Hi Dennis, thank you for your draft of a response, which seems very neutral, specific and along those lines we have based our work on so far. But I am not sure which specific comments this is supposed to answer? For example comments by the ALAC seem to me to be raising much more general questions, which I don’t find addressed in your answer. Is the panel planning on addressing those in a separate response? Thanks, Meikal Am 3. Dez. 2021, 22:34 +0100 schrieb Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp <latingp@icann.org>:

All —here is the draft response to the repertoire related comments.

Dennis

On 12/2/21, 3:27 AM, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland via Latingp" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of latingp@icann.org> wrote:

Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mirjana,

as discussed during yesterday's call I have drafted an answer to Igor Mkrtumyan. We can discuss this further in our next call.

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.

The issue of Numerals is, indeed, different.  Because, as I noted in the comment, SLDs per se are outside our remit.  But the issue of Capitals is quite like the issue of the Middle Dot: in both cases the decision was not made at our level, so we are powerless to reverse it.  Bill   Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 5:59 AM, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp<latingp@icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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.

Hi Dennis, so that means your response address this paragraph from Mirjanas summary?

quote_type Repertoire The objective of the IDN Project is to make domain names available in the languages of all non-native speakers of English. To restrict the repertoire for the Latin script to less than half of the living languages which use that script is contrary to that goal. The ALAC believes that the LGP should go back and include all of the languages which use the Latin script. (At a minimum, languages which have more native speakers than the smallest of the “official languages” which are already included, should be added.) For example, Hawaiian has perhaps 25,000 native speakers, but is included because it is an official language of the State of Hawaii, despite the stated threshold of 1 million speakers.

Reading through your suggested reply, it seems that you are explaining our limitations and how we approached them globally, which is fine and correct. But it seems that we need to give a qualified answer to the point regarding the minimum inclusion principle asked for in the highlighted part. It seems that the email thread with Bill is going in that direction, and may already have provided the answers to that question. Thanks, Meikal Am 6. Dez. 2021, 14:59 +0100 schrieb Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com>:

Hi Meikal,

I agree that ALAC raised several points, but my response was specific to repertoire. This is how PCs were organized —by topics. If you believe I missed a point please let me know which specific part of ALAC comments on repertoire was left un-addressed (except for uppercase letters and digits, because these are deemed separate).

Thanks, Dennis

From: Meikal Mumin <meikal@mumin.de> Date: Monday, December 6, 2021 at 3:00 AM To: "Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>, "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Agenda for the Latin GP meeting on 1 December 2021, 16:00 UTC

Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Dennis,

thank you for your draft of a response, which seems very neutral, specific and along those lines we have based our work on so far. But I am not sure which specific comments this is supposed to answer? For example comments by the ALAC seem to me to be raising much more general questions, which I don’t find addressed in your answer. Is the panel planning on addressing those in a separate response?

Thanks,

Meikal Am 3. Dez. 2021, 22:34 +0100 schrieb Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp <latingp@icann.org>:

...

quote_type All —here is the draft response to the repertoire related comments.

Dennis

On 12/2/21, 3:27 AM, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland via Latingp" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of latingp@icann.org> wrote:

Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mirjana,

as discussed during yesterday's call I have drafted an answer to Igor Mkrtumyan. We can discuss this further in our next call.

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.

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. 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 and it can be done in a reasonably concise way without significantly delaying the proposal foreseeably and it is a specific request from the community so we should try to implement it. That is what public comment phases are for in my opinion. Best, Meikal Am 7. Dez. 2021, 21:10 +0100 schrieb Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com>:

Hi Meikal,

I believe it does. Essentially, they asserted the LGR proposal would restrict certain language communities from choosing TLD labels in their own language. This assertion is obviously not correct. The response addresses this by explaining that the review process indeed took into account an arbitrary (but reasonable) threshold to limit the extent of the panel’s review. However the LGR can guarantee coverage of all languages using the Latin script —including Obolo. The LGR won’t allow 100% of dictionary words (e.g. because of some explicit, and potentially implicit, excluded code points), but will provide reasonable coverage across all languages.

We also address their assertion about using a native speaker number as the threshold. The number (i.e., 1 million) was used to limit the extent of review of EGDIS 5 languages only.

If you think there is something missing please feel free to suggest additional clarifying language to the draft response.

Best, Dennis

From: Meikal Mumin <meikal@mumin.de> Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 2:00 PM To: "Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>, "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Agenda for the Latin GP meeting on 1 December 2021, 16:00 UTC

Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Dennis,

so that means your response address this paragraph from Mirjanas summary?

...

Repertoire The objective of the IDN Project is to make domain names available in the languages of all non-native speakers of English. To restrict the repertoire for the Latin script to less than half of the living languages which use that script is contrary to that goal. The ALAC believes that the LGP should go back and include all of the languages which use the Latin script. (At a minimum, languages which have more native speakers than the smallest of the “official languages” which are already included, should be added.) For example, Hawaiian has perhaps 25,000 native speakers, but is included because it is an official language of the State of Hawaii, despite the stated threshold of 1 million speakers.

