Versions Compared

Old Version 11

changes.mady.by.user Julie Hedlund

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Brian Martin

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 Internationalized Registration Data Working Group.

Monday, 16 May 2011 1500 UTC (See "MP3",http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ird-20110516-en.mp3Image Removed>)

...

Next Meeting: TBD

Monday, 28 November 2011 (See Transcript and MP3)

Monday, 21 November 2011 (See Transcript and MP3)

Attendees:  Avri Doria, Sarmad Hussain, Bob Hutchinson, Steve Metalitz, Owen Smigelski; apologies: Jim Galvin; Julie Hedlund, Nathalie Peregrine, Dave Piscitello, Steve Sheng

Actions:

1.  Sarmad will post to the list his thoughts on a script tag.
2. The IRD-WG will produce a response concerning the comments received on the IRD-WG draft Final Report for staff to include in the Summary & Analysis Report.

Brief Notes on Public Comments:
1. ALAC Statement on the Draft Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group <http://forum.icann.org/lists/ird-draft-final-report/msg00003.html>

  • The Summary & Analysis Report should note the ALAC’s support for the IRD-WG draft Final Report recommendations.  
  • What about the reference to the RAA?  What they are saying is that they are supportive of this kind of effort.  
  • The Analysis should just thank and acknowledge their support.

2. INTA Internet Committee, Domain Disputes and Whois Subcommittee <http://forum.icann.org/lists/ird-draft-final-report/msg00002.html>  Claudio Di Gangi

  • 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.

3.  [weirds] Internationalized Registration Data <http://forum.icann.org/lists/ird-draft-final-report/msg00000.html>  Alessandro Vesely

  • 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)

Monday, 12 September 2011 (See Transcript, MP3, and Final Report Draft v1 08 Sept 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.

Monday, 08 August 2011 (See Transcript and MP3)

Attendees:  Scott Austin; Jim Galvin, Rafik Dammak, Sarmad Hussain, Bob Hutchinson, Steve Metalitz; Julie Hedlund, Steve Sheng, Dave Piscitello, Gisella Gruber

Actions:  Steve Sheng will send a draft report prior to the next call.  Jim and Sarmad will provide Devanagari and Arabic script examples.  Dave will provide text for the findings section (4.2) and Steve and Scott will comment.

Notes (continuing discussion of outline):

Section 4.2, Second Bullet
Question:  Language or script or language and script?  Answer:  RFC tags both language and script.  Sarmad:  A string could be valid in more than one script.  Would it be arbitrarily based on the user-selected language?  In that case it would be necessary to tag the language.  User could indicate language and script.  Jim:  The issue Sarmad is raising goes back to the discussion with CNIC and Andrew Sullivan at IETF.  We have a technical issue and we should probably say something about it with examples to show that you need both the language and the script.  It will be good to have examples from Jim and Sarmad (Devanagari and Arabic script examples, respectively). If we are asking the users to supply this information we should make this more clear, but it might be sufficient for us to observe that the data needs to be tagged in this way.  With the additional examples, separate this into two sections for clarity.
Section 4.2, Third Bullet
Question: Change “many of the elements” to “all of the elements”?  Answer: We don’t have consensus on what is registration data.  There is another technical issue:  Not all elements have standards at this time.
Next Two Points (re: Internationalizing Contact Information: Names and Addresses) -- Question: Not clear what we are trying to say here?  Are we saying the models are out of scope?  Jim:  We were not able to come to consensus on the models in this group.  It is not our place to say what should or shouldn’t happen, although we could make a recommendation if we could come to consensus.   I think we need to document this discussion and we could observe that no consensus was forthcoming on our group or in the Public Forum.  We could recommend that other parties could examine these issues in detail.  (Change “options” to “model” in preceding points.)  Change the section “while it is not in the remit...” to note that there was some discussion in the group, but no final consensus.  But, is there a consensus emerging around how this data flows and its sourcing, we could acknowledge that we have to operate within the constraints of the system.  That the data is sourced by the registrant, the ability to enter scripts and languages is constrained by the registrar and registry and those policies that exist ad hoc today will probably exist in a future system and these are what we have to shape the policy in the future.  It is important to include this dialog in the final report even if there is no consensus to help to provide reference.  Rewrite this section an discuss at the next meeting.  Dave will produce some text and Steve and Scott will contribute.

