[arabic-vip] Issues Document

[Francisco Arias]

Hello,

There is one issue raised in the draft outline/list of issues circulated
by ICANN related to this. The issue is whether the Variant Tables in the
root should be language or script based.

>From discussions in various teams it seems like the best solution would be
to have a table per script in the root, not by language. The reason being
you have the potential to have conflicting Tables if they are based on
language, and given that in the root there is nothing to infer the
language (vs. a ccTLD for example).

Is the Arabic team proposing to have Variant Tables based on language for
the root?, I'm not sure how to interpret the text below.

__
Francisco





On 9/4/11 11:44 PM, "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
>
>