Page History

This is a list of the current and previous meetings of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group.

Next Meeting:

Monday,

...

12 September 2011

Monday, 29 August 2011 (See Transcript, MP3, and Draft Extended Outline for Final Report)

 Attendees:  Scott Austin; Avri Doria, Jim Galvin, Rafik Dammak, Bob Hutchinson, Steve Metalitz, Owen Smigelski; Glen de Saint-Gery, Julie Hedlund, Steve Sheng, Dave Piscitello

Actions:  Steve Sheng will revised the draft report based on the discussion.  (See below.)  Also fill in text where possible.  Produce a redlined document by Tuesday the 6th.

Recommendations (starting on page 15 of the document):

1. Develop a data model:  Aren’t some data elements already specified?  There isn’t total agreement on the elements.  We may not want to be overly prescriptive concerning what the baseline should be, but the WG could propose something.  In the last sentence change “tagging information” to “tagging elements”.  Like the phrase “ICANN staff should develop, in consultation with the entire ICANN community...”  (Add entire “ICANN” in the existing sentence.)  Is the term “data model” confusing in the context of this document?  Look through the document to make sure we are consistent in how we use the term and define it when it is first used in the document.  We have discussed using XML as a representation language — should it be in this recommendation?  The choice of a representation language would more properly belong to the IETF.  Not sure the IETF should be involved in the formalization of the representation language, but would be interested in the protocol (versus the data).
2. Issues Report:  The GNSO Council requests an Issues Report (should be clear in this document).  The SSAC also can request an Issues Report, as can the ccNSO.  “The GNSO Council or the SSAC should request an Issues Report...”  (See ICANN Bylaws at http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm.)  May want to include here some of the elements that should be included in an Issues Report.  Although the WG should have given specific advice concerning how to approach transliteration/translation requirements, but it did not produce a consensus on how to proceed on these specification.  The question of who should provide transliteration/translation could be a policy issue, which is why there is a recommendation for an Issues Report.  Editorial note:  Make sure that the language in this recommendation meets the requirements in the Bylaws and also check it against the recommendations for changes to the PDP procedures from the PPSC-PDP work team (Policy Staff Support -- Marika).
3. Identify a directory service: Need clarification.  Make it clear that it is referencing a registration data directory service.  Draw an important distinction between the protocol and the service.  ICANN should define the service and separate it from the protocol that is currently in use.  We have identified a deficiency that the service definition doesn’t exist so we are saying that ICANN needs to specify the service definition.  Change “work with ICANN and the technical community” and “propose” not “identify” a “registration data directory service.”  This is one piece of a very large set of work at ICANN and in the community.  The recommendation should say specifically that this is part of other work.  Change the trailing phrase “meetings the needs...enumerated in this report AND (add this) the WHOIS Service Requirements.  Include language that says that internationalization should be part of that work.  Reference the Board’s specific request for this work.

Previous Meetings:

Monday, 08 August 2011 (See Transcript and MP3)

...