Re: [Latingp] ICANN72 Prep Week - RZ-LGR Update
Hi Mats, Thank you for putting this together. Here are a few quick observations for your consideration: * page 4: what do you mean by “binding”? —“normative” perhaps? The former has a legal connotation (to me) so maybe not appropriate for this type of document. * Page 5: suggest editing to “MSR is a subset of IDNA2008 protocol valid repertoire.” The existing one, while true, implies that non-pvalid code points might be included in MSR. We don’t know who might be reading/attending the session, and whether anyone understands the context, so this precision might help avoid misunderstandings. * page 6: maybe adding a definition what level 4 on the EIGDS scale means might be helpful. * page 9: typo, replace “the” with “to” in “The languages are there TO support the inclusion” * page 10: you may want to tweak the statement to something like “The excluded characters are characters attested in at least one selected language that cannot be included DUE TO LGR PROCEDURE CRITERIA, E.G., SIMILAR TO PUNCTUATION MARK, NON-PROTOCOL VALID, ETC.” also, the third bullet, you may want to add “LatinGP cannot include any character not included in MSR, UNLESS IT IS GRANTED INCLUSION PER THE LGR PROCEDURE” * page 11: I would replace the word “treated” with “perceived”. * page 11: recommend editing second sub-bullet to: “Two types of disposition for variants: block or allocatable. For the Latin Script Proposal, the majority of variant rules recommend blocking the variant labels.” * page 13: I would not charactize the visually confusable as “to have enough similarity”, since they had such a low threshold to be in this list. Thanks, Dennis From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mats Dufberg via Latingp <latingp@icann.org> Reply-To: Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@internetstiftelsen.se> Date: Monday, September 20, 2021 at 4:13 PM To: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] ICANN72 Prep Week - RZ-LGR Update 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. Enclosed is a draft of the presentation. The draft is not the template required (?) by ICANN. I decided to focus on content first, especially since the ICANN template is quite limiting and demanding. The slides I have made are in a template without any "style". This is probably too much, but kind of includes the entire presentation. I will process it again tomorrow and on Wednesday. We are expected meet again for one long session, but I have not got any invitation. I think it is now on Thursday 2021-09-23. Is that correct? 16h00-18h00 UTC? Mats -- --- Mats Dufberg mats.dufberg@internetstiftelsen.se Technical Expert Internetstiftelsen (The Swedish Internet Foundation) Mobile: +46 73 065 3899 https://internetstiftelsen.se/ From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org> Reply to: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 21:43 To: ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [Latingp] ICANN72 Prep Week - RZ-LGR Update Dear Mats, and all Latin GP members, Please find attached the template for ICANN 72 Prep Week presentation slide. The session information are tentatively as follows. Session Date and Time: 14 October 2021, 18.00 – 19.00 UTC. Session Name: Root Zone Label Generation Rules (RZ-LGR) Update Agenda: 1. Overview of Latin Script RZ-LGR Proposal (20mins) (Latin GP) 2. Overview of Japanese Script RZ-LGR Proposal (20mins) (J-GP) 3. RZ-LGR version 5 (20mins) (IP) We propose that the Q&A is included in the 20 minutes of each agenda item. Therefore, kindly prepare a 10-15 minute presentation material and allow 5-10 minutes for Q&A. Should you have any questions, please let us know. Regards, Pitinan
- page 4: what do you mean by “binding”? —“normative” perhaps? The former has a legal connotation (to me) so maybe not appropriate for this type of document. Changed. - Page 5: suggest editing to “MSR is a subset of IDNA2008 protocol valid repertoire.” The existing one, while true, implies that non-pvalid code points might be included in MSR. We don’t know who might be reading/attending the session, and whether anyone understands the context, so this precision might help avoid misunderstandings. Changed. - page 6: maybe adding a definition what level 4 on the EIGDS scale means might be helpful. Changed. - page 9: typo, replace “the” with “to” in “The languages are there TO support the inclusion” Fixed. - page 10: you may want to tweak the statement to something like “The excluded characters are characters attested in at least one selected language that cannot be included DUE TO LGR PROCEDURE CRITERIA, E.G., SIMILAR TO PUNCTUATION MARK, NON-PROTOCOL VALID, ETC.” also, the third bullet, you may want to add “LatinGP cannot include any character not included in MSR, UNLESS IT IS GRANTED INCLUSION PER THE LGR PROCEDURE” I have changed some, but the fact is that MSR