Versions Compared

Old Version 6

changes.mady.by.user Naveed Tahir-Kheli

Saved on

compared with

New Version 7

changes.mady.by.user Julie Hedlund

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

This is a list of the current and previous meetings of the Operations Steering Committee.

...

Monday,

...

18 April 2011 (See Transcript and MP3)

Actions: Open a dialog on the mailing list on this proposal for a Final Report: Instead of recommending a particular model the IRD-WG should speak about the technologies that are important and relevant to this process (translation/transliteration) and call out the questions that need to be studied to develop a policy/PDP.

Notes:

Questions for Sarmad Hussain on his comments:

1. Comments on the four models and the WHOIS service

  • Dave: Helpful to consider looking at the models in the context of who benefits and who is affected in terms of usability, and other parameters.
  • Jim: Comments seemed to converge on the requirement to include the must be present script .
  • Steve M.: Monolingual registrant — that is the status quo, isn’t it?  What do registrants do today?   Do they provide their contact data in ASCII script?
  • Jim: Get more input from ccTLDs in particular — we don't say much about that in our interim report.  How much was done in talking to ccTLDs.  Started with a report from Dave on what ccTLDs were doing, and we got input from other ccTLDs.
  • Dave: We reached out through the ccNSO to ascertain what character sets that they accepted — 17 or 18 responses.  We did not go back to see what user interface and what they accepted as submissions .
  • Jim: Jay Daley suggested in San Francisco that a user has a right to be monolingual.  If we have the registrar doing the translation/transliteration then we have a problem with the quality of the data.
  • Sarmad:  My main question: Who is providing the data and who is the owner?  Is is the registrar or registrant?  I am not sure that this is clear in the RAA.  This is a fundamental question that needs to be clarified.   If the registrant is providing the data then if there is translation or transliteration provided by anyone else then that could conflict with that fundamental principle.  If the registrant is monolingual then he/she would not be able to verify the translation/transliteration.
  • Ram: Speaking from a registry operator’s perspective the data is owned by the registrar and provided to the registry on a contract.  The registrar is responsible for the registration data and owns it and is the only body that has the authority to change that data in the database.  We should not worry about who else owns the data.  It is stored in many places, but the registrar has the authority and owns it.   As far as the translation/transliteration: I am not sure that we should worry about that.  Access controls for that data are outside of the scope of what we are trying to do in this WG.  By access control I mean is who has the authority to change the data downstream.
  • Jim: In the analysis of the comments IPC expressed concerns with compliance issues related to translation and transliteration from ICANN’s point of view. I think we could raise the question of who has responsibility for the data.  I think we could state what is existing practice — that the registrars have responsibility.   The comments from Network Solutions also suggested that the IRD-WG should consider the role of registries in the process.
  • Steve:  I am concerned about the term “ownership,” which has certain legal meanings.  We are talking about responsibility.  I think your perspective depends on where you sit.  If you look at the RAA it is the registrant’s job to provide this information.
  • Jim: To clarify: I think this group can call out the question of who is responsible for the data.  The registrars are the only ones who have authority to change it but they don’t take responsibility for the quality of the data.
  • Edmon: Conceptually the end registrant “owns” that contact information but the fact that the registrar gives it to the registry should be balanced with ICANN’s policy role.
  • Jiankang: The registry is only responsible for keeping the data safe; who has the responsibility to keep the data accurate?  The registration should be responsible for ownership and quality.
  • Steve: Maybe we do need more information about how ccTLD’s and gTLD’s handle this today.  Should we ask registrars how they handle this today?  Maybe we could identify some registrars that are offering second level domains in non-ASCII scripts.
  • Jim:  I think we should take that as a proposed action and ask for comments and consensus on the mailing list, but we need to be clear about what we want to learn from the survey.
  • Edmon: I think a survey would be quite useful, but I would caution that the data that we do get back might be excluding those who are not in the system right now.

2. Sarmad’s second point: quality of translations/transliterations

  • Jim:  We don’t state the we know who owns the data.  We will need to expand on that carefully in our report.  On the other hand I agree with you that if the quality of the data is the responsibility of the user, but there is an issue if the user cannot validate the translation/transliteration.
  • Edmon:  I think Sarmad raised an interesting question, but it could be important for us to think about the quality of the supplied data versus the quality of the translation/transliteration.  The threshold of quality for translation/transliteration could be lower.  It depends on what we are going to use the data for.
  • Jim:  We should at least call out the question even if we don’t answer it ourselves.

3. Sarmad’s Proposed New Model:

  • Jim:  We need to think of a new way of drafting this final report:  Talk about the issues that go over all of the models rather than trying to emphasize one.  Highlight the questions and where they apply.  In Sarmad’s 5th model registrants should be able to provide the data in whatever way is appropriate to them but to make sure the data is tagged in such a way so that it could be translated or transliterated by others.
  • Sarmad:  The quality of the translation/transliteration depends on who does it.  The model doesn’t make the registrar liable for inaccurate translation/transliteration.  Example:  Take a name — Mohammad, which can be spelled in many different ways.  What translation/transliteration is doing is potentially pointing law enforcement to the wrong person.
  • Jim:  Rather than trying to recommend a particular model we need to raise these questions and look at several options, the first of which is that the registrant provides the translation/transliteration.  Also we should think about a clearinghouse option — to universally provide a translation/transliteration.  
  • Steve S.: Is our goal is to decide on one model?  There will be a policy development process that would determine the policy.
  • Jim:  Up until this call we have had consensus that we would choose a model, but after this call I have a different view on what the final report should look like.  I am not inclined to recommend a particular model.  We should speak about the technologies that are important and relevant to this process (translation/transliteration) and call out the questions that need to be studied to develop a policy.
  • Edmon: I agree very much with you.  I think the direction is right.   I think the way you characterized the perspective is a better way to go than the models approach.  It ties well with what Steve Sheng is asking.  Is that this group would produce a document that would feed into a PDP type of discussion.
  • Action: bring to the mailing list this approach.  Open a dialog on the mailing list.

Monday, 21 February 2011 (See Transcript and MP3)

...