Reading through your suggested reply, it seems that you are explaining our limitations and how we approached them globally, which is fine and correct. But it seems that we need to give a qualified answer to the point regarding the minimum inclusion principle asked for in the highlighted part. It seems that the email thread with Bill is going in that direction, and may already have provided the answers to that question.

Thanks,

Meikal Am 6. Dez. 2021, 14:59 +0100 schrieb Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com>:

...

quote_type Hi Meikal,

I agree that ALAC raised several points, but my response was specific to repertoire. This is how PCs were organized —by topics. If you believe I missed a point please let me know which specific part of ALAC comments on repertoire was left un-addressed (except for uppercase letters and digits, because these are deemed separate).

Thanks, Dennis

From: Meikal Mumin <meikal@mumin.de> Date: Monday, December 6, 2021 at 3:00 AM To: "Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>, "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Agenda for the Latin GP meeting on 1 December 2021, 16:00 UTC

Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Dennis,

thank you for your draft of a response, which seems very neutral, specific and along those lines we have based our work on so far. But I am not sure which specific comments this is supposed to answer? For example comments by the ALAC seem to me to be raising much more general questions, which I don’t find addressed in your answer. Is the panel planning on addressing those in a separate response?

Thanks,

Meikal Am 3. Dez. 2021, 22:34 +0100 schrieb Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp <latingp@icann.org>:

...

quote_type All —here is the draft response to the repertoire related comments.

Dennis

On 12/2/21, 3:27 AM, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland via Latingp" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of latingp@icann.org> wrote:

Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mirjana,

as discussed during yesterday's call I have drafted an answer to Igor Mkrtumyan. We can discuss this further in our next call.

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.

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.

Michael,

doesn't the Faroese also have their own ccTLD? In that case, if I'm not mistaken, they anyway have the possibility to create an IDN ccTLD.

That is true. Faroe Island is a semi-independent country under Denmark, but outside the EU. It has .fo. 1. If a language using Latin script has a ccTLD (meaning a recognized language of that country) it should maybe be included in our list to make it possible to create the IDN ccTLD of that country. 2. IDN ccTLD names are for country names, but not for other names relevant for Faroe Island.

The basic question is not "should we allow such a language or not allow such a language". It's always one character we are talking about and the question is, is there enough evidence to include the character into the RZ-LGR?

The only characters that could be included are already selected to be included in MSR. It is, however, possible that variant rules should also be updated. We should also remember that most or all languages using Latin script have a-z as larger part of their alphabet. I think that all countries using Latin script have a transliteration method reducing the character set to a-z for air tickets and the machine readable part of the passport. 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 14:14 To: ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Latingp] Agenda for the Latin GP meeting on 1 December 2021, 16:00 UTC Hi Mats, On 10.12.2021 13:48, Mats Dufberg via Latingp 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.

doesn't the Faroese also have their own ccTLD? In that case, if I'm not mistaken, they anyway have the possibility to create an IDN ccTLD. So while I doubt those 72,000 people will create their own gTLD, it's not unlikely that they simply get a new IDN ccTLD (free of charge, as ICANN is concerned, but also adhering to the RZ-LGR).

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.

No good deed goes unpunished. ;-) But seriously, I'd suggest to first have a chat (or at least an e-mail exchange) with IP to check whether it makes any sense to investigate further into this topic. If they say EGIDS level 5 is generally not acceptable and our 1,000,000 speaker exception was already pushing the limits, then I don't think it's worth putting any more effort into this. In any case, before we start working on repertoires and possible variants we should ensure that those languages (or rather the characters unique to their languages) would be accepted by IP. The basic question is not "should we allow such a language or not allow such a language". It's always one character we are talking about and the question is, is there enough evidence to include the character into the RZ-LGR? And for this the question (which IP would have to answer) is, whether an EGIDS level 5 language with 100,000 speakers is evidence enough for the inclusion or whether that's not sufficient. 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.