Recommendations:  Look at the Policy Development Process and match it with the recommendations.  Example: “The Community needs to adopt a model...” and “The Community needs to develop an issues report...”  Steve will rework this section and ask for specific comments when the group considers the first draft of the final report text.

Monday, 01 August 2011 (See Transcript and MP3)

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

Actions:  Steve Sheng will begin work on writing the report based on comments on the outline received through section 4.1.  WG members should provide any text they think is missing and should be included.

Notes (continuing discussion of outline from 2.3):

2.3 — Current Practices:  2nd bullet point -- add practices by other registries.  Reword to “to support Internationalized Data many registries currently support UTF8.”  We should be able to give some examples of what we do know is being used.  Combine second and third bullet in some fashion, but eliminate the 2nd bullet as it is currently written.  4th bullet:  Say that registries whose business targets countries with internationalized languages requiring greater than ASCII 7 support have acquired a way to do this.  Add either to the 1st bullet point to after the 4th bullet point.

Section 3 — International Standards: This section is included to show that there are some recognized standards, although we don’t have a finding or recommendation that speaks to this issue.  Make a note to add it.  We need to speak to the issue that the reason we are including these references is because they are useful to use for the data elements.  This group could recommend that where data elements can take advantage of these standards they should do so.

Section 4 — Findings
4.1: Second to last bullet is not complete.  Last bullet:  What does it mean?  We are trying not to get bogged down in other options, such as intellectual property interests.  The main point is that registration data serves purposes other than the life cycle of a domain name.  The focus for this report should just be the suitability and feasibility of displaying the data and not the uses of the data.  However, we don’t specifically state the purpose of the data, which is an interesting point.  It is hard to make a finding about the suitability and feasibility without speaking to the uses.  We are not comprehensively trying to survey all of the uses, but the preceding paragraph makes the point that for some uses for WHOIS data there are issues with internationalized registration data.  There is a need for some clarity here.  The last bullet is probably an overstatement.  We could reference some of the other work that we know has existed.  We should stay away from the policy discussions and find a neutral expression to avoid a subjective evaluation of the validity of an outcome.  Separate out the notion of abuse.  We have noted that registrants are monolingual, which leads us to translation and transliteration, but it is not possible for this group to answer that question since it is a policy question and therefore is out of scope.  Action:  Include the discussions on the burdens associated with suitability and feasibility of display for background — how the WG explored the issue.
4.2 --- Re: First paragraph Port 43:  Note Steve Metalitz’s comment that perhaps the solutions could be described.  Also, when you go into “must be present” script that seems to go into the area of policy.  For the tagging — who will have to deal with this?  Probably all parties at some level.   Note that ccTLD registries probably would not have consistent policies and requirements.  Need to revisit the issue of how to word this.  Concerning the policy questions on page 8, these seem terse and should probably be filled out with additional explanatory text.

Monday, 25 July 2011 (See TRANSCRIPT and MP3)

Actions: WG members review the revised draft extended outline and provide comments prior to the next meeting.

Notes:

General questions/suggestions:  

  1. Do we want to make a recommendation related to policy?  In particular, do we want to say that it would be good to have uniformity between ccTLDs and gTLDs? (See text provided by Steve Metalitz)
  2. Suggest throughout the document that we speak about WHOIS services independent of ccTLD or gTLD — just focus on service requirements.  The distinction should be left to the reader.  Question: How can we speak to ccTLD practices if we don’t know what they are?  Jim will offer some suggestions for Steve S.

Suggestions for each Section:
1.1 — Objectives and Goals: how do the recommendations tie to the two objectives — suitability and feasibility?
2.1 — Addresses — change to postal address and add email address at the end.
2.2 — Add the distinction on the second bullet relating to “thin” registries.  Describe also where each is collected and stored.  Delete “managed” from the header for section 2.2.  The response should say “data elements are stored here, collected here, etc.”  

Monday, 13 June 2011 (CANCELLED)

Monday, 30 May 2011 (CANCELLED)

Monday, 16 May 2011 1500 UTC (See MP3)

Attendees: Jim Galvin, Chair; Steve Austin, Avri Doria, Rafik Dammak, Sarmad Hussain, Bob Hutchinson, and Jiankang Yao; Staff: Julie Hedlund, Dave Piscitello, and Steve Sheng

Apologies: Steve Metalitz

...