July 2011 - vip - lists.icann.org

The "Invisible Separator Characters" Issue
by Nicholas Ostler Aug. 23, 2011

Aug. 23, 2011

First of all, I apologize if I am using non-standard terminology. What I mean specifically is this: Unicode code-points that have no specific rendering of their own, but may affect the rendering of neighbouring codepoints in the string. Specifically we have been talking about U+200D ZWJ zero-width joiner and U+200C ZWNJ zero-width non-joiner both of which are actively used for some languages that use the Arabic and the Devanagari scripts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-width_non-joiner shows that they can also make a difference in German spelling, and in Hebrew. Unicode calls these "special characters", which is not very helpful. People have been talking explicitly about their necessity for Persian and some other Indo-Aryan languages written in Arabic, e.g. behnam(a)esfahbod.info - [arabic-vip] Typographical Complexity of Arabic Script - 19/07/2011 and for Nepali, among languages written in Devanagari, e.g. bkbal(a)ltk.org.np - Re: [Devanagari-vip] Document for Hindi Language based on Policy for ccTLD .bharat - 03/07/2011 By their very nature - these characters, when placed where they would have no effect on rendering, allow identical renderings to be associated with the distinct strings of abstract characters. They go beyond the use of other "combining" codepoints (such as accents and cedillas, which (taken with other neighbouring codepoints) also sometimes result in a glyph indistinguishable from another codepoint), in that they can have this effect on any string of codepoints. So U+0301 [´] COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT combined with U+0065 [e] LATIN SMALL LETTER E can result in a glyph indistinguishable from U+00E9 [é] LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH ACUTE; but ZWNJ or ZWJ placed anywhere in a string (as long as its neighbours are not combining charactyers) will always give a string outwardly indistinguishable from one without it. Seeing this danger of their use in URL identifiers, (essentially an open invitation to spoofing), the Indian approach was been simply to outlaw them: akshatj(a)cdac.in - Document for Hindi Language based on Policy for ccTLD .bharat - 01/07/2011 However, a less radical, but more complicated, approach, which allows ZWJ and ZWNJ to be used where necessary, is laid out by Unicode at http://unicode.org/review/pr-96.html Public Review Issue #96 - Allowing Special Characters in Identifiers - Revision 3 - 04-19-2007 (It generalizes the issue slightly, to bring in Mongolian separators.) This has involved looking at the use of the characters in a wide variety of languages (going beyond our 5 case-studies) and trying to characterize objectively the environments where ZWJ or ZWNJ could make a difference to rendering, and allow them in identifiers only in these environments. Those concerned about this issue for their languages (notably Nepali, Persian etc.) may wish to consider this approach as a concrete option. -- Nicholas Ostler nicholas(a)ostler.net +44 (0)1225-852865, (0)7720-889319 Chairman: Foundation for Endangered Languages www.ogmios.org Author: Empires of the Word (2005), Ad Infinitum (2007), The Last Lingua Franca (2010) www.nicholasostler.com

5 11

Educational session on existing variant practices
by Vladimir Shadrunov Aug. 14, 2011

Aug. 14, 2011

The topic of variants isn't new and the issues we are trying to examine here in this group may have already been defined and/or dealt with somewhere on this planet. We have experts from different fields here, and not necessarily all of us are well informed about the existing practices related to variants. Hence an idea: how about holding an educational session for the entire group where we will review how variant issues are managed in: 1. Existing ICANN TLD programs (Fast Track, Applicant Guidebook) 2. IDN ccTLD registries - variants on the top level 3. TLD registries - variants on the second level 4. DNS standards (some background on DNAMEs might be helpful) 5. RFCs that deal with string similarity (4790, 3743 for Chinese, 5992 for Cyrillic, others?) 6. (possibly) Trademark laws I'm happy to contribute to part 3 sharing the .tel experience with managing variants. We support IDNs in 15 languages with different degrees of variant management in Chinese, Japanese and Russian. Would the group support such an effort? Best regards, Vladimir Shadrunov

17 30

Internet User review: IDNA2008 follow-up at IETF/PRECIS and ICANN/VIP
by JFC Morfin Aug. 2, 2011

Aug. 2, 2011

Jean-Michel, I agree with you. However, things are not that simple. Andrew Sullivan asked for an algorithm and he is right: machines and systems need algorithms. What you emphasize is that in our cases (Variants, Stringprep replacement, IDNA support on the user side, extended services naming, IUsers' expectations, etc.) the algorithmic nature is just as precise as the mathematical algorithm that Andrew expects, but it obeys an entirely different logic because it also involves a brain to brain level. We have the tool (fringe to fringe as permitted by IDNA2008 and exemplified in RFC 5895) to support it but we first have to understand and document this logic. Therefore, we first need to get everyone who shares this burden to accept that their approach is to be shared with others and to understand that their logic and the logic of the others will help, but that the final logic cannot be a common logic. It is a new logic to we have to explore in common. Their experience and the experience of the others are needed but the case that we have to address is totally new. That case first needs to be understood. IPv6 is to give everyone millions of sub addresses (we call them IDv6, IIDs that are globally addressable). People will from then on allocate one, or several, thousand domain names to themselves, in the same way that they used to have an address, a name, a nickname, a mobile directory of addresses, TV channels, file names, etc. Therefore, we are talking of a world digital ecosystem naming intrastructure of hundreds of billions of domain names plus mail names, login ID, passwords, keys, codes, etc. In addition, we the users want this to be simple, sure, and secure for everyone in every language and every orthotypography (an orthotypographic requirement that IDNA2008 adequately refused to include in the network side in refusing mapping and ICANN calls "variants" on the user side). Compared to this, IDNA2008 was a _very_ simple thing to achieve. Now, you have summarized your vision of the VIP, WG/PRECIS, IAB, and IUCG problem in a metaductive manner. IMHO, this is correct. Metaduction is the proper and only way to address a problem of this size and complexity as a way to think in networks. However, metaduction is a way of thinking that everybody partly uses all the time but that is still only explored as such, at least in the way you use it, within our ALFA (Architecture Libre/Free Architecture) research framework. Some have emphasized that there was a deep need for a common glossary. Yes! However, the target is not only to use the same glossary, but also to have a common understanding of the ways of thinking of the concerned parties (engineers, operators, users). Therefore, let me explain it and translate what you mean to others, then analyze what you state and what it might imply in order to address these groups' needs, as they result from our IDNA2008 final consensus. At 10:39 27/07/2011, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote: >Jefsey, > >I read your mails and compare them with our discussions. What I feel >is that we progressively switch to and from the three forms of >comparison, we call semantical (sense) as opposed to mathematical >(one character at a time) and physical (same external form). These three types belong to what we are exploring as "intelligent thinking" in order to address complexity, as an alternative to Edgar Morin's "complex thinking". Complex means woven, (complexus: canvas in Latin), like the web. Intelligent thinking is based on the idea that there are three(+one) levels of intelligence: 1. physical, like the Internet lines and nodes, 2. logical/mathematical, like the protocols, 3.1. semantical, like the meaning of what is exchanged. 3.2 pragmatical, like a paradigm (everyone thinks the same): This corresponds to : 1. "to be in good intelligence with" and interlinks, 2. "intelligence" (as in the CIA) as information and command of the hyperlinks, 3.1. be intelligent, i.e. to be able to adequately use that information in modeling (comprehending) it and observing/emulating the model behavior. 3.2. the same but when instead of considering a single semantic processors one considers a semantic processor network: a crowd, country, culture, community, etc. Here, the reasoning cannot be classical deduction, induction, abduction,or even hypothetico-deduction. We call it metaduction. It consists in building a brain vision, a mental map of what we understand. We call it an ontography (because 50% of the brain uses vision related functions, e.g. "theory" means an observation, we refer to our "points of view", etc.). The legend of this "map" is an ontology. Then, the metaductive reasoning consists in observing the mental map and progressing through it. This is truly mentally walking a theory. One, therefore, understands that metaduction extensively uses contextual models, and that being dependent on models makes it totally dependent on context, i.e. on the adjacencies that define a context (or in IDNA2008 terms and thinking environment: "joiners" and "CONTEXTO"). As a consequence, when - physical logic is built on correspondence - and mathematical logic is built on equivalence - then semantical logic is built on coherence - and pragmatical logic is, in addition, dependent on internal consistency. (note: pragmatic is semantic in a context, i.e. considering the influence/interference of a given relational space and therefore of its referent [an exemple of referent is the IANA, which up to now was unique, however the Internet technology defines one IANA per DNS class]). Communications are about exchanging (uttering/understanding) our "maps" with others. Our first needs are, therefore, to name, locate, protect, and access our "maps" in a simple, sure, and secure manner. This is what WG/PRECIS and ICANN/VIP attempt to do. This is a part of the IDNA2008 consequences that I proposed to discuss two years ago and that led me to appeal the IAB against the IESG's lack of warning about the consequences of IDNA2008 when publishing the RFC set. Let me remind you here that the outcome of these appeals was extremely positive as they identified that this issue extended far outside the area of responsibility of the IETF since it concerns the whole digital ecosystem, even though IDNA2008 bluntly reminded us about the true, very larger extent of the Internet architecture. In this digital ecosystem, the Internet legacy proposition/contribution does: - name in using domain names, login, etc., - locate in using IP addresses, - protect in encrypting, - access in using keywords, etc. - deal with transmitting datagrams as efficiently as possible (this is end to end connectivity) - want that "Everything else should be done at the fringes" (RFC 1958: Architectural Principles of the Internet). IDNA2008 has clarified what, in diversity support, is: - at the end to end (protocol) level (RFC set) - and at a fringe to fringe intelligent level that the IETF never documented before. This is why the RFC 5895, which permitted our IDNA2008 consensus, was published only for informational purposes. Because its matter was "unusual" for the IETF: "this document does not specify the behavior of a protocol that appears 'on the wire'. It describes an operation that is to be applied to user input in order to prepare that user input for use in an "on the network" protocol. As unusual as this may be for a document concerning Internet protocols, it is necessary to describe this operation". - and permitted this way to support what is at the brain to brain, human semantic and pragmatic level. IDNA has removed constraints on the Internet architectural support of diversity (while considering the case of the linguistic diversity), hence of complexity. In so doing, it also modified our reading of the Internet architecture: it showed that the Internet is also built on the principle of subsidiarity (in addition to the principle of constant change [RFC 1958] and of the principle of simplicity [RFC 3439: Some Internet Architectural Guidelines and Philosophy]). The consequence that we are faced with is threefold: 1. we have to adapt to IDNA2008 changes and update ourselves and the technology to the IDNA2008 unleashed opportunities. 2. we are in an open architectural context that we are not familiar with, however it only results from a full reading of the RFCs that we know as well as from a full use of the very unchanged code that we use every day. The danger is that we can consider solutions that are already provided or contradict them without noticing it. This was the case of IDNA2003. This still is the case of the IDNA concept (RFC 6055). 3. the architectural context that we call the IUI (cf. below) i.e. the Internet Use Interface on the Internet side of it, and the Intelligent Use Interface on our user side, is something that we will also intelligently use (i.e. with our same intelligence and need for simplicity, surety and security) with other technologies we should consider (mobile phones, regular mail, registries, etc.). We are not used to their standardization except common users. While implicitly simplicity, surety and security on our user side calls for an advisable unicity (RFC 1958) in the coherence and consistency of the proposed solutions. This should be helped by the use of the same IDNA2008 on the Internet side and our demand of a single follow-up on this Internet side: this is why, as users, we wish for the same common liaison and work between the "sons of IDNA2008", like VIP, PRECIS, IUCG, and IDNABis experience, etc. >This is a plex. Yes. A plex is a network of ideas. This is the very nature of complexity. A plex is a plex of a plex etc. We observe that metaduction, as introduced above, is not about reducing complexity into small simpler problems (rationalism) because one loses the influence of the complexity (the whole is more than the addition of its parts because parts lose the whole when being split from other parts). Metaduction is about looking at confusion as a whole, to progressively map it, to study the map when looking for its apices (plural of apex) of complication and simplicity, i.e. what seems to be the most difficult to understand and what seems to be the simplest to do to clarify things. This is a pure application of RFC 3439: in very large systems one must apply the principle of simplicity. > It meshes domain name, variants, phishing, meanings, sounds, > feelings, perceptions, etc. This is human communication vs. machine > communications. Object communications - as we know them, are based upon geometric correspondence: translation, forgetting the size or not. Machine communications - as we know them, are based upon the mathematical comparison function: equivalence, equality, if then else. Human communications - want to use machines acting as peripheral simplificators (operators of complexity simplification) are based upon the semantical comparison function: coherence - or on its pragmatic similitude. IDNA2008 has established an interface between these three forms of communications in the way that it establishes the relation between the Internet and applications, which in turn need an interface with the Internet. This middleware is what permits us, the users, to use the Internet in the way we want. This middleware will also be present when we deal with any other digitized communications technology this is why we used to call it the Intelligent Use Interface (IUI) and have started exploring it in parallel to IDNA2008. >We therefore need to address it as a plex, metasimplify it and find >its apex of simplicity. Yes. This is the process that I introduced above. However, metaduction is not the way the IETF, ICANN, etc. think. This was acknowledged by ICANN in a very interesting fundamental document named ICP-3. http://www.icann.org/en/icp/icp-3.htm. It states that the Internet community proceeds through experimentation. Therefore, ICANN called for community experimentation. This was in 2001.. It seems that we were alone in carrying it out. Except for Google, which by its size can do something equivalent at any time with http://code.google.com/intl/fr/speed/public-dns/ their Public DNS. We do not discuss an alternative root or so on, or the extension of the root. We are speaking about a full true implementation of the DNS itself, the way it is documented and in the light IDNA2008 unconstrains it. . > I think that clarifying what "string" means in the three types of > comparisons would help a lot. > >Physical : same frequency >Mathematical : same components >Semantical : same what? You have to also consider the Pragmatic alternative to Semantic; There are community side effects in what is discussed. A "Variant" as per VIP could be what is related to Pragmatic. The term could be used. >A way to address this point would be to look for another word than >"string" that would lead people to identify the differences with a >mathematical string in terms of comparison. You have to also consider the Pragmatic alternative to Semantic; There are community side effects in what is discussed. A "Variant" as per VIP could be what is related to Pragmatic. The term could be used. And we could define it along similitude grades depending on contexts A way to address this point would be to look for a word other than "string" that would lead people to identify the differences with a mathematical string in terms of comparison. >Also, to decide if their comparison is correspondence, equivalence >or coherence. This makes sense. This is a common approach to start with more appropriated and identified definitions. It is also to decide if their comparison is correspondence, equivalence, or coherence. Or rather acceptance in the pragmatic case. >This way we can use the principle of correspondence to check where we are. The principle of correspondence states that innovation in science must not only explain new aspects but also keep explaining these that were already explained. This is the IDNA prerequisite and what IDNA2008 guaranteed: the DNS as we know it and it is deployed millions of times, operational protocols, and users' satisfaction MUST not be affected. Thank you. Now we have to agree upon a new word to qualify a "smart string" if a "dumb string" is something we cannot read (spell) but only see. This means that: - a "dumb string" (symbol) supports a signal - a "string" supports content - a "smart string" to supports a thought. I would propose using "sememe", with a coherence seme by seme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seme_%28semantics%29. - a "local smart string" to support a relational space's accepted "pragmeme" between a "pract" and an "allopract" (cf.pragmatician experts). Let me be clear, if we accept that: The last two propositions cannot be processed by a machine in a way that an RFC can describe, but an RFC can describe a common procedure and the guidelines for such a process to be carried by common agreement. We have a good example in the way Unicode code-points are worked out, langtag tables are built, ccTLDs are defined, etc. I suggest that we work on this and add these definitions to our glossary. Then, I think we should start from Marc Blanchet's Draft http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-blanchet-precis-framework-02.txt and discuss if a graphcode approach could address his requirements. Note: I use the concept of "graphcode" for a stringprep replacing algorithm made of a table of character graphical symbols for every existing script: one (phishing proof) symbol per geometric form. Each graph-point corresponds to a number of "in-code-points", and to one single "out-code-point" per orthotypography. This is a pragmatic equivalent of RFC 5892, i.e. the algorithm is not processed by a computer program but by a multibrain consensus. Then, the resulting code-graph (equivalent to code-point in a graphcode) system could be implemented for a test at one of the layers of the ML-DNS. Note: The ML-DNS is an IDNA2008 conformant encapsulation of the DNS that we are exploring (testing is to be carried before being documented), to process a naming pile that is able to address the people's final needs. This pile is the pile of the variants of the same name in various classes and presentations, e.g. A-label, U-label, UDN (user actual entry), etc. A major difference with the IDNA context is that the ML-DNS supports a single "IDNApplication service" per machine (single resolution source). However, frankly, my first and main concern is that your approach confirms that these three (VIP, PRECIS, and IUCG) groups are working on things very similar and quite intricate. They do need to relate in a way or another. At least, as the users of their deliverables, we need to ensure that they do. The work that they are engaged in is revamping Shannon's communications theory in a multilingual human context. It is worth some consideration. jfc

2 1

Types of variants: do we have consensus?
by Vladimir Shadrunov Aug. 1, 2011

Aug. 1, 2011

Dear All, It is always useful, when working in a group, to periodically ask yourself "why are we here", "what problem we are trying to solve", "what is supposed to be the outcome of our work". Why has this group been convened? I believe we are here because there's a vague perception in the community that there are situations when two or more TLD strings should be treated "the same". However, there is no clear understanding as to what exactly "the same " means, i. e. what the behaviour of these variant TLDs should be. And here we are to remove the vagueness and better formulate the issue before further discussion may occur in the technical and policy development groups. Am I right capturing the mission? Note that nothing in the above suggests what these variant TLD strings should be and how they relate to each other. I do appreciate the work that has been done on the definitions document. However, I can't help noticing that this document is centred around the concept that variant labels are the ones that are generated by means of character-by-character substitution via Language Variant Tables (I'll refer to them as character-based variants). It has been already suggested by several members that variant strings can also be based on other types of similarity/equivalence, such as: - *visual* (strings that have different code points, but are visually identical) - *phonetic* (strings that are written differently, but sound the same) - *semantic* (strings that "mean" the same, with full understanding that not every DNS label has a meaning. Some labels, however, do have meanings so "semantically equivalent TLD variant strings" doesn't at all sound outrageous to me). These situations are not covered in the current definitions document and continuing to ignore this issue may produce a wrong impression that there is a group consensus that variant labels can only be character-based. I do not think presense of such a consensus is the case (can easily be tested via a poll). Don't you think having a consensus on such an important underlying issue is important for the group? Thanks, Vladimir Shadrunov

9 14

3.0 of the IDN Implimentation Guidelines
by Jothan Frakes July 29, 2011

July 29, 2011

ICANN Published the 3.0 of the IDN Implimentation Guidelines and a new comment period, respectively: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/idn-guidelines-discussion-draft-clean-25… and http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27jul11-en.htm -Jothan Jothan Frakes +1.206-355-0230 tel +1.206-201-6881 fax

4 5

Re: [vip] Meet in IETF meeting
by Francisco Arias July 27, 2011

July 27, 2011

In talking with Xiaodong, Joseph, and Steve we are sending a doodle poll: http://www.doodle.com/nqvf3qd8gt7d93nx I'll find a place to meet once we agree on a time. __ Francisco On 7/26/11 9:02 AM, "Xiaodong Lee" <lee(a)cnnic.cn> wrote: >Hello, everyone, > >I guess many of you are attending the IETF meeting at Quebec city, may >we have chance to meet in IETF meeting. > >Regards, > >-- >-- >Xiaodong Lee, >VP&CTO, CNNIC >Professor, Chinese Academy of Sciences >

2 3

Re: [vip] Meet in IETF meeting
by Xiaodong Lee July 27, 2011

July 27, 2011

Yes, it's an informal meeting, since we are in IETF meeting, so it's a good chance for the technical guys in VIP team to meet with each other, to know more and communicate with each other. I believe the issue report drafted by ICANN would be helpful for IETF to understand the requirement of variant issues and consider the future good solution in technical side. Regards, -- Xiaodong Lee, VP&CTO, CNNIC Professor, Chinese Academy of Sciences On 2011/7/27 1:34, Francisco Arias wrote: > I'll try, tough that may be challenging. In any case we are only intending > to have an informal meeting. > > __ > Francisco > > > > > > On 7/26/11 11:45 AM, "Cary Karp"<ck(a)nic.museum> wrote: > >>> In talking with Xiaodong, Joseph, and Steve we are sending a doodle >>> poll: >>> >>> http://www.doodle.com/nqvf3qd8gt7d93nx >>> >>> I'll find a place to meet once we agree on a time. >> Please try to find a room with an online microphone so that those of >> us not in physical attendance can also participate. >> >> /Cary > >

2 1

Meet in IETF meeting
by Xiaodong Lee July 26, 2011

July 26, 2011

Hello, everyone, I guess many of you are attending the IETF meeting at Quebec city, may we have chance to meet in IETF meeting. Regards, -- -- Xiaodong Lee, VP&CTO, CNNIC Professor, Chinese Academy of Sciences

2 1

Re: [vip] Educational session on existing variant practices
by Andrzej Bartosiewicz July 25, 2011

July 25, 2011

Sure. I will cover that... -- Dr. Andrzej Bartosiewicz, CEO & President, Yonita Inc. phone (US): +1 650 2493707 phone (Poland): +48 518 235209 Jothan Frakes <jothan(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Nice work, Andrzej- > >You might want to expose the tæst1234.pl (xn--tst1234-mxa.pl) and >taest1234.pl homograph potential in this which is something that has >occurred since. > >https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=618051#c12 > >-Jothan > >Jothan Frakes >+1.206-355-0230 tel >+1.206-201-6881 fax > > > >On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Andrzej Bartosiewicz ><andrzej(a)yonita.com> wrote: >> Dear Steve, >> >> Here are my draft slides for webinar: >> http://yonita.com/ICANN-IDN-Variants-Bartosiewicz.pdf >> http://yonita.com/ICANN-IDN-Variants-Bartosiewicz.pptx >> >> Best, >> Andrzej >> >> >> On 7/15/2011 7:53 PM, Steve Sheng wrote: >> >> Dear all, the IDN variant project team appreciates your contribution. Based >> on the request, we will organize a webinar. >> >> Here is a draft agenda: >> >> 1. An overview of existing TLD programs related to variants by ICANN staff >> [15 minutes] >> >> 2. Experience of variant handling in ccTLDs [50 minutes] >> >> Five presentations, 7 mins each + 15 mins Q&A >> >> Fahd Batayneh, Iftikhar H. Shah, Behnam Esfahbod, Andrzej Bartosiewicz, >> Vladimir Shadrunov >> >> 4: Overview of DNS mechanisms and status from IETF standards. [7 mins] >> >> 5: Outline of RFC discussions about variant handling. [15 mins] >> >> 6. 3 min wrap up. >> >> Before we close the queue, are there any others willing to share their >> experiences? >> >> We will also proceed to arrange a time that speakers can make and announce >> the dates shortly. Given the global nature of our audience, we may have to >> run two exact webinars. >> >> Warm regards, >> IDN Variant Project Team >>

2 1

Thanks
by jfcallo＠ciencitec.com July 25, 2011

July 25, 2011

Thanks for suscription. Jose F. Callo Romero CEO - ciencitec.com

1 0