- Koreangp - lists.icann.org

comments (2) RE: C-LGR (2016.07.18.)
by KIM Kyongsok July 19, 2016

July 19, 2016

Dear Mr. Wang Wei: I seem to have found some minor errors in your C-LGR (2016.07.18.) In 9 lines (24 occurrences), MSS need be changed to CCC. One sample line is shown below: 5MSS 峌峌(5MSS) 峌(5MSS) 峌(5MSS) --> 5CCC 峌峌(5CCC) 峌(5CCC) 峌(5CCC) Thanks in advance. KIM, K. On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 7:01 PM, 王伟 <wangwei(a)cnic.cn> wrote: > Dear Prof. Kim > > I checked these chars and confirm that there are some coding error/editorial error in the EXCEL > I have re-edited them in the attached document. > > Also, I excluded the char of 58B5 which is not in MSR. > > So please refer the latest version as attached. > > > > Regards > WANG Wei > > > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: chinesegp-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org] 代表 KIM Kyongsok > 发送时间: 2016年7月17日 22:26 > 收件人: chinesegp(a)icann.org > 抄送: JapaneseGP(a)icann.org; koreanGP(a)icann.org; KIM Kyongsok <gimgs0(a)gmail.com> > 主题: [ChineseGP] comments (1) RE: C-LGR (2016.06.12.) > > Dear Mr. Wang: > > I started analyzing your variant groups published on 2016.06.12. > > I seem to have found some errors and will appreciate if you would check two issues described below. > > ==================================================== > Q1. The following six variant groups seem to have some errors: > > --- 1 > cvg_0: (5378) 缷(7F37) > cvg_0:卸(5378) 缷(7F37) > > --- 2 > cvg_0: (5AD4) 嬪(5B2A) > cvg_0:嫔(5AD4) 嬪(5B2A) > > --- 3 > cvg_0:䑃(4443) 朦(6726) OOO (sorted) > cvg_0:朦(6726) 䑃(4443) XXX (NOT sorted, minor) > > --- 4 > cvg_0:击(51FB) (6483) 擊(64CA) > cvg_0:击(51FB) 撃(6483) 擊(64CA) > cvg_0:击(51FB) 撃(6483) 擊(64CA) > > --- 5 > cvg_0: (5378) 缷(7F37) > cvg_0:卸(5378) 缷(7F37) > > --- 6 > cvg_0:沣(6CA3) (7043) > cvg_0:沣(6CA3) 灃(7043) > > > ====================================================== > Q2. I wonder if the following information RE: 3103 variant groups is correct. I will appreciate if you would check it. > >> Among 19738 characters, 3103 of them have non-reflexive variant >> character(s), including 2214 with 1 variant, 545 with 2 variants, >> 200 with 3 variants, 89 with 4 variants, 36 with 5 variants, >> 14 with 6 variants, 4 with 7 variants, 1 with 8 variants. > > - Based on your info, there should be 3103 variant groups and 12075 independent char (i.e., char with NO variant). > > - However, my initial "rough" analysis of <column G, All Variant > Mappings> of Appendix C file seems quite different from your numbers > (i.e., 3103 var. groups and 12075 indep. chars): > > a) # indep. chars: 11684 (<-- your number is 12075), diff = 391 > b) # var. groups: 3518 (<-- your number is 3103), diff = 415 > > Plz correct me if I am wrong. > > Thanks in advance. > > Rgds, > > -- > 김 경석 KIM, Kyongsok > _______________________________________________ > ChineseGP mailing list > ChineseGP(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/chinesegp -- 김 경석 KIM, Kyongsok

