November 2016 - Koreangp - lists.icann.org

agenda for CJK meeting on Thu, Nov. 17, 2016
by KIM Kyongsok Nov. 16, 2016

Nov. 16, 2016

Dear all: Enclosed you will find agenda for CJK meeting on Thu, Nov. 17, 2016. Rgds, -- 김 경석 KIM, Kyongsok

2 1

Re: [Koreangp] CJK meeting in Seoul on 11/13 14:30
by Min Jung Park Nov. 12, 2016

Nov. 12, 2016

Dear all, Tomorrow's CJK Meeting will be held from 1430 - 1800 in AREX(airport express) #3 Meeting room located in the Seoul Station. If you are coming from 'Yeouido' station (IETF venue), - please take metro number 5(purple line) and go 3 stops - take off at 'Gongdeok' station - transfer to the AIRPORT EXPRESS line - take off at the next station which is 'Seoul Station' If you are coming directly from the airport(either Kimpo or Incheon), - take the AIRPORT EXPRESS(=AIRPORT RAILROAD) -take off at 'Seoul Station' Should u wish to take a taxi - please tell the driver to take u off at the 'Seo-boo' entrarance of Seoul Station * or u can just call me to talk with the driver * by metro, (from yeo ui do) it takes 4 stops in total including 1 trasfer : - 3 stops & 1 transfer(from line 5 to the airport express) & 1 stop (30 min + walking time) (from the airport) it takes 40-60 min (+ walking time) Please call me at +82 (0)10 2774 3213 after you get passed the metro-ticket retrieving gate. FYI, ALL AREX meeting rooms are located at B1 floor. Pls also find attached files for ur reference. (Keep in mind that the Metro timetable is subject change - the files are to provide you a guidance on ur way to the meeting room) Would be helpful if you could download an app on the seoul metro for details :) * Agenda details will be sent by professor KIM(chair of KGP). Look forward to seeing you tomorrow. Kind regards Minjung 2016. 11. 7. 17:50에 "Min Jung Park" <flisha(a)gmail.com>님이 작성: Dear Yoneya, Thank u for sharing the information. Regarding the venue for this sunday's CJK meeting, I've been informed that we have already secured a meeting room at [SEOUL RAILWAY STATION] from 1430 - 1800 for 15 pax. Location-wise, I believe that it'd be a good place taking into considerations that - there's an Airport Railroad from the Airport to SEOUL RAILWAY STATION & - it is also relatively closer to the IETF venue(Yeo-i-do Station) compared to Gangnam Area since its only 5 stops away by subway (though need to transfer once). Nevertheless, I will try to contact the IETF secretariat to see if they have a room availble for us as a second option. Kind regards, MINJUNG 2016. 11. 6. 11:11에 "Yoshiro YONEYA" <yoshiro.yoneya(a)jprs.co.jp>님이 작성: Dear Minjung, > > Please try to contact IETF secretariat for asking vacant meeting > room availability. IETF secretariat offers vacant meeting room(s) > for IETF participants as FCFS basis. I found that now KISA is IETF > co-host, so it will be easy. > > Regards, > > -- > Yoshiro YONEYA <yoshiro.yoneya(a)jprs.co.jp> > > On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:11:41 +0900 Min Jung Park <flisha(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear Kenny and all, > > > > For clarification, > > Kindly note that KISA will be looking for a venue near Gangnam Area > where > > KRNIC(KISA'S SEOCHO OFFICE) is located. > > - we will first try to reserve a meeting room at KISA > > - if not, will look for a meeting place near KISA > > - if all of the above turns out to be unavailable...location could be > > changed to elsewhere;; > > > > Kind regards, > > Minjung > > > > 2016. 11. 6. 오전 9:38에 "Kenny Huang, Ph.D." <huangksh(a)gmail.com>님이 작성: > > > > > Excellent. > > > > > > Thank you Min Jung and all others for suffering my torture. > > > > > > Yours > > > > > > Kenny > > > > > > On 6 November 2016 at 12:04, Min Jung Park <flisha(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Dear Kenny and all, > > >> > > >> KISA will coordinate the meeting venue for the Nov 13(sun) CJK Seoul > > >> meeting. > > >> > > >> I'll contact my colleagues in Korea to look for an adequate meeting > place. > > >> > > >> We miss you - Kenny and Wang Wei - in Hyserabad :) > > >> > > >> Look forward to seeing u all in Seoul. > > >> > > >> Kind regards, > > >> Minjung > > >> > > >> 2016. 11. 6. 09:08에 "Kenny Huang, Ph.D." <huangksh(a)gmail.com>님이 작성: > > >> > > >> Dear All, > > >>> > > >>> After intensive discussion and confirmation for the last few hours. > > >>> The next CJK meeting will be held on 11/13 (Sun) 14:30 in Seoul. > > >>> Since many of CJK members will not attend IETF meeting, > > >>> can KISA (Minjung) help to coordinate a venue for the meeting. > > >>> I am terribly sorry for the last minute notice. > > >>> > > >>> Regards > > >>> > > >>> Kenny > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > >

