- comments-hebrew-lgr-20feb19@icann.org

Re: [Comments-hebrew-lgr-20feb19] Ticket Commented: #870228 Public Comment on Proposal for Hebrew Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules
by רובין אינטרנשיונל משרד עו "ד ונוטריון Rubin International Cabinet d'Avocats et Notaire April 19, 2019

April 19, 2019

Hi, As per the <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/lgr-procedure-20mar13-en.pdf> LGR procedure, the Proposal for Hebrew Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules is being posted for public comment to allow those who have not participated in the Hebrew Script GP to make their views known to the GP. Please find enclosed the Public Comment of Rabbi Shalom Arush, Head of the "Chut Shel Chessed" Institutions. Regards Jean-Philippe Naftali Rubin, International lawyer since 1992 Licensed in Israel and in Europe LLM Business Law BA Economics MA Strategy, Marketing and Communication Member of the law forums of cyber law and international law of the Law School of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Rubin International Law Firm & Notary Practice areas: International Law – Business Law Cyber Law - Representation in Courts Civil Law – Wills and Estates Legal services are provided in: English, French and Hebrew. Avinoam Yelin 11 St. POB 5552 Jerusalem 9105401, Israel Tel: +972-(0)2-6422295 – Fax: +972-(0)2-6311227 Cellular: +972-544-705-200 Website: <http://www.advrubin.com/> www.advrubin.com Email: info(a)advrubin.com <mailto:info@advrubin.com> naftali.rubin(a)gmail.com <mailto:naftali.rubin@gmail.com> From: ICANN ITSM <service-request(a)ticket.icann.org> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 4:38 AM To: naftali.rubin(a)gmail.com Subject: Ticket Commented: #870228 Public Comment on Proposal for Hebrew Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules ### Carlos Reyes commented on ticket [#870228] ### Reply above this line to add a comment CR Carlos Reyes commented on ticket #870228 Dear Jean-Philippe Naftali Rubin, Please submit your comment on the Proposal for Hebrew Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules here: <mailto:comments-hebrew-lgr-20feb19@icann.org> comments-hebrew-lgr-20feb19(a)icann.org Best regards, Carlos Reyes Carlos Reyes Strategic Policy Planning Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 202 802 8019 Skype: carlos.reyes.icann www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org> From: ICANN ITSM service-request(a)ticket.icann.org <mailto:service-request@ticket.icann.org> Reply-To: ICANN ITSM service-request(a)ticket.icann.org <mailto:service-request@ticket.icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 4:09 PM To: Carlos Reyes carlos.reyes(a)icann.org <mailto:carlos.reyes@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] New Ticket: #870228 Public Comment on Proposal for Hebrew Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules Carlos Reyes Public Comment Team public-comment(a)icann.org <mailto:public-comment@icann.org> <https://ast.samanage.com/assets/email_attachment_icon-d38b4a753f1309db3539e…> smime.p7s ADD A COMMENT NA naftali.rubin(a)gmail.com <mailto:naftali.rubin@gmail.com> created this incident on Apr 18, 2019 - 10:08pm Hi, As per the <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/lgr-procedure-20mar13-en.pdf> LGR procedure, the Proposal for Hebrew Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules is being posted for public comment to allow those who have not participated in the Hebrew Script GP to make their views known to the GP. Please find enclosed the Public Comment of Rabbi Shalom Arush, Head of the "Chut Shel Chessed" Institutions. Regards Jean-Philippe Naftali Rubin, International lawyer since 1992 Licensed in Israel and in Europe LLM Business Law BA Economics MA Strategy, Marketing and Communication Member of the law forums of cyber law and international law of the Law School of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Rubin International Law Firm & Notary Practice areas: International Law – Business Law Cyber Law - Representation in Courts Civil Law – Wills and Estates Legal services are provided in: English, French and Hebrew. Avinoam Yelin 11 St. POB 5552 Jerusalem 9105401, Israel Tel: +972-(0)2-6422295 – Fax: +972-(0)2-6311227 Cellular: +972-544-705-200 Website: <http://www.advrubin.com/> www.advrubin.com Email: <mailto:naftali.rubin@gmail.com> naftali.rubin(a)gmail.com <https://ast.samanage.com/assets/email_attachment_icon-d38b4a753f1309db3539e…> Comment on Proposal for Heb... <https://ast.samanage.com/assets/email_attachment_icon-d38b4a753f1309db3539e…> Hebrew code points in code ... Attributes Service requester naftali.rubin(a)gmail.com <mailto:naftali.rubin@gmail.com> Category Public Comment Requests Received at Apr 18, 2019 - 10:08pm Priority Medium Assigned to Public Comment Requests Via Email ICANN ITSM by Samanage

1 0

[Comments-hebrew-lgr-20feb19] Yod
by Bill Jouris March 29, 2019

March 29, 2019

I wonder if it would be useful to mention why the letter Yod (05D9) is excluded from the general bar on symbols which resemble punctuation marks -- in this case the apostrophe. I realize that this may properly be a question for the creators of MSR-4. But it did rather leap to mind. Kind regards, Bill Jouris

1 0

[Comments-hebrew-lgr-20feb19] Missing information about the target audience and how to use the standard
by Avi at Gmail March 10, 2019