1 0

comments (1) RE: C-LGR (2016.06.12.)
by KIM Kyongsok July 18, 2016

July 18, 2016

Dear Mr. Wang: I started analyzing your variant groups published on 2016.06.12. I seem to have found some errors and will appreciate if you would check two issues described below. ==================================================== Q1. The following six variant groups seem to have some errors: --- 1 cvg_0:��(5378) 缷(7F37) cvg_0:卸(5378) 缷(7F37) --- 2 cvg_0:��(5AD4) 嬪(5B2A) cvg_0:嫔(5AD4) 嬪(5B2A) --- 3 cvg_0:䑃(4443) 朦(6726) OOO (sorted) cvg_0:朦(6726) 䑃(4443) XXX (NOT sorted, minor) --- 4 cvg_0:击(51FB) ��(6483) 擊(64CA) cvg_0:击(51FB) 撃(6483) 擊(64CA) cvg_0:击(51FB) 撃(6483) 擊(64CA) --- 5 cvg_0:��(5378) 缷(7F37) cvg_0:卸(5378) 缷(7F37) --- 6 cvg_0:沣(6CA3) ��(7043) cvg_0:沣(6CA3) 灃(7043) ====================================================== Q2. I wonder if the following information RE: 3103 variant groups is correct. I will appreciate if you would check it. > Among 19738 characters, 3103 of them have non-reflexive variant > character(s), including 2214 with 1 variant, 545 with 2 variants, > 200 with 3 variants, 89 with 4 variants, 36 with 5 variants, > 14 with 6 variants, 4 with 7 variants, 1 with 8 variants. - Based on your info, there should be 3103 variant groups and 12075 independent char (i.e., char with NO variant). - However, my initial "rough" analysis of <column G, All Variant Mappings> of Appendix C file seems quite different from your numbers (i.e., 3103 var. groups and 12075 indep. chars): a) # indep. chars: 11684 (<-- your number is 12075), diff = 391 b) # var. groups: 3518 (<-- your number is 3103), diff = 415 Plz correct me if I am wrong. Thanks in advance. Rgds, -- 김 경석 KIM, Kyongsok

2 3

[klgp215_1b] 56 simplitional chars based on 4819 chars in K-LGR v0.3
by KIM Kyongsok June 29, 2016

June 29, 2016

Dear everybody: I improved a little bit my previous document klgp215_1. The new document is klgp215_1b_56_simplitional_charsj.docx dated on 2016.06.29. I added some more useful information to answer Mr. Wang's questions. Thanks in advance. KIM, K. On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:03 AM, KIM Kyongsok <gimgs0(a)gmail.com>s wrote: > Dear everybody: > > Enclosed you will find 56 simplitional chars based on 4819 chars in > K-LGR v0.3. > > Thanks. > > -- > 김 경석 KIM, Kyongsok -- 김 경석 KIM, Kyongsok

1 0

result of informal CJK meeting in Helsinki
by HiroHOTTA June 27, 2016

June 27, 2016

CGP, JGP, and KGP informally met in Helsinki today. I'm reporting of the meeting on behalf of participants. == Date&Time : 27 June, 2016 1600-1700 (Helsinki time) Chairs present : Kenny(C), Hiro(J), Prof. Kim(K) We talked about how we proceed to finalization of the variants issues. The main outcome was : (1) CGP and KGP will independently try to reduce the contentious variants intensively (2) CGP/JGP/KGP will have a f2f meeting to coordinate the variants definition utilizing the outcome of CGP and KGP from (1) - tentative meeting dates are from 30 Sept to 1 Oct, - venue TBD (either of Beijing, Seoul, Tokyo) (3) We will ask ICANN for travel support for f2f meeting of (2) Hiro

1 0

[lgr] FW: ICANN News Alert -- Reference Label Generation Rulesets (LGRs) for the Second Level
by Sarmad Hussain June 8, 2016

June 8, 2016

FYI. Regards, Sarmad News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-06-07-en _____ Reference Label Generation Rulesets (LGRs) for the Second Level 7 June 2016 Open Date: 7 June 2016 Close Date: 18 July 2016 Originating Organization: Global Domains Division Categories/Tags: Second-Level Domains Brief Overview: To facilitate and improve consistency of testing and stability of registry operations of new gTLDs, ICANN has developed reference Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) tables in machine readable format, called Label Generation Rulesets (LGRs) for the second level, for use in Pre-Delegation Testing (PDT) and the Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP). At this time reference LGRs for 29 languages <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/second-level-lgr-2015-06-21-en> are being released for public comment. In addition, a process is also being proposed for Evaluation of Deviation from the Reference Second Level LGRs <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/lgr-second-level-evaluation-dev…> [PDF, 255 KB] for feedback from the community. Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lgr-second-level-2016-06-07-en _______________________________________________ lgr mailing list lgr(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lgr