5 9

Re: [Koreangp] Remote Participation for CJK SEL meeting on Sun., Nov. 13
by KIM Kyongsok Nov. 8, 2016

Nov. 8, 2016

Dear all: I would like to mention one thing. Since the CJK SEL meeting venue is not KISA, it is likely that remote participants may experience low quality connection. Sorry and thanks. -- 김 경석 KIM, Kyongsok

1 0

Agenda for CJK Mtg, with IP on Tue., 8 Nov.
by HiroHOTTA Nov. 7, 2016

Nov. 7, 2016

The draft agenda for Coordination Meeting for CJK GPs with IP - 2 (IDN) [C] @ MR 1.01 is item-1 : followup of 4 Nov. meeting (if any) item-2 : discussion mainly between CJK and ICANN with observation by IP on ideas to live with the limitation of the number of allocatable variants AOB Material for item-2 is attached to this mail - which is a revised version that I sent on 4. Nov. Hiro === PS. The most recent published schedule on ICANN's website shows : Tue 8 Nov 09:15-10:30 Coordination Meeting for CJK GPs with IP - 2 (IDN) [C] @ MR 1.01 Tue 8 Nov 11:00-12:15 Coordination Meeting for CJK GPs - 2 (IDN) [C] @ MR 1.01 which is the reserved order in the sheet Sarmad sent out a month ago. Hiro

1 0

guidelines and templates for Korean LGR Proposal
by Sarmad Hussain Nov. 4, 2016

Nov. 4, 2016

Dear All, Following our discussion with the KGP team at ICANN 57, here are the links requested: The document templates are available at https://community.icann.org/display/croscomlgrprocedure/Document+Repository. Also, proposals for root zone LGR already submitted by other GPs are available at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lgr-proposals-2015-12-01-en. You can use these as examples. Regards, Sarmad

1 0

material for CJK coordination discussion 13:45-15:00 (IST) today in room 1.10
by HiroHOTTA Nov. 3, 2016

Nov. 3, 2016

Dear CJK colleagues, We have three items to be discussed in the meeting later today. item1. Options to deal with unresolved conflicts (Edmon) <discussion especially with IP> item2. Whether TLD application/evaluation process can be modified to allow labels with any combination of characters to be delegated and how to proceed such negotiation (JGP) <informal discussion especially with ICANN> item3. Issues raised by IP <may be or may not be related to item1 and/or item2> item4. AOB Here I send you the material for item2. It is the same document as we discussed in Taipei. Regards, Hiro

1 0

Options to deal with unresolved conflicts
by Edmon Chung Nov. 3, 2016

Nov. 3, 2016

Hi Everyone, This is from our last meeting in Taipei for everyone's reference: ============================================= Option 1: Do not allow character to be applied for (remove from repertoire or use invalid type for characters in the variant set of concern so that any application for a string containing such characters are not allowed) Option 2: Allow as separate characters (Accept K temporarily)* Option 3: Allow IDN Variants (Accept C temporarily)* Korean applications: dependant on K rules Chinese applications: Applied for + Preferred IDN Variants (OR Applied for ONLY and all IDN Variants blocked) NOTE: this is for TOP-LEVEL Domain only and for the first version only (to be updated in future version) ============================================= Edmon