March 10, 2019

My guess is that the standard aims at helping website developers avoid potential mistakes. Examples of similar problems are the credit card, phone and address fields in forms of international companies. In many cases I realize that the form designers did not consider all the format restrictions of these items. Common design errors are of not allowing entering the plus sign in international phone numbers, not allowing comma in address field, not allowing blank or dash as internal separators in long strings and names, etc. If my guess is correct, then I believe that the standard should begin with explanation of the target audience, in which cases it may be used and how. I believe that examples of use should be appreciated. Avi Harel https://avi.har-el.com/eng/ אבי הראל https://avi.har-el.com/heb/ Tel: 054-453-4501 :טלפון Fax: 1534-834-2802: פקס

1 0

[Comments-hebrew-lgr-20feb19] Comments from Raymond Doctor
by Pitinan Kooarmornpatana Feb. 24, 2019

Feb. 24, 2019

Hi all, Please find below a comment on Hebrew LGR on behalf of Raymond Doctor. Regards, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana Manager, IDN Programs, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ............................................................................ My few comments: Hebrew has extremely few characters the proposed table seems to me to be absolutely valid weeding out all cantillation markers as well as a study of nikkuds.. Care has been taken to treat the five word final forms as variants of their basic forms. In some word processors, these are automatically generated when in Word Final position. The problem of scamming and spoofing especially in a script like Hebrew has been well though out and adequately handled. On the whole it is a concise and clear document with substantiating reasons and arguments and suits the needs of gTLD's if any exist or are created in that script. Best regards, Doc

1 0

[Comments-hebrew-lgr-20feb19] Comments from raymond.doctor@gmail.com
by Pitinan Kooarmornpatana Feb. 24, 2019

Feb. 24, 2019

Hi all, Please find below a comment on MSR-4 on behalf of Raymond Doctor. Regards, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana Manager, IDN Programs, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ............................................................................ My few comments: Hebrew has extremely few characters the proposed table seems to me to be absolutely valid weeding out all cantillation markers as well as a study of nikkuds.. Care has been taken to treat the five word final forms as variants of their basic forms. In some word processors, these are automatically generated when in Word Final position. The problem of scamming and spoofing especially in a script like Hebrew has been well though out and adequately handled. On the whole it is a concise and clear document with substantiating reasons and arguments and suits the needs of gTLD's if any exist or are created in that script. Best regards, Doc

1 0

[Comments-hebrew-lgr-20feb19] Public comment to the Proposal for Hebrew Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules
by Meikal Mumin Feb. 22, 2019

Feb. 22, 2019

Dear colleagues, as individual member of Latin GP and TF-AIDN, I would like to submit the following comments in response to the request for comments regarding the Hebrew Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules: 1) Section 3.2 „Today, most of the Jewish languages are nearly extinct, and out of dozens of languages only Yiddish and Ladino are defined with EGIDS Scale 4. Since Ladino is written today mainly in Latin script and is not the first language of its 137,000 users, we will not consider it here. Yiddish has 514,160 users worldwide, and is at status 4 for 55% of the users (Israel: 275k, Belarus: 7k); status 5 for 33% of the users (US: 156k, Canada: 13.6k, Moldova: 1.3k); status 7-9 for users in other countries.“ Obviously, Yiddish was considered as it is being discussed in several sections of the proposal. The wording here however seems to suggest otherwise. It may be useful to adapt the wording to clarify that Yiddish was in fact considered and to generally provide further information on the language, such as e.g. the stability of the written representation, the orthographic means and repertoire of letters and representation in MSR-4, deviations from the use of the script vis-à-vis Hebrew, as well as sources considered and the GP’s expertise in regard towards representation of minority languages. 2) Section 5.1.5 gives the following as rationale for the exclusion of U+05F0, U+05F1, U+05F2: „The first three might be confused with their respective combinations of two single letters. In addition, they can be adequately replaced by their respective combination of two consecutive single letters – DOUBLE YOD by two consecutive YOD, etc.“ At first glance, the rationale given seems to suggest rather an in-script variant relationship between those three sets of codepoints, rather than exclusion from the repertoire. Given their exclusive use in a minority language, it may be advisable to provide a more substantial rationale, to ensure that the right to representation of linguistic minorities was considered and weighed appropriately against other considerations such as the safety and stability of the root zone. 3) Section 6 Variants discusses in-script variants only. Some evidence available publicly on the Internet (cf. http://www.oketz.com/cursive/, or https://omniglot.com/writing/hebrew.htm, for example) seems to suggest that the cursive style of writing Hebrew also occurs in print. The cursive style seems to be stable enough for it to be automatically convertible to the block style (e.g. https://stevemorse.org/hebrew/printcurs.html) and fonts are available which may represent this alternate set of glyphs (http://www.oketz.com/fonts/script.html) If such alternate glyphs would be encoded by the same code points, there may potentially be some degree of visual similarity to other scripts, which may warrant some cross-script variants. It would be interesting in this context to know if and how the GP judges the use of the Modern Cursive Hebrew script and other styles of writing Hebrew and if any cross-script variants could be warranted from a point of view of the Hebrew GP. Otherwise it would be useful to clarify that the proposal does not suggest any cross-script variants. Kind regards, Meikal Mumin

1 0