Meikal, I respectfully disagree on many counts; see my comments in line. Best, Dennis From: Meikal Mumin <meikal@mumin.de> Date: Friday, December 10, 2021 at 3:00 AM To: "Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>, "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [Latingp] Agenda for the Latin GP meeting on 1 December 2021, 16:00 UTC Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Dennis and hi everyone, thank you for clarifying. It's not always easy understanding current discussions when following up by email. DT: you are welcome; and I understand so let me try to parse your observations and provide specific comments, below. 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". DT: Agree. That is his request. 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. DT: First, I don’t think we selected languages based on their “official language” status; we used the EGDIS. Second, even if we did agree with that, we would need to determine the “smallest of the official languages”; in my opinion this is a non-starter. 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 DT: one commenter on this topic. We used the Obolo language as an example to prove it is covered despite not being explicitly reviewed by the panel, how clearly seem to feel that our proposal will not provide reasonable coverage across all languages DT: I disagree. I believe the repertoire proposal does reasonable cover all languages using the Latin script. 100% coverage is not attainable within our scope. and our chosen threshold of 1 Million speakers DT: only for EGDIS 5 languages. is clearly arbitrary DT: Yes. Again, 100% coverage is not attainable within our scope. And we discussed this at length. 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. DT: IMO, and I think others agree, we don’t see added value for the amount of effort he is asking for this panel to do. If I understood correctly, Mats pointed out a small language included DT: Perhaps many more, but they are included not because they are small or large, but due to their EGDIS classification (0-4). , 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 and it can be done in a reasonably concise way without significantly delaying the proposal foreseeably DT: I disagree; there is real cost. and it is a specific request from the community so we should try to implement it DT: one community too many. The comment is from one person, Bill. That is what public comment phases are for in my opinion. DT: IMO, in general a comment that is not well substantiated cannot stand on equal terms against the countless hours of work that this panel has invested in. Hence our approach to explain, as briefly as possible, the limitations of our scope and decisions made. So, I disagree with this suggestion that the panel is obligated to accommodate last minute not-well-informed requests. Best, Meikal Am 7. Dez. 2021, 21:10 +0100 schrieb Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com>: Hi Meikal, I believe it does. Essentially, they asserted the LGR proposal would restrict certain language communities from choosing TLD labels in their own language. This assertion is obviously not correct. The response addresses this by explaining that the review process indeed took into account an arbitrary (but reasonable) threshold to limit the extent of the panel’s review. However the LGR can guarantee coverage of all languages using the Latin script —including Obolo. The LGR won’t allow 100% of dictionary words (e.g. because of some explicit, and potentially implicit, excluded code points), but will provide reasonable coverage across all languages. We also address their assertion about using a native speaker number as the threshold. The number (i.e., 1 million) was used to limit the extent of review of EGDIS 5 languages only. If you think there is something missing please feel free to suggest additional clarifying language to the draft response. Best, Dennis From: Meikal Mumin <meikal@mumin.de> Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 2:00 PM To: "Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>, "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Agenda for the Latin GP meeting on 1 December 2021, 16:00 UTC Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Dennis, so that means your response address this paragraph from Mirjanas summary? Repertoire The objective of the IDN Project is to make domain names available in the languages of all non-native speakers of English. To restrict the repertoire for the Latin script to less than half of the living languages which use that script is contrary to that goal. The ALAC believes that the LGP should go back and include all of the languages which use the Latin script. (At a minimum, languages which have more native speakers than the smallest of the “official languages” which are already included, should be added.) For example, Hawaiian has perhaps 25,000 native speakers, but is included because it is an official language of the State of Hawaii, despite the stated threshold of 1 million speakers. Reading through your suggested reply, it seems that you are explaining our limitations and how we approached them globally, which is fine and correct. But it seems that we need to give a qualified answer to the point regarding the minimum inclusion principle asked for in the highlighted part. It seems that the email thread with Bill is going in that direction, and may already have provided the answers to that question. Thanks, Meikal Am 6. Dez. 2021, 14:59 +0100 schrieb Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com>: Hi Meikal, I agree that ALAC raised several points, but my response was specific to repertoire. This is how PCs were organized —by topics. If you believe I missed a point please let me know which specific part of ALAC comments on repertoire was left un-addressed (except for uppercase letters and digits, because these are deemed separate). Thanks, Dennis From: Meikal Mumin <meikal@mumin.de> Date: Monday, December 6, 2021 at 3:00 AM To: "Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>, "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Agenda for the Latin GP meeting on 1 December 2021, 16:00 UTC Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Dennis, thank you for your draft of a response, which seems very neutral, specific and along those lines we have based our work on so far. But I am not sure which specific comments this is supposed to answer? For example comments by the ALAC seem to me to be raising much more general questions, which I don’t find addressed in your answer. Is the panel planning on addressing those in a separate response? Thanks, Meikal Am 3. Dez. 2021, 22:34 +0100 schrieb Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp <latingp@icann.org>: All —here is the draft response to the repertoire related comments. Dennis On 12/2/21, 3:27 AM, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland via Latingp" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of latingp@icann.org> wrote: Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mirjana, as discussed during yesterday's call I have drafted an answer to Igor Mkrtumyan. We can discuss this further in our next call. 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.

With regard to the Middle Dot, wouldn't it be more useful to the commenter to say something like  As noted in Section 5.4.1, the Latin GP proposed adding the Middle Dot to the MSR, so as to allow it to be included in the repertoire here.  The Integration Panel declined.  Any further efforts in this regard will need to be taken to them directly.   It seems like that more clearly captures the situation and where the commenter needs to go if he desires a change.  Bill On Friday, December 3, 2021, 01:34:17 PM PST, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp <latingp@icann.org> wrote: All —here is the draft response to the repertoire related comments. Dennis On 12/2/21, 3:27 AM, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland via Latingp" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of latingp@icann.org> wrote:     Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.     Dear Mirjana,     as discussed during yesterday's call I have drafted an answer to Igor     Mkrtumyan. We can discuss this further in our next call.     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. | | Virus-free. www.avg.com |