ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[ssac-gnso-irdwg]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Open discussion: what do we require from IRD?

  • To: Jay Daley <jay@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Open discussion: what do we require from IRD?
  • From: Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:52:19 -0800




On 1/6/10 4:23 PM  Jan 6, 2010, "Jay Daley" <jay@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Dave
> 
> On 7/01/2010, at 6:20 AM, Dave Piscitello wrote:
> 
>> 1) What do we require from internationalized registration data?
>>   b) that registration data be extensible to accommodate users
>>      who would benefit from the ability to submit and have registration
>>      information displayed in "familiar" characters from local
>>      languages and scripts?
> 
> We need to be clear on the distinction between the various elements of
> registration data that could be separately internationalised:
> 
> - domain names
> - entity names
> - postal addresses
> - email addresses
> - telephone numbers
> 
> The questions we ask need to address these elements individually.

Agree. Let's consider these separately

- domain names

Standards exist for representation of domain names in U- and A-labels. These
are sufficient and I don't think it's in our scope to suggest change here.

- entity names

Let's break this into two sub-groups:
  {sponsoring registrar} and
  {registrant, admin contact name, tech contact name}

In earlier discussions, it's been proposed that the sponsoring registrar
name should always be displayed in machine-readable form (meaning, US-ASCII7
subset of the Latin-1 character set). The rationale offered for this is that
applications and automation use the sponsoring registrar as a search element
in databases of registrar contacts and that these are largely ASCII encoded.

This begs the question of whether, in the future, ICANN would accredit a
company whose entity name makes use of extended character sets as a
registrar, but I felt it useful to share the concern with the group.

- postal addresses

We could adhere to the conventions the UPU establishes or choose our own.

- email addresses

We could adhere to RFC822-MIME conventions or choose our own.

- telephone numbers

We could adhere to ITU telephony conventions or choose our own.

Other ideas?





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy