[arabic-vip] ZWNJ (earlier: [vip] Overarching principles used in Devanagari team report)

[Abdulaziz Al-Zoman]

1 and 2 is not valid options for a normal Arab user at all … when he sees a label which includes ZWNJ … he/she will think that is a space … the other form (without ZWNJ) is NOT similar to the original one with ZWNJ … hence he/she cannot reach that domain name

Hence, there is only one option, unfortunately, which is 3.

-----------------------------
عبدالعزيز بن حمد الزومان
Abdulaziz H. Al-Zoman

From: arabic-vip-bounces at icann.org [mailto:arabic-vip-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr.Sarmad Hussain
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 9:11 AM
To: arabic-vip at icann.org
Subject: Re: [arabic-vip] ZWNJ (earlier: [vip] Overarching principles used in Devanagari team report)

Dear All,

Thank you for your condolences privately and on this list.


We have seen the opinions on ZWNJ on this list both in support of and against having it enabled for TLDs.

Firstly, let me reiterate that these arguments clearly brings it out as an issue (will try to summarize all arguments in its favor and against in our final document, but not doing it here as (even if we may not agree) all of us understand the arguments being made in each case).

However, I would want to go beyond and suggest a possible recommendation, which (to me) can actually address both sides of argument simultaneously:

1. If we recommend that ZWNJ is allowed, however the string with it is considered a variant of the string without it, that addresses KB, confusability and security issues (but gives the users the choice and flexibility based on their language)

2. If we want to be more conservative, we can suggest that if ZWNJ is allocated, then the variant without it must also be allocated

3.  If we wan to be even more conservative, we can also suggest that the label with ZWNJ cannot be a fundamental label


Could this address the issue?  If yes, should we stop at 1? 2? or must also have 3?

You are kindly requested to consider both sides of the arguments sympathetically as you respond.


regards,
Sarmad




On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Abdulaziz Al-Zoman <azoman at citc.gov.sa<mailto:azoman at citc.gov.sa>> wrote:
Dear all,

I do agree with what Andrew has said:".. the mere
fact that someone sometimes uses a string as part of their language is
in no way an argument that such a string should be permitted as a
label at any part of the DNS, never mind in the root"
Hence, digits, space, and ZWNJ are not allowed just because they will cause more harms than benefits. Here we are dealing with the TLDs at the root level hence we should give security, stability and usability the highest priority.

Therefore, I did recommend (previously) not to support the space in the TLD and now I strongly with NOT to support ZWNJ/ZWJ at the root TLD level.

Just a note:
The ZWNJ/ZWJ as a concept is not know at all by the Arabic speaking community even not be the ARAB IT Specialists:
- They (the Arab users) do not know their (i.e., ZWNJ/ZWJ) behavior.
- They never heard about them.
- They never type them.
- It is not in the keyboard.
- They do not know how to type them.
- and most importantly ... they cannot see them.


-----------------------------
عبدالعزيز بن حمد الزومان
Abdulaziz H. Al-Zoman

-----Original Message-----
From: arabic-vip-bounces at icann.org<mailto:arabic-vip-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:arabic-vip-bounces at icann.org<mailto:arabic-vip-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 4:07 AM
To: arabic-vip at icann.org<mailto:arabic-vip at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [arabic-vip] ZWNJ (earlier: [vip] Overarching principles used in Devanagari team report)
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 11:09:41AM +0000, Raed Al-Fayez wrote:

> So I think if the group is going to support ZWNJ and/or ZWJ in
> TLDs(because it may be needed by other languages) then we should
> also ask to support/reconsider the support of the space in TLDs and
> even more in all Internet Standards (IDNA RFC, DOMAIN RFC
> ..etc). Also if the group is going to support them in the TLD then
> we should add a warning that they may cause a risk and ICANN should
> study this topic carefully.

Just to be clear: what you are requesting there is that the team
recommending throwing out restrictions in RFC 952 (and consequently,
depending on your reading, RFC 1035), and also restrictions built into
IDNA2008 (RFC 5890-5894).  This amounts to a requirement that every
machine on the entire Internet needs to be upgraded before the change
could take place.  Are you sure that's something you want to ask for?

> Personally I think enabling the numbers in TLD is also important
> because we are not sure that other language may use them in their
> writing system (I hear that Jawi language do so).

I have suggested before, but I will suggest here again, that the mere
fact that someone sometimes uses a string as part of their language is
in no way an argument that such a string should be permitted as a
label at any part of the DNS, never mind in the root.  Irish names in
English and French all over the place both use the apostophe, U+0027.
That is not an argument that we should start allowing that character
in to DNS labels (even though, in a strict sense, it is already a
perfectly legal character).  The reason digits aren't permitted at the
top level is simple: they're potentially confused by end system
software as IP addresses.  (Dotted quad is not the only way to
represent IP addresses, note.)

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
This message and its attachment, if any, are confidential and may contain legally
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender immediately and delete this message and its attachment, if any, from your
system. You should not copy this message or disclose its contents to any other
person or use it for any purpose. Statements and opinions expressed in this e-mail
are those of the sender, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Communications
and Information Technology Commission (CITC). CITC accepts no liability for damage
caused by this email.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/arabic-vip/attachments/20110925/403f06c4/attachment-0001.html