1 0

klgp206_10 이체자 묶음 96 개의 한자의 소리값에 대한 자료 총 정리
by KIM Kyongsok May 20, 2016

May 20, 2016

*위원님들께:* *HWP 문서의 주요 내용을 아래에 보내드립니다.* *자세한 내용은 붙임 HWP 파일을 보시면 됩니다.* *고맙습니다.* *김 경석* *--------------------------* 문서 번호: klgp206_10 날짜: 2015.05.20.금.16:30 만든이: 김 경석 제목: 이체자 묶음 96 개의 한자의 소리값에 대한 자료 총 정리 1. 이체자 묶음 96 개에 나오는 소리 값 모두의 개수 (겹치는 것도 모두 계산함): - 96 개 + 5 개 (양, 연, 양, 염, 남) = 101 개 * 참고. 이체자 묶음 안에 소리값이 다른 한자가 있을 수 있지만, 대표 소리값 하나만 적었음. 다만 두음 법칙으로 대표 소리값이 두 개로 나는 (보기: 년/연) 이체자 묶음 5 개 각각에 대해서는 두 개를 모두 적었음 2. 겹치는 것을 빼고 나면: 84 개 - 한 번만 나오는 한글 글자마디 (소리 값): 70 개 - 두 번 나오는 한글 글자마디 (소리 값): 11 개 (계 기 남 량 소 양 영 종 초 회 희) - 두 번 나오는 한글 글자마디 (소리 값): 3 개 (구, 병, 훈) = 모두 84 개 3. 두음 법칙으로 소리값이 두 개인 이체자 묶음 5 개 발음 두음법칙적용 code pos glyph1 K glyph? code pos glyph2 K glyph? code pos glyph3 K glyph? 람 남 63FD 揽 X 64E5 擥 O 652C 攬 O 량 양 6881 梁 O 6A11 樑 O 량 양 51C9 凉 O 6DBC 涼 O 년 연 5E74 年 O 79CA 秊 O 념 염 637B 捻 O 649A 撚 O 4. [중요] klgp206_2 (약 15 만 개의 도메인) excel 파일에는 겹치는 도메인이 있습니다. - 혼란을 막기 위하여 15 만 개를 대상으로 했던 klgp206_x 모든 문서에 대해 문서 번호를 klgp206_1x (겹치는 도메인을 뺀 뒤 약 12 만 개로 분석)로 바꾸겠습니다. 붙임 1. 96 + 5 = 101 개의 소리값이 들어가 있는 파일 (맨 마지막 5 줄이 두음 법칙으로 더 나온 소리값임: 양 연 양 염 남) 붙임 2. 붙임 1의 자료(101 줄)를 간추린(sort) 뒤의 파일 (101 줄, 가나다 차례) 붙임 3. 겹치는 것을 뺀 뒤의 소리값 84 개 (가나다 차례) 붙임 4. 각 소리값 별로 나오는 회수 보여줌 (회수 오름 차순, 가나다 차례) * * * -- 김 경석 KIM, Kyongsok

1 0

Fwd: plans for Korean GP work
by KIM Kyongsok May 19, 2016

May 19, 2016

sarmad가 보내온 전자 우편 입니다. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org> Date: Sun, May 15, 2016 at 7:07 PM Subject: plans for Korean GP work To: KIM Kyongsok <gimgs0(a)gmail.com> Cc: 박 민정 <parkmj(a)kisa.or.kr>, 박신영 <psy(a)kisa.or.kr> Dear Prof. Kim, Hope you are doing well. We are now planning our work for next financial year, especially next few months and would like to get your feedback on next steps KGP is intending to take with some tentative timelines – e.g. when you intend to share the first draft version of the KGP LGR proposal. We are requesting this information to determine how we need to engage the integration panel to support KGP. We look forward to your response. Regards, Sarmad -----Original Message----- From: KIM Kyongsok [mailto:gimgs0@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 8:01 AM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org> Cc: KIM Kyongsok <gimgs0(a)gmail.com>; 박 민정 <parkmj(a)kisa.or.kr>; 박신영 <psy(a)kisa.or.kr> Subject: Plz add psy(a)kisa.or.kr to KGP mailing list Dear Mr. Sarmad: How are you doing? I am just fine. Could you plase add the following person to KGP mailing list? Shinyeong PARK, psy(a)kisa.or.kr She is working at KISA and in charge of KGP. Thanks in advance. -- 김 경석 KIM, Kyongsok -- 김 경석 KIM, Kyongsok

1 0

JGP members who can send e-mails directly to each GP@icann.org mailing list
by HiroHOTTA April 28, 2016

April 28, 2016

Dear CJK folks, For your information : Following the discussion in Beijing and past, JGP decided that 4 JGP members can send e-mails to ChineseGP(a)icann.org, KoreanGP(a)icann.org, and IP. Such JGP members are HiroHOTTA <hotta(a)jprs.co.jp Chair MAEMURA Akinori <maem(a)nic.ad.jp> Vice Chair Yoshiro YONEYA <yoshiro.yoneya(a)jprs.co.jp> Tech Leader Yuri TAKAMATSU <takamatsu(a)jprs.co.jp Secretariat With the kind arrangement by ICANN, now each of the above will send e-mails to your mailing list directly without moderation. Regards, Hiro

