The limit of 1 million speakers is so arbitrary that we really ought to explain why a different threshold is inappropriate.   Perhaps we don't want to go all the way down to, for example, 100 native speakers.  But the difference between 1,000,000 and 900,000 is pretty small.  (My memory isn't clear.  Did we go thru the EGIDS 5 languages, to see if there is a natural breakpoint?  That is, some place where there is a big gap between languages with populations above it and those below?  Anybody else recall if we looked at that?) 

That said, I think there is merit in Michael's suggestion that we write the IP, and find out if there is any argument/justification that they would accept for moving the threshold at all.  If their minds are closed on this, then there is indeed no point in pursuing it.  And we can cite their position in our response, as our justification for the threshold. 

Bill 


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 7:17 AM, Mats Dufberg via Latingp
<latingp@icann.org> wrote:
> So, we introduced an exception to the rule of only considering EGIDS 4
> language, and that exception was that a large number of people are using
> the language. We cannot use that same reason to include languages just
> spoken by 1000 people.

The limit of EGIDS 4 is arbitrary, why not 3 or 5? Maybe we have a good discussion of that in the report. The motivation of EGIDS 4, as I see it, is that it should be a language of stable written tradition and use.

The limit of 1,000,000 speakers of EGIDS 5 languages is even more arbitrary. We have considered it relevant to include Faroese language (EGIDS 2?) with 72,000 speakers (assuming as many readers and writers). It has been assumed that for a language of 72,000 speakers there could be an interest of registering a TLD. If a language community of EGIDS 5 languages in some cases could be interested in TLDs, why should the limit be 1,000,000? If we consider the language to be mature enough to be counted in it is hard to consider 1,000,000 to be an non-arbitrary limit.

It was probably a mistake to introducer the exception. We should stuck with the EGIDS limit only.


Mats

--

---
Mats Dufberg
mats.dufberg@internetstiftelsen.se
Technical Expert
Internetstiftelsen (The Swedish Internet Foundation)
Mobile: +46 73 065 3899
https://internetstiftelsen.se/


-----Original Message-----
From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org>
Reply to: Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>
Date: Friday, 10 December 2021 at 10:44
To: Meikal Mumin <meikal@mumin.de>, ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org>, "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com>
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Agenda for the Latin GP meeting on 1 December 2021, 16:00 UTC

Hi Meikal,

On 10.12.2021 09:00, Meikal Mumin wrote:
> Hi Dennis and hi everyone,
>
> thank you for clarifying. It's not always easy understanding current
> discussions when following up by email.
>
> The language is fine, but I believe that the yellow highlighted part
> calls for a specific change, namely to include "languages which have
> more native peakers than the smallest of the “official languages” [...]
> already included".  Your explanations state why we have restricted our
> choice of languages for analysis and potential inclusion originally and
> that our choice doesn't necessarily stop other languages from using IDNs
> except for that not all words from these languages may be represented.
> So you have provided a very good summary of why we did not do that which
> was asked for here originally and why we thought it may be an acceptable
> solution, but there is no definitive proof disproving the view of
> commenters, how clearly seem to feel that our proposal will not provide
> reasonable coverage across all languages and our chosen threshold of 1
> Million speakers is clearly arbitrary as pointed out by that comment.
>
> So I don't see any explanation why we cannot honour that request now
> except for we didn't do it at first and had our reasons at the time and
> neither do I see a reason not to do this apart from a diffuse sentiment
> of exhaustion as a group, because of the long time it took for this work
> to develop and mature.

well, the reason is that we're talking about TLDs, not just SLDs. We
included (as is requested) all languages which are at least used in
educational context (EGIDS 4). Then we exceptionally also include
languages, that are not used in education, but that are spoken by a
large number of people.

So, we introduced an exception to the rule of only considering EGIDS 4
language, and that exception was that a large number of people are using
the language. We cannot use that same reason to include languages just
spoken by 1000 people.

As Sarmad pointed out, we need some good argument, why a specific
language not in EGIDS level of at least 4 is included. The argument that
more than a million people actively use that language, is a good
argument. Saying that 1000 people use the language is not an argument to
make an exception to the EGIDS 4 rule.
Even if other languages with as few speakers exist, those languages are
on a different scale and therefore automatically included (independent
of the number of speakers).


>
> If I understood correctly, Mats pointed out a small language included,
> so we know the scope of what larger "than the smallest official
> language" means, and Bill already compiled a list of languages and code
> points that may be involved, so I would agree with Bill (and Michael I
> believe), that there is no real cost involved in including these

No, I did not say, there is no cost. I did say I see no harm (to the DNS
or the internet community), but I definitely see cost for us.

I really think, before we put any more effort into this, we should check
with IP if they accept an argument to include those languages. If they
say, that we cannot make a sensible argument to include them, then it'd
be a waste of effort to try to produce such an argument.

Cheers,

Michael


--
____________________________________________________________________
      |      |
      | knipp |            Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
      -------                    Technologiepark
                                  Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9
                                  44227 Dortmund
                                  Germany

      Dipl.-Informatiker          Fon:    +49 231 9703-0
                                  Fax:    +49 231 9703-200
      Dr. Michael Bauland        SIP:    Michael.Bauland@knipp.de
      Software Development        E-mail: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de

                                  Register Court:
                                  Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728

                                  Chief Executive Officers:
                                  Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp
_______________________________________________
Latingp mailing list
Latingp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.


_______________________________________________
Latingp mailing list
Latingp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.