chinese language's. In Japanese language, variants are used simultaneously by intention of the person who uses them.
Followings are examples of such usage in Japanese .JP domain names.
慶応大学.jp 慶應大学.jp
Those are name of Keio university and registered by the university. 応 and 應 are considered as variants in new form Kanji and old form Kanji. 学 has variant 學 in that sense, but Keio university does not have 慶應大學.jp which is consist of both old form Kanji.
Followings are another examples.
国学院大学.jp 國學院大學.jp
Those are name of Kokugakuin university and registered by the university. 国 and 國 are new form Kanji and old form Kanji respectively. Unlike Keio university, Kokugakuin university does not have 國學院大学.jp.
These cases are unpredictable, and very much depends on applicant's intention.
The interesting thing is, a subsidiary of Kokugakuin university has following domain name.
学校法人國學院大學栃木学園.jp
Here, 学 and 學 are used simultaneously, and it doesn't have 学校法人国学院大学栃木学園.jp.
This is reality of Japanese language.
Regards,
-- Yoshiro YONEYA <yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp>
_______________________________________________ ChineseGP mailing list ChineseGP@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/chinesegp
_______________________________________________ Integrationpanel mailing list Integrationpanel@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/integrationpanel
Dear Yoneya San and Prof. Kim, In CGP, we have the types of Traditional/Simplified/Both to differentiate the variants because they will produce different WLE rules. Then I thought whether there is similar situation in JGP, for example, the Old/New/Both types should be defined by JGP. But when I saw the Yoneya San's e-mail this morning, I found that the situation in JGP is more complex, actually, the examples shown by Yoneya San means that there is no fixed rules for the Old/New/Both types and it depends on the special scenarios. Based on this, I think that the Allocatable limitation proposed by IP is somewhat impossible for JGP. As a compromise solution, I think JGP may use the “sub-action” for the Allocatable rule, for example, allocatable to same applicant or different applicant [also mentioned by Wei Wang]. [My Notes: although I guess that IP may never allocate variants labels to different applicants in order to avoid confusion and abuse because what we are talking about is TLD, this solution of course can be used under JGP’s TLDs. Anyway, for conservative consideration, I also suggest that JGP analyzes and provides some possible examples which shows that the variants labels have significant difference for the evaluation of CGP and IP. Besides, I also want to see the situation of KGP, is the situation of KGP similar to CGP or JGP or other styles? In that way, we can prepare for the possible outcomes ASAP]. Thank you. BR, Zhiwei Yan -----原始邮件----- 发件人:"Asmus Freytag" <asmusf@ix.netcom.com> 发送时间:2015-05-16 06:18:32 (星期六) 收件人: integrationpanel@icann.org, "Yoshiro YONEYA" <yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp> 抄送: ChineseGP@icann.org, KoreanGP@icann.org, japaneseGP@icann.org 主题: Re: [ChineseGP] [Integrationpanel] FW: Examples of complicated domainname Dear Yoneya-san, I appreciate these examples and I was able to verify that they do lead to the same domains. It would appear that there is a practice by some Japanese applicants to treat certain combinations of old and new Kanji as variants. And I think you have made your case that the selection of which variants to treat that way depends on the applicant (and presumably the meaning of the label) and therefore is not easily captured by a mechanical rule. I would appreciate if the JGP could include this analysis (and examples) in their LGR proposal as part of the rationale for their choice of assigning variant types. I expect it will influence the review by the Integration panel. Now, separately, there was the question raised "what about variants introduced by integration that are not 'semantic' variants in Japanese?". Are there cases of delegated labels where the variants are from that subset? It would appear that unlike the old vs. new Kanji variants they must be really rare (or non-existant), because they would be unrelated in Japanese. So it would be meaningless for an applicant to have a) registered both and b) directed them to the same domain. A./ -----Original Message----- From: chinesegp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Yoshiro YONEYA Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 6:57 PM To: IntegrationPanel@icann.org Cc: KoreanGP@icann.org; ChineseGP@icann.org; JapaneseGP@icann.org Subject: [ChineseGP] Examples of complicated domain name Dear IP members, For Japanese language, we have concept of variants. But it is different from Chinese language's. In Japanese language, variants are used simultaneously by intention of the person who uses them. Followings are examples of such usage in Japanese .JP domain names. 慶応大学.jp 慶應大学.jp Those are name of Keio university and registered by the university. 応 and 應 are considered as variants in new form Kanji and old form Kanji. 学 has variant 學 in that sense, but Keio university does not have 慶應大學.jp which is consist of both old form Kanji. Followings are another examples. 国学院大学.jp 國學院大學.jp Those are name of Kokugakuin university and registered by the university. 国 and 國 are new form Kanji and old form Kanji respectively. Unlike Keio university, Kokugakuin university does not have 國學院大学.jp. These cases are unpredictable, and very much depends on applicant's intention. The interesting thing is, a subsidiary of Kokugakuin university has following domain name. 学校法人國學院大學栃木学園.jp Here, 学 and 學 are used simultaneously, and it doesn't have 学校法人国学院大学栃木学園.jp. This is reality of Japanese language. Regards, -- Yoshiro YONEYA <yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp> _______________________________________________ ChineseGP mailing list ChineseGP@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/chinesegp _______________________________________________ Integrationpanel mailing list Integrationpanel@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/integrationpanel
participants (2)
-
Asmus Freytag -
延志伟