1 0

CJK action item list (as of 25/APR/2016)
by Yuri TAKAMATSU April 25, 2016

April 25, 2016

Dear CGP, JGP, KGP members This is the new ation item list as of 25 April. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ @@ action Item List as of 25/APR/2016 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ those items that C+J+K have already confirmed the completion were already removed from the list the status of the action item is shown on the line beginning with ==> B1. Yoneya will re-write the name of the title from "Algorithm" to "Procedure" and add some explanation (especially regarding 'review') to the "Algorithm" (now "Procedure") document before Beijing Meeting. [JGP] Step1: Yoneya re-write the name of title of “Procedure” document before CJK coordination meeting@Beijing. ==>(done) Step2: GP’s formal response to the draft on the mailinglist ==>(not yet) B2. CJK will check and confirm the template of Root LGR proposal and ask for IP's advice if necessary [CGP, JGP] step1: Yoneya will send the edited template to CJK mailing lists which includes differentiation mark <common> for CJK and <individual> for each GP step2: CJK will check the drafted template and confirm step3: ask for IP's advice if necessary ==> pending (before next ICANN Helsinki meeting) Step4: Write the draft proposal in format. [CGP, JGP, KGP] B3. CGP and JGP will devise a joint statement and then KGP will consider whether to make a joint statement with C and J in KGP LGR proposal Step1: Hotta and Wang Wei prepare the first draft. (Edmon will help to review) Step2: send the letter to K for comments before sending it to ICANN formally Step3: K will consider whether or not to join in (Before Helsinki ICANN meeting) * Note: The statement includes two independent letters to IP and ICANN which were proposed by Hotta and Wang Wei. B4. Yoneya will draft a temporary schedule for each step of CJK integration procedure and send it to Kenny for his check. After that. Yoneya and Kenny will share it with CJK mailing lists to solicit their opinions about the schedule [JGP] ==> This step will start after Beijing Meeting ? ==> pending B5. Decide who to have the authorization to post IP ML and send it to Sarmad. [CJK] ==> each of CJK decides who can post and tells it to Sarmad B6: research on 260 unacceptable Chinese variant groups. [CGP, KGP] step1. K will review on temporal analyze result for 10 variant groups by C during Beijing meeting and provide further suggestion to C on the analyze by end of April. step2. C will analyze the registration ratio of characters in above variant groups, as well as ratio of WHOIS queries, also, C will investigate the meaning of labels contains these characters. step3. C will generate a formal report including feedback to the unacceptance of variant groups. step4. C will coordinate with CDNC, then send it to K and J. * Note: All work should be done by the end of May. B7: C send the changes on variant group caused by 172 new added characters to K, including code points, variant code, group. B8: Wang Wei will request Sarmad to arrange a CJK meeting in ICANN Helsinki ==> done ------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

CJK Joint meeting record and homework
by 王伟 April 25, 2016

April 25, 2016

Dear All Please find the attached documents of meeting agenda & record, and the action item (homework) Thanks everyone who join the meeting in the two days. We will keep working on it. Regards WANG Wei -----邮件原件----- 发件人: chinesegp-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org] 代表 HiroHOTTA 发送时间: 2016年3月21日 8:53 收件人: ChineseGP(a)icann.org; JapaneseGP(a)icann.org; KoreanGP(a)icann.org 主题: [ChineseGP] how 'blocked' can help us (During 4 hours struggle with the letters without significant output ...) A question has come to my mind and won't disappear... What are the future of "allocatable labels"? Let's assume the case where registrant-X applied for label-A, and label-B is marked as 'allocatable' by LGR, then, label-A is delegated to registrant-X. As far as I understand, the above means "only registrant-X has the right to apply for label-B in the future." If registrant-X wants label-B to be delegated, he/she needs to make a separate application to ICANN. And ICANN will evaluate the label-B by a human panel (maybe supported by some automatic mechanism). Then, what's the difference between (1) all variants are allocatable (2) some variants are allocatable and the others are blocked (or invalid) I understand (2) can make the applicant know that the application for some strings (that are blocked/invalid) will definitely be rejected in any case. However, this does not reduce the number of TLD delegations significantly because the applicant does want only a few variant TLDs in reality, for money-wise reason or usage-wise reason. then,,,,, why is (1) so evil? Hiro _______________________________________________ ChineseGP mailing list ChineseGP(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/chinesegp

3 6