[arabic-vip] sample of reserved list

Wed Sep 14 07:52:36 UTC 2011

a sample of reserved list for .tel 

iftikhar

From: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk>
To: arabic-vip at icann.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 7:36 PM
Subject: [arabic-vip] Day 1 proceedings summary

Dear All,

The following is the summary of the salient points from our face to face interaction yesterday (details will be captured in the document being revised):

A.      General principles:

1.       Agreed to talk generally for TLD space, without making the distinction between ccTLD or gTLD (and specify where our recommendations or comments may diverge)
2.       Agreed to limit the scope to TLDs (not second or other level labels), unless the recommendations apply to all levels (where it should be made explicit)
3.       Though the committee is generally confident on the recommendations, some issues may be discussed with representatives of languages communities not represented in the committee (e.g. use of Arabic script in African languages)

B.      The meeting started with the discussion on the characters set allowed for TLD, and the following was agreed:

1.       Even though there may be some policy to restrict the use of ZWNJ in the TLDs, the committee felt that due to its use in Arabic script, there may be a need for ZWNJ by the community (even though there may be limited use at this time)
2.       ZWJ is not needed in Arabic script
3.       0610-061A: an issue as they are PVALID but should not be allowed for TLDs
4.       0621-063F: OK, PVALID and needed for TLDs
5.       0641-064A: OK, PVALID and needed for TLDs
6.       064B-0659: an issue as they are PVALID but should not be allowed for TLDs
7.       065A-065F: an issue as they are PVALID but should not be allowed for TLDs
8.       General rule may be extracted that combining marks are not allowed for TLDs (but see A.3, regarding combining marks for African languages, etc., if they limit the language in question)
9.       0660-0669: an issue as they are PVALID but should not be allowed for TLDs because digits
10.   066E-066F: an issue as they are PVALID but should not be allowed for TLDs because Archaic
11.   0670: an issue as they are PVALID but should not be allowed for TLDs
12.   0679-06D3: OK, PVALID and needed for TLDs
13.   06D5: OK, PVALID and needed for TLDs
14.   06D6-06DC: an issue as they are PVALID but should not be allowed for TLDs
15.   06DF-06E8: an issue as they are PVALID but should not be allowed for TLDs
16.   06EA-06ED: an issue as they are PVALID but should not be allowed for TLDs
17.   06EE-06EF: OK, PVALID and needed for TLDs
18.   06F0-06F9: an issue as they are PVALID but should not be allowed for TLDs because digits
19.   06FA-06FF: OK, PVALID and needed for TLDs
20.   0750-077F: OK, PVALID and needed for TLDs
21.   FE73: an issue as they are PVALID but should not be allowed in any label (TLDs and other labels)

C.      The following was discussed regarding variants:

1.       There may be four categories: identical, confusingly similar, optional and interchangeable.  Refer to tables in the document for the following additional observations:
2.       For identical
a.       Kaf set – limit as one at TLD level; all are possible for TLD registration (no preferred over other, depends on registrant request)
b.      Hay set – limit as one at TLD level; all are possible for TLD registration (no preferred over other, depends on registrant request)
c.       Yay set - limit as one at TLD level; all are possible for TLD registration (no preferred over other, depends on registrant request)
d.      Fay set - limit as one at TLD level; all are possible for TLD registration (no preferred over other, depends on registrant request)
e.      Tay marbuta - limit as one at TLD level; all are possible for TLD registration (no preferred over other, depends on registrant request)
f.        Hay hamza - limit as one at TLD level; all are possible for TLD registration (no preferred over other, depends on registrant request)
g.       Theh group - limit as one at TLD level; all are possible for TLD registration (no preferred over other, depends on registrant request) (confusable with pay, not Thay)
3.       For Similar
a.       Kaf set – OK 
b.      Yay set – OK
c.       Alif Hamza above set – OK
d.      Alif Hamza below set – OK
e.      Dot orientation: could be variants, so it is an issue but shoud be investigated further with feedback from relevant language communities (not represented on the committee) for further resolution.  
4.       Interchangealble
a.       Alifs (simple, with hamza, with madda): not variants, though may be confusable; issue to be raised
b.      Tay marbuta and hay: not variants, though may be confusable; issue to be raised
5.       Other
a.       Digits have variants, though not relevant for TLDs
b.      ZWNJ case causes variants in labels with the three characters mentioned.  It should not be allowed with these three characters, in addition to the existing rule

Regards,
Sarmad

----
سرمد حسین 

Sarmad Hussain 
Professor and Head
Center for Language Engineering (www.cle.org.pk)
Al-Khawarizmi Institute of Computer Science (www.kics.edu.pk)
University of Engineering and Technology (www.uet.edu.pk)
Lahore, PAKISTAN
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/arabic-vip/attachments/20110914/71247c2c/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: idn-to-reserve.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 157542 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/arabic-vip/attachments/20110914/71247c2c/idn-to-reserve-0001.pdf 