1 0

FINAL CALL RE: [ChineseGP] Draft letter to IP regarding ~40 unresolved variant sets
by Edmon Chung Nov. 3, 2016

Nov. 3, 2016

Here is an updated draft incorporating the suggestions from the meeting. - emphasize this is one of 3 options we are looking into - de-emphasize actual number of IDN variant sets being considered Please take a look and provide your comments. Barring significant edits, we will plan to send this to the IP 1 week from today. Edmon ============================================ Subject: Seeking Advice from the IP on Opinion on Appropriateness for Considering Initial and Subsequent Versions of the CJK LGRs for certain CJK Han Characters ============================================ Dear IP, After extensive deliberations, we are first of all happy to report that many of the identified differences between the CJK communities (in particular between Korean and Chinese definition of IDN Variant sets) for a majority of the Han character and IDN Variant sets have been resolved. We are positive that we can eventually resolve the issues for all characters. Nevertheless, at present, it appears that there may be around 50-60 IDN Variant sets (involving around 100-150 Han characters) that will remain unresolved (between CGP and KGP), until much more investigation can be considered. In view of the many IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs already in the root without IDN Variants, and operational experience and understanding from the Chinese VIP Case Study Report that a significant percentage of queries do go to the IDN Variant domains, which means that the Chinese Domain Name experience for users around the world is currently disenfranchised further every day the CJK LGRs cannot be implemented. Therefore, we believe there is urgency to move forward with the CJK LGRs even if a small number of IDN Variant sets remain unresolved. As such, we are looking at a few options to provisionally handle these unresolved IDN Variant sets. One of the options involve rescinding the characters of concern. While we consider the different options, we would like to seek the the IP's confirmation and advice on the following 2 interrelated but separate items: 1. Is it reasonable to expect the possibility of updating the CJK LGRs within the next few years after a first version is implemented? Given the complex linguistic history and differing level of operational experience in Han character IDN registrations and usage, a small number of characters (and corresponding IDN Variant sets) will require much more extensive discussion internally and jointly before full consensus may be reached. There is now an interest between the CJK LGRs to set aside this small group of characters in order for a first version of the CJK LGRs to be implemented, enabling IDN Variants for the corresponding IDN gTLDs and ccTLDs to be used. The CJK GPs nevertheless is concerned whether it is possible to submit a version of the CJK LGRs for consideration and thereupon immediately start work on the remaining characters, with an aim to update to a next version of the CJK LGRs within a few years (e.g. in 2 to 3 years' time). We are seeking the IP's confirmation and opinion on whether it is a reasonable expectation that such an approach would be appropriate given the context of the situation, understanding the overarching principles of stability and security. 2. If the around unresolved characters are to be first disallowed for application, how should it be implemented in the first version of the CJK LGRs? We have identified around a number of IDN Variant sets in the Han character repertoire shared among CJK communities for which a divergence in the definition of IDN Variant relationship cannot be immediately resolved (especially between CGP and KGP). Therefore, the CJK GPs would like to provisionally disallow application of IDN TLD strings involving those characters for the first version of the CJK LGRs. The CJK GPs have identified 2 potential approaches to effect such disallowance: Method A: to not include the Affected Characters in the repertoire of the CJK LGRs Method B: to include the Affected Characters in the repertoire, but assign them with type="invalid" Advantage of Method A may be that the resulting CJK LGRs would be "cleaner", i.e. that no character is "invalid" for all 3 communities but yet included in the LGR. However, Method B has the advantage of being more complete, i.e. explicitly indicating to the public and to technical implementers that the CJK Han repertoire should really include those characters, and prompt interested implementers to find out more about the background for why they are assigned as "invalid". We believe both methods should yield the same result technically, i.e. that the Affected Characters are not allowed for inclusion in a TLD string. However, we ask the opinion of the IP, which Method is more appropriate? And if there is a preference from the IP, what the rationale is? Further, we ask if the IP has other suggestions? Finally, we understand and are committed to document the rationale and specifics of the provisional withholding of the unresolved IDN Variant sets (and corresponding Affected Characters) should the above action be taken. Again, we emphasize that this is one of the few options we are considering. We look forward to