[gnso-whoissurvey-dt] IRD Recommendations for WSWG Survey

["Berry Cobb" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

WSWG,

 

Per our call today, I'm reposting this email thread to begin dialogue about
Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) and whether it should be included
in the survey or not (Requirement #7).  ICANN staff is of the opinion that
specific survey questions should be created for the survey and perhaps focus
on the initial recommendations of the IRDWG per Steve's listing below.  The
preliminary recommendations, while not carried over into the draft Final
Report are of a technical nature and this survey is an excellent opportunity
to solicit input from the greater community.  However, ICANN has not
formulated the substance of the survey questions themselves.

 

Michael stated he will collaborate with Steve offline to better understand
the observations listed below, but it is important that we gain input from
the entire WG as well.  At our next session on 20 FEB 2012, this requirement
will be discussed specifically.

 

Please advise the team of your opinion and if you have specific questions, I
will be happy to gather them and solicit feedback from the authors of the
WHOIS Technical Requirements Inventory report and other SMEs as necessary.

 

Thank you for your attention to this important subject.  B

 

 

Berry Cobb

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

720.839.5735

 <mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

@berrycobb

 

 

 

 

From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 15:35
To: Berry Cobb; gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: More draft questions for survey 

 

Whois Survey Team, 

 

My apologies for tardiness in providing this response.  

 

I was asked to prepare draft questions in three areas.

 

First, I was asked to prepare survey questions on topic R-11 (abuse point of
contact).  Please see my draft attached.  I don't know whether the table
format in the attached is feasible.  If it is not, then I think it could be
converted fairly easily to a longer list of questions, asking respondents to
rate each option from 1-3 or 1-5.  

 

Second, I was asked to compile a list of "non-responses" that should be
offered in the survey. In general, the two that should be offered on nearly
all questions would be: 

 

---- Don't know or don't understand the question

 

--- No opinion 

 

There might be some questions for which the response "Not Applicable" should
also be offered.  

 

Third, I was asked to prepare any questions on the missing topic R-7, which
is internationalization (see pages 24-25 of the Inventory document).  Here I
offer three observations. 

 

Observation 1.  The inventory document states that "staff will coordinate
with the IRD WG to see that its recommendations are included in an updated
inventory when those recommendations are made available."  (page 24)  I'd
welcome input from staff on the status of such inclusion and how this should
affect our survey.    

 

Observation 2.  The IRD WG, in which I am a participant, issued an interim
report in November 2010 and sought public comment on two preliminary
recommendations and several optional models for internationalizing Whois
registrant data.  See
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ird/ird-wg-final-report-15nov10-en.pdf
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ird/ird-wg-final-report-15nov10-en.pdf%20at%20
pages%20ecomendationsseveral> , at pages 13-16 (models for
internationalizing data), and 21-22 (preliminary recommendations). Almost
all the comments (which are summarized at
http://forum.icann.org/lists/ird-wg-report/msg00008.html) focused on the
optional models, rather than on the preliminary recommendations.  The
preliminary recommendations are as follows.  These might well be suitable
for addressing in our survey, but I am unclear about their status.  

 

Preliminary Recommendation (1): The IRD-WG discussed a preliminary
recommendation for a
Whois service in the IDN environment:
1. WHOIS clients (both port 43 and web) must be able to accept a user query
of domain
name in either U-label or A-label format;
2. WHOIS clients must be able display result of queries in both U- and
A-label for the
domain names; and
3. Whois responses should include variants of an IDN label in the response
as well.


Preliminary Recommendation (2): The IRD-WG discussed the idea that the
domain registration
data elements should be considered separately, with specific recommendations
for how each data
element should be internationalized. The IRD-WG offers preliminary
recommendations for the
following data elements:
1. Whois services should return both A-label and U-label representation for
the given IDN
domains queried;
2. Whois services should return both A-label and U-label representations for
nameserver
names (to the extent that such information is available);
3. Whois services should always make sponsoring registrar information
available in USASCII7;
and
4. Whois services should always return the exact EPP27 status code for
Registration Status

 

Observation 3.  The IRDWG posted a draft final report last October and is
now finalizing its final report.  The recommendations in this final report
are entirely different from those in the interim report and (in my opinion )
not suitable for inclusion in this survey, as they are strictly procedural
in nature.  In draft form (and this draft has not been finally approved by
the IRDWG), they are:  

 

Recommendation 1: ICANN staff should develop, in consultation with the
community, a data model for domain registration data. The data model should
specify the elements of the registration data, the data flow, and a formal
data schema that incorporates the standards that the working group has
agreed on for internationalizing various registration data elements. This
data model should also include tagging information for language/scripts. 

 

Recommendation 2: The GNSO council and the SSAC should request a common
Issue Report on translation and transliteration of contact information. The
Issue Report should consider whether it is desirable to translate contact
information to a single common language or transliterate contact information
to a single common script. It should also consider who should bear the
burden and who is in the best position to address these issues. The Issue
Report should consider policy questions raised in this document and should
also recommend whether to start a policy development process (PDP).  

 

Recommendation 3: ICANN staff should work with the community to identify a
DNRD Access Protocol that meets the needs of internationalization, including
but not limited to the work products resulting from recommendations 1 and 2,
and the requirements enumerated in this report.  

 

Based on these observations, I am not attaching any draft questions for item
R-7.  I'd be happy to reach out to the IRDWG (or perhaps this is better done
on the staff level; I copy Julie Hedlund who staffs IRDWG) to try to get any
guidance about whether the preliminary recommendations from the interim
report are suitable for inclusion in our survey.  Perhaps we can discuss
this on our call tomorrow.  

 

Once again, my apologies that this response is overdue.  

 

Steve Metalitz

 

     

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 6:34 PM
To: gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-whoissurvey-dt] v0.2 WSWG Survey Questions Draft

WSWG,

 

Attached is the v0.2 version of the WSWG Survey Questionnaire.  The only
change from the previous version is the inclusion of Avri's Requirement
assignment.  As a result of today's meeting, submitted questions require
revision and we still require new questions from the other assignees.  

 

All questions should be submitted to Berry by 18 JAN 2012.  I will add
updates/new entries in to the master version.

 

Thank you for your participation and we meet again on 23 JAN 2012.  B

 

 

 

 

Berry Cobb

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tel: +1 720 839 5735
Skype ID: berry.cobb