Re: [apps-discuss] CONTEXTJ in TLD DNS-Labels (draft-liman-tld-names-05)

Patrik Fältström <> Tue, 19 July 2011 05:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E3821F85EE for <>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qZHYNAGvJx0U for <>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::39]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7198E21F85F6 for <>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AEA61184B931; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 07:25:46 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RWIcN45H6xpB; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 07:25:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::14] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::14]) (Authenticated sender: paf01) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A0F1184B92E; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 07:25:46 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 07:25:45 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <B464B2C6607E04FD0572AA74@> <>
To: Behnam Esfahbod <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: apps-discuss <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] CONTEXTJ in TLD DNS-Labels (draft-liman-tld-names-05)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 05:25:50 -0000

On 19 jul 2011, at 03.01, Behnam Esfahbod wrote:

> 2. If ZWNJ is claimed to cause confusion and phishing problems beyond what is
>   normally acceptable for other symbols, it is up to the claimants to
>   demonstrate this claim.

Actually, no.

When discussing security and stability of the Internet as a whole, it is the other way around. The first general principle is to ensure you do no harm. Then one can discuss whether the change is actually valuable.

So the burden of convincing the community is on the ones that do think a character like ZWNJ is to be allowed or not that the need for the character is greater than the potential harm in _any_ context it might be used in.

Yes, I am chair of ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee, and this I say is just a hint of what kind of statement and question will be asked when/if a proposal about the use of ZWNJ will actually reach ICANN pdp. This statement of mine does not of course preclude any kind of potential SSAC statement. Just a hint of what questions SSAC might ask.

For the rest of your points, including how difficult this discussion has ended up being -- I agree with you.