[arabic-vip] Issues Document

[Dr.Sarmad Hussain]

Dear Siavash,

I certainly understand and support the point of view that we need to start
getting away from a very language-centric terminology and argumentation,
especially in the case of gTLDs.  However, where TLDs are languages
dependent (e.g. in ccTLDs in some cases and also perhaps for some gTLD
applications (we do not know yet)), there are advantages of identifying a
language table, e.g. re-use, as has been done by ICANN in the Fast Track
process.  That is what I have tried to capture.

BTW, I would think that language specific tables would be more innovative
(because they would be technologically more challenging to implement) vs.
script specific tables, latter being a simpler subset of the former in terms
of rules/constraints.

However, if you think the sentiments are not appropriately captured, could I
request you to suggest a revision in the text.

regards,
Sarmad


On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Siavash Shahshahani <shahshah at irnic.ir>wrote:

> Dear Sarmad,
> I looked very briefly at the newly-edited document; thank you for the
> detailed work. Specifically, the part I had ben discussing looks much
> better from my viewpoint. As long as we phrase matters in question form,
> there is generally no harm or bias. There was one non-interrogative
> statement which I quote:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> i.      Though need to identify a language is not necessary for labels, it
> does
> promote more consistent re-use of tables, for example,  as has been
> encouraged by the ICANN’s Fast Track process.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I don't want to get into a discussion at this stage (I can point out
> disadvantages of language identification as well), but please note that
> fast-track had its own specific requirements and limitations, one of which
> was single script per official language. That's how 'language' crept in. My
> general fear about such statements is that the simple existence of some
> difficulties will encourage very conservative attitudes that could impede
> innovation and creative problem-solving in IDN sphere. A simple test would
> be to ask the same questions about ASCII. Except for specific DNS-related
> matters carried out in ASCII, there should be no difference of attitude.
> Regards,
> Siavash
>
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 23:44:11 -0700, "Sarmad Hussain"
> <sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk> wrote:
> > Agree that "language" table is a misnomer.  Not sure what to call it,
> > perhaps a "registry supported character set and variant table"?
> >
> > I am rewording this in the revised version 0.4 (will circulate it
> > tonight).  Please check the text and make sure it meets your
> expectations.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sarmad
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Siavash Shahshahani [mailto:shahshah at irnic.ir]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 8:58 AM
> > To: Sarmad Hussain
> > Cc: arabic-vip at icann.org
> > Subject: Re: [arabic-vip] Issues Document
> >
> > Dear Sarmad,
> > Thank you for the great combining work, well done. I wish to point out
> > something about the following:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > a.    Management of Language and Variant Tables
> >
> > The registry should decide what are the supported languages along with
> > defining language table and variants table for each supported language.
> > Here are some questions (about this issue) that each registry should
> > consider:
> >
> > i.    What are the supported languages in the registry's TLD?
> > ..... etc
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > I have trouble with the 'should' in the introduction. Why should it? If
> > you are registering an ASCII domain you are not required to discuss the
> > language. Language is taken care of by the requirements of registration;
> no
> > further limitations are needed. This will be very important by gTLDs.
> Note
> > that a label need not be carry a meaning in any language. The only
> sensible
> > requirement for the gTLD would be that its rules and regulations take
> care
> > of variants in a way that no threat to security and stability would
> ensue.
> > There is no universal solution for this; the solution would depend on
> the
> > character table used by the regisry. In the case of Arabic script,
> > depending on which subset of the UNICODE table you are allowing for
> > registration, your requirements will differ; no reference to 'language'
> is
> > needed.
> > Regards,
> > Siavash
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:32:08 -0700, "Sarmad Hussain"
> > <sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk> wrote:
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you for the feedback so far.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I have incorporated comments from Fahd, Dr. Al-Zoman and also included
> >> change due to our final discussions on dispute resolution, and end
> user.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Please find attached an updated version for your review and further
> >> feedback.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I wish all of you a happy Eid and we will have our conference call on
> >> Tuesday, 6th Sept.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Sarmad
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/arabic-vip/attachments/20110904/b0e669eb/attachment.html