your advice and feedback on the matter. Sincerely, > -----Original Message----- > From: chinesegp-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org] On > Behalf Of Edmon Chung > Sent: Friday, 30 September 2016 13:47 PM > To: 'chinesegp(a)icann.org' <ChineseGP(a)icann.org>; JapaneseGP(a)icann.org; > 'koreanGP(a)icann.org' <KoreanGP(a)icann.org> > Subject: [ChineseGP] Draft letter to IP regarding ~40 unresolved variant sets > > Hi Everyone, > Please find below a draft of a letter to the IP regarding the method of handling the > ~40 unresolved variant sets we discussed in Taipei. > Edmon > > > > ============================================ > > Dear IP, > > After extensive deliberations, we are first of all happy to report that many of the > identified differences between the CJK communities (in particular between Korean > and Chinese definition of IDN Variant sets) for a majority of the Han character and > IDN Variant sets have been resolved. We are positive that we can eventually > resolve the issues for all characters. Nevertheless, at present, it appears that there > may be around 40 IDN Variant sets (involving around 100 Han characters) that will > remain unresolved (between CGP and KGP), until much more investigation can be > considered. > > In view of the many IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs already in the root without IDN > Variants, and operational experience and understanding from the Chinese VIP Case > Study Report that a significant percentage of queries do go to the IDN Variant > domains, which means that the Chinese Domain Name experience for users around > the world is currently disenfranchised further every day the CJK LGRs cannot be > implemented. Therefore, we believe there is urgency to move forward with the CJK > LGRs even if a small number of IDN Variant sets remain unresolved. > > As such, we are seeking the IP's confirmation and advice on the following 2 > interrelated but separate items: > > > 1. Is it reasonable to expect the possibility of updating the CJK LGRs within the next > few years after a first version is implemented? > > Given the complex linguistic history and differing level of operational experience in > Han character IDN registrations and usage, a small number of characters (and > corresponding IDN Variant sets) will require much more extensive discussion > internally and jointly before full consensus may be reached. There is now an interest > between the CJK LGRs to set aside this small group of characters in order for a first > version of the CJK LGRs to be implemented, enabling IDN Variants for the > corresponding IDN gTLDs and ccTLDs to be used. > > The CJK GPs nevertheless is concerned whether it is possible to submit a version of > the CJK LGRs for consideration and thereupon immediately start work on the > remaining characters, with an aim to update to a next version of the CJK LGRs > within a few years (e.g. in 2 to 3 years' time). We are seeking the IP's confirmation > and opinion on whether it is a reasonable expectation that such an approach would > be appropriate given the context of the situation, understanding the overarching > principles of stability and security. > > > 2. If the around 40 groups of characters are to be first disallowed for application, how > should it be implemented in the first version of the CJK LGRs? > > We have identified around 40 IDN Variant sets in the Han character repertoire > shared among CJK communities for which a divergence in the definition of IDN > Variant relationship cannot be immediately resolved (especially between CGP and > KGP). Therefore, the CJK GPs would like to provisionally disallow application of > IDN TLD strings involving those characters for the first version of the CJK LGRs. > > The CJK GPs have identified 2 potential approaches to effect such > > Method A: to not include the Affected Characters in the repertoire of the CJK LGRs > > Method B: to include the Affected Characters in the repertoire, but assign with > type="invalid" > > Advantage of Method A may be that the resulting CJK LGRs would be "cleaner", i.e. > that no character is "invalid" for all 3 communities but yet included in the LGR. > However, Method B has the advantage of being more complete explicitly and > indicating to the public and to technical implementers that the CJK Han repertoire > should really include those characters, and prompt interested implementers to find > out more about the background for why they are assigned as "invalid". > > We believe both methods should yield the same result technically, i.e. that the > Affected Characters are not allowed for application in a TLD. However, we ask the > opinion of the IP, of which Method is more appropriate, and if there is a preference > from the IP perhaps what the rationale is for the preference. Further, we ask if the IP > has other suggestions? > > > Finally, we also understand and are committed to document the rationale and > specifics of the provisional withholding of the 40 IDN Variant sets (and > corresponding Affected Characters) should the above action be taken. > > We look forward to your consideration and feedback on the matter. > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ChineseGP mailing list > ChineseGP(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/chinesegp

