Page History
This is a list of the current and previous meetings of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group.
Next Meeting: TBD
Monday, 28 November 2011 (See Transcript and MP3)
...
- The key comment is that the INTA urges that the recommendations should be conducted expeditiously given the pending new gTLD program.
- Not sure how we comment other than to say “thanks” and we hope it can happen expeditiously.
- The Analysis can call attention to other activity in IETF WEIRDS and the follow on to the SAC51 recommendations (Board directive for staff to develop a Road Map in coordination with the community).
- The concern from the INTA was about the timing and that there needed to be follow up.
- The Analysis should also point out that the IRD-WG agrees with what INTA is saying that this work should be expedited.
- The IRD-WG will be disbanded once the Final Report is approved by the SSAC and the GNSO Council, unless it is tasked with more work, such as monitoring/tracking effort to implement the Final Report recommendations, but this is not something that has to be included in the Analysis of the comments.
- Who will take up the implementation of the Final Report recommendations? The IETF will take up the data model work, but it is unclear what the WEIRDS group will pick up.
- What about the language tag? Is this requirement coming from ICANN? There are multiple steps: 1) come up with a data model (xml schema) that includes language and character set tags that includes those elements that the IRD-WG Final Report has identified. 2) Socialize the data model with the community and get cooperation in the IETF to move towards a standards track and their may be work in the WEIRDS group. 3) Create an Issues Report and initiate a PDP that would identify the schema that registries/registrars in gTLDs and ccTLDs would adopt.
- Should there be a script tag along with a language tag? Note that the character set comes from multiple scripts so you may not be able to tell which scripts the character set is from. This issue is important for a discussion of possible changes to the Final Report. Sarmad should send information on this issue to the IRD-WG list.
Wiki Markup
- The comment talks about changing “must be present” to “may be present,” which would be permitting ASCII to the extent allowed. This is something that the Issues Report might address but this seems to be different from any of the four models. The comments seems to suggest that the local presentation is the “must be present” but then “may be present” would be if registrar or registry policy allows an ASCII version of that representation. The IRD-WG members agreed to discuss this comment further on the next call.
Thursday, 27 October 2011 (See Audiocast and Presentation)
Monday, 03 October 2011 (See Transcript and MP3)
Monday, 19 September 2011 (See Transcript and MP3)
...
- 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).
- 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).
- 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.
...
