Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.
Contenido disponible solo en los siguientes idiomas
No.
We, Japanese GP, are very pleased to see a substantial number of scripts/languages, including Japanese, are about to be incorporated into RZ-LGR after hard work,
We have reviewed the Root Zone Label Generation Rules Version 5 (RZ-LGR-5) with a focus on the portions related to Japanese LGR.
As a result, we found no issues that might need reconsideration of the rules. Apartfrom that, let us suggest some changes to improve the description of the document and XML.
=====
Regarding : Overview and Summary
https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/lgr/rz-lgr-5-overview-24mar22-en.pdf
<comment-1>
There are several kinds of expressions that may have the same meaning.
Examples are :
- close appearance (2.3.14 Japanese LGR Proposal Review)
- confusing similarity in appearance (2.3.17 Korean LGR Proposal Review & 3.18.2 Variants for Korean)
- nearly visually identical (3.6.2 Variants for Chinese)
- may render in a misleading appearance (2.3.21 Myanmar Proposal Review)
- highly confusable similarity in appearance (3.15.1 Variants for Japanese)
- identical appearance (3.17.2 Variants for Khmer)
We understand it's not easy to define such a notion in a single incontrovertible way. However, we think it's better for us to use the same expression in all element LGRs if there are no clear difference in their definitions.
At least, the same expression should be used for a single script or language. For example, "visually identical" is used in Japanese GP proposal following IP's guidance, so we like to have "visually identical" in 2.3.14 and 3.15.1.
<commemt-2>
3rd paragraph of 2.3.14 Japanese LGR Proposal Review
In "... the close appearance of several Japanese-unique characters to other Japanese-unique or Han characters", we think "Han characters" had
better be described as "in-repertoire Han characters".
<comment-3>
5th paragraph of 2.3.14 Japanese LGR Proposal Review
We think "... only limited evidence for multiple registrations" had better to be clearly expressed that "... only limited evidence for
multiple registrations by the same registrant" in order to justify the unnecessity of allocatable variants.
=====
Regarding : Japanese XML Versions (normative)
https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/lgr/rz-lgr-5-japanese-script-24mar22-en.xml
<comment-4>
There are three unreferenced class definitions in line number 10574 to 10576 - class "katakana", "hiragana" and "han". These definitions should be removed to avoid unexpected side effect(s).
<comment-5>
There is a typo at line number 10585, which is: mayt --> may.
=====
Regarding : Common - XML version (normative)
https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/lgr/rz-lgr-5-common-24mar22-en.xml
<comment-6>
As well as in Japanese XML, there are three unreferenced class definitions in line number 44476 to 44478 - class "Jpan--katakana",
"Jpan--hiragana" and "Jpan--han". These definitions should be removed to avoid unexpected side effect(s).
<comment-7>
As well as in Japanese XML, there is a typo at line number 45044, which is: mayt --> may.
The proposal for the Root Zone Label Generation Rules Version 5 (RZ-LGR-5) correctly integrates Japanese LGR proposals.
Apart from that, we propose some minor improvements to the explanatory texts.