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

Sun Sep 25 08:11:42 UTC 2011

Dear Dr. Al-Zoman and All,

What you would suggest would be an option 4.  However, option 3 is intended
as it is articulated (different from option 4).

Options 1-3 are suggested to cover the breadth of needs (including those for
Farsi, Kurdish, Urdu and many other languages being used online using the
Arabic scrip).

ZWNJ is already prohibited in contexts it is invisible.  It is indirectly
visible in all the contexts being suggested due to shaping alternation.

Again, the choices being proposed accommodate the needs of all language
communities, where Arabic language community may decide not to activate the
variants with ZWNJ and the communities of other languages may decide to
activate them.

As per the activation, in our F2F meeting, we discussed that the variant
label set could be pre-determined through the Arabic script TLD label
generation policy but which subset of these variants is activated is
requested by the applicant (others, please correct me if this is not the
correct understanding).

regards,
Sarmad

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Abdulaziz Al-Zoman <azoman at citc.gov.sa>wrote:

>  Thanks for the clarification …****
>
> ** **
>
> What I'm with is the option that: ****
>
>         What you type is what you see.****
>
> ** **
>
> When a user see a label in an airport, for example written in Arabic
> script,  he/she would like to type it as it appears in the add. ZWNJ/ZWJ are
> transparent to the users they cannot be seen and cannot be typed by the
> (Arab users). It looks like a space (which is not permitted in domain
> names). Hence, if the add displays a domain with a TLD which includes ZWNJ,
> (Arab) users will get confused and will not be able to reach that domain
> name.****
>
> ** **
>
> So, the option 3 should not include the ZWNJ in the fundamental TLD nor in
> the activated/delegated variants of the TLD.****
>
> ** **
>
> -----------------------------****
>
> عبدالعزيز بن حمد الزومان****
>
> Abdulaziz H. Al-Zoman****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk [mailto:sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk] *On
> Behalf Of *Dr.Sarmad Hussain
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 25, 2011 9:40 AM
> *To:* Abdulaziz Al-Zoman
> *Cc:* arabic-vip at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [arabic-vip] ZWNJ (earlier: [vip] Overarching principles
> used in Devanagari team report)****
>
>  ** **
>
> Dear Dr. Al-Zoman and All,****
>
> ** **
>
> Just to further clarify my own email (not responding to Dr. Al-zoman's mail
> below), please note that even in option 3 it is being suggested that ZWNJ
> can be allowed in the variant to fundamental label (up to the user to
> activate or reserve it).  Just wanting to make that explicit.****
>
> ** **
>
> regards,
> Sarmad****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Abdulaziz Al-Zoman <azoman at citc.gov.sa>
> wrote:****
>
> 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>
> 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]
> On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 4:07 AM
> To: 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****
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/fd8605e6/attachment-0001.html 