6 9

Seeking Advice from the IP on Opinion on Appropriateness for Considering Initial and Subsequent Versions of the CJK LGRs for certain CJK Han Characters
by Edmon Chung Nov. 3, 2016

Nov. 3, 2016

Dear Members of the IP, After extensive deliberations, we are first of all happy to report that many of the identified differences between the CJK communities (in particular between Korean and Chinese definition of IDN Variant sets) for a majority of the Han character and IDN Variant sets have been resolved. We are positive that we can eventually resolve the issues for all characters. Nevertheless, at present, it appears that there may be around 50-60 IDN Variant sets (involving around 100-150 Han characters) that will remain unresolved (between CGP and KGP), until much more investigation can be considered. In view of the many IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs already in the root without IDN Variants, and operational experience and understanding from the Chinese VIP Case Study Report that a significant percentage of queries do potentially go to the IDN Variant domains, which means that the Chinese Domain Name experience for users around the world is currently disenfranchised further every day the CJK LGRs cannot be implemented. Therefore, we believe there is urgency to move forward with the CJK LGRs even if a small number of IDN Variant sets remain unresolved. As such, we are looking at a few options to provisionally handle these unresolved IDN Variant sets. One of the options involve rescinding the characters of concern. While we consider the different options, we would like to seek the the IP's confirmation and advice on the following 2 interrelated but separate items: 1. Is it reasonable to expect the possibility of updating the CJK LGRs within the next few years after a first version is implemented? Given the complex linguistic history and differing level of operational experience in Han character IDN registrations and usage, a small number of characters (and corresponding IDN Variant sets) will require much more extensive discussion internally and jointly before full consensus may be reached. There is now an interest between the CJK LGRs to set aside this small group of characters in order for a first version of the CJK LGRs to be implemented, enabling IDN Variants for the corresponding IDN gTLDs and ccTLDs to be used. The CJK GPs nevertheless is concerned whether it is possible to submit a version of the CJK LGRs for consideration and thereupon immediately start work on the remaining characters, with an aim to update to a next version of the CJK LGRs within a few years (e.g. in 2 to 3 years' time). We are seeking the IP's confirmation and opinion on whether it is a reasonable expectation that such an approach would be appropriate given the context of the situation, understanding the overarching principles of stability and security. 2. If the around unresolved characters are to be first disallowed for application, how should it be implemented in the first version of the CJK LGRs? We have identified around a number of IDN Variant sets in the Han character repertoire shared among CJK communities for which a divergence in the definition of IDN Variant relationship cannot be immediately resolved (especially between CGP and KGP). Therefore, the CJK GPs would like to provisionally disallow application of IDN TLD strings involving those characters for the first version of the CJK LGRs. The CJK GPs have identified 2 potential approaches to effect such disallowance: Method A: to not include the Affected Characters in the repertoire of the CJK LGRs Method B: to include the Affected Characters in the repertoire, but assign them with type="invalid" Advantage of Method A may be that the resulting CJK LGRs would be "cleaner", i.e. that no character is "invalid" for all 3 communities but yet included in the LGR. However, Method B has the advantage of being more complete, i.e. explicitly indicating to the public and to technical implementers that the CJK Han repertoire should really include those characters, and prompt interested implementers to find out more about the background for why they are assigned as "invalid". We believe both methods should yield the same result technically, i.e. that the Affected Characters are not allowed for inclusion in a TLD string. However, we ask the opinion of the IP, which Method is more appropriate? And if there is a preference from the IP, what the rationale is? Further, we ask if the IP has other suggestions? Finally, we understand and are committed to document the rationale and specifics of the provisional withholding of the unresolved IDN Variant sets (and corresponding Affected Characters) should the above action be taken. Again, we emphasize that this is one of the few options we are considering. We look forward to your advice and feedback on the matter. Sincerely, Edmon Chung cc: CJK Generation Panels

1 0