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

[Jay Daley <jay@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 14/01/2010, at 3:52 AM, Dave Piscitello wrote:

> 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.

That is the topic of the previous thread.

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

I think you have found a missing element in my list and the list should be 

        domain names
        registrar
        entity names
        postal addresses
        email addresses
        telephone numbers

I say this because 
1) some ccTLDs have different or additional contacts from the list above and 
the gTLD data may change so best not to break it down into the different 
contacts.
2) The registrar is clearly a special case.  It may be represented by a code 
that is then cross-referenced against a different list.

> 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.

I would contend that any character set is machine readable, but what matters 
here is human readable.

> 
> 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.

Very good question.  It probably requires a dual code/name display for 
registrars, one in a standard character set and one in the local language set.

> - postal addresses
> 
> We could adhere to the conventions the UPU establishes or choose our own.

I would so strongly recommend we do not establish our own.

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

I was thinking of something more up to date - RFC 4952 + RFC 5336.  Any takers?

> 
> - telephone numbers
> 
> We could adhere to ITU telephony conventions or choose our own.

The ITU telephony convention is ubiquitous.  Can we also declare this one 
solved by reference to E.123 internationalised notation for telephone numbers?  
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.123)

regards
Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
Chief Executive
.nz Registry Services
desk: +64 4 931 6977
mobile: +64 21 678840