is the limit for LatinGP, not any similarity to punctuation marks. - page 11: I would replace the word “treated” with “perceived”. Changed, but I feel unsure it that is better. I could be both, can't it? - page 11: recommend editing second sub-bullet to: “Two types of disposition for variants: block or allocatable. For the Latin Script Proposal, the majority of variant rules recommend blocking the variant labels.” Changed, but modified wording. - page 13: I would not charactize the visually confusable as “to have enough similarity”, since they had such a low threshold to be in this list. Updated wording. Thanks for comments. New version will be sent when I have processed all comments. Mats -- --- Mats Dufberg mats.dufberg@internetstiftelsen.se Technical Expert Internetstiftelsen (The Swedish Internet Foundation) Mobile: +46 73 065 3899 https://internetstiftelsen.se/ From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Date: Monday, 20 September 2021 at 23:07 To: Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@internetstiftelsen.se>, ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org> Subject: Re: Re: [Latingp] ICANN72 Prep Week - RZ-LGR Update Hi Mats, Thank you for putting this together. Here are a few quick observations for your consideration: * page 4: what do you mean by “binding”? —“normative” perhaps? The former has a legal connotation (to me) so maybe not appropriate for this type of document. * Page 5: suggest editing to “MSR is a subset of IDNA2008 protocol valid repertoire.” The existing one, while true, implies that non-pvalid code points might be included in MSR. We don’t know who might be reading/attending the session, and whether anyone understands the context, so this precision might help avoid misunderstandings. * page 6: maybe adding a definition what level 4 on the EIGDS scale means might be helpful. * page 9: typo, replace “the” with “to” in “The languages are there TO support the inclusion” * page 10: you may want to tweak the statement to something like “The excluded characters are characters attested in at least one selected language that cannot be included DUE TO LGR PROCEDURE CRITERIA, E.G., SIMILAR TO PUNCTUATION MARK, NON-PROTOCOL VALID, ETC.” also, the third bullet, you may want to add “LatinGP cannot include any character not included in MSR, UNLESS IT IS GRANTED INCLUSION PER THE LGR PROCEDURE” * page 11: I would replace the word “treated” with “perceived”. * page 11: recommend editing second sub-bullet to: “Two types of disposition for variants: block or allocatable. For the Latin Script Proposal, the majority of variant rules recommend blocking the variant labels.” * page 13: I would not charactize the visually confusable as “to have enough similarity”, since they had such a low threshold to be in this list. Thanks, Dennis From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mats Dufberg via Latingp <latingp@icann.org> Reply-To: Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@internetstiftelsen.se> Date: Monday, September 20, 2021 at 4:13 PM To: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] ICANN72 Prep Week - RZ-LGR Update 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. Enclosed is a draft of the presentation. The draft is not the template required (?) by ICANN. I decided to focus on content first, especially since the ICANN template is quite limiting and demanding. The slides I have made are in a template without any "style". This is probably too much, but kind of includes the entire presentation. I will process it again tomorrow and on Wednesday. We are expected meet again for one long session, but I have not got any invitation. I think it is now on Thursday 2021-09-23. Is that correct? 16h00-18h00 UTC? Mats -- --- Mats Dufberg mats.dufberg@internetstiftelsen.se Technical Expert Internetstiftelsen (The Swedish Internet Foundation) Mobile: +46 73 065 3899 https://internetstiftelsen.se/ From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org> Reply to: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 21:43 To: ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [Latingp] ICANN72 Prep Week - RZ-LGR Update Dear Mats, and all Latin GP members, Please find attached the template for ICANN 72 Prep Week presentation slide. The session information are tentatively as follows. Session Date and Time: 14 October 2021, 18.00 – 19.00 UTC. Session Name: Root Zone Label Generation Rules (RZ-LGR) Update Agenda: 1. Overview of Latin Script RZ-LGR Proposal (20mins) (Latin GP) 2. Overview of Japanese Script RZ-LGR Proposal (20mins) (J-GP) 3. RZ-LGR version 5 (20mins) (IP) We propose that the Q&A is included in the 20 minutes of each agenda item. Therefore, kindly prepare a 10-15 minute presentation material and allow 5-10 minutes for Q&A. Should you have any questions, please let us know. Regards, Pitinan
participants (2)
-
Mats Dufberg -
Tan Tanaka, Dennis