[arabic-vip] agenda for conference call today (on Version 0.8)

[Sarmad Hussain]

Dear Alireza,

If ZWNJ is allowed, all the following possibilities are variants (Z= ZWNJ):  

ABC
AZBC
ABZC
AZBZC

So you could read the two as "with at least one ZWNJ" and "without ZWNJ."  As the label is not linguistically meaningful, it can take a ZWNJ in any place, given that ZWNJ is licensed in that context.  

Like other similar characters, ZWNJ will also add to the number of variants which are possible.  

Regards,
Sarmad


>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: arabic-vip-bounces at icann.org [mailto:arabic-vip-
>>bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alireza Saleh
>>Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 4:23 PM
>>To: Sarmad Hussain
>>Cc: arabic-vip at icann.org
>>Subject: Re: [arabic-vip] agenda for conference call today (on Version
>>0.8)
>>
>>Regarding the solution to the ZWNJ, I get confused about the terms
>>"with ZWNJ" and "without ZWNJ" , what happen if a name contains more
>>than one ZWNJ, then how we should group the variant names.
>>For example :
>>
>>"A<ZWNJ>B<ZWNJ>CD" is variant of "ABC<ZWNJ>D" or not?
>>
>>
>>-
>>Alireza
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Oct 4, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Sarmad Hussain wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your feedback.
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is a tentative agenda, which is based on Version 0.8 of the
>>report and points which still need discussion and finalization (please
>>feel free to suggest if you would like to add something to it):
>>>
>>>
>>> 1.       We have not discussed in greater detail whether we are
>>recommending character level or position level variants.  This is an
>>important point as it has a great impact on the possible variants which
>>are generated (and also the variety of TLDs which are available).  (I
>>am thinking of adding a note on the appendices saying that the current
>>tables are only valid for character level variants and need to be
>>revisited for positional variance)
>>>
>>> 2.       Should we move the normalization table in the “optional”
>>section?
>>>
>>> 3.       We have the following points in the ZWNJ discussion.  We
>>need to discuss whether to include them in the final version.
>>>
>>> a.  ZWNJ is allowed, however the string with it is considered a
>>variant of the string without it.  This addresses KB, confusability and
>>security issues (but gives the users the choice and flexibility based
>>on their language)
>>>
>>> b.  ZWNJ is allowed, however, if ZWNJ is allocated, then the variant
>>without it must also be allocated
>>>
>>> c.  ZWNJ is allowed, however, if ZWNJ is allocated, then the variant
>>without it must also be allocated.  Additionally, the label with ZWNJ
>>cannot be a fundamental label, but can only be a variant
>>>
>>> d.  ZWNJ is allowed only if the applicant can demonstrate
>>convincingly that the string will not cause security risks, with
>>additional restrictions as discussed above
>>>
>>> e.  ZWNJ is not allowed at this time
>>>
>>> 4.       The team has spent considerable time on the section on
>>dispute resolution.  There is a suggestion to delete this section as it
>>is not relevant.  The team (with feedback from the IDN VIP team) needs
>>to discuss and decide on this.
>>>
>>> 5.       Discuss the following:
>>>
>>> “The current registration tools need to be extended to incorporate
>>the entire process automatically, with no (or minimal) manual
>>interaction.[AZ1] [AZ2] “
>>>
>>> 6.       Discussion on Fees Section
>>>
>>> 7.       Additional entries in tables:
>>>
>>> U+06D2 (ے)
>>> -
>>> -
>>> ـے
>>> ے[AZ3] [AZ4]
>>>
>>> And
>>>
>>> U+0622 (آ)
>>> -
>>> -
>>> ـآ
>>> أ
>>> U+0671 (ٱ)
>>> -
>>> -
>>> ـٱ
>>> ٱ[SH5]
>>>
>>>
>>> 8.       General note on language use.  I have been using “may”
>>instead of “will” or “should” in the document as a polite but still
>>definite assertion.  Reading the feedback, this may be confusing.  We
>>need to clarify how we use this terminology.
>>>
>>> 9.       Update from Mohammed on formatting process and progress
>>>
>>> 10.   Timelines and further steps towards finalization of the report
>>for submission
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Sarmad
>>>  [AZ1]This is not applicable to TLD
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  [AZ2]It is applicable because when an Arabic script label is applied
>>for, ICANN should have a mechanism to generate all variants for the TLD
>>to evaluate the application and reserve/block the label variants not
>>applied for
>>>
>>>  [AZ3] This is needed as the this version of Yeh is considered the
>>same letter Yeh, with just stylistic variation. (This is similar to our
>>treatment of the Kaf  U+06AA (ڪ)
>>>
>>>  [AZ4]Need to discuss this as this is may be specific to Arabic
>>language
>>>
>>>  [SH5]Need to discuss these
>>>