Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] what do we require from IRD? Question (1c)

[Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jay,

If this sentiment is shared by everyone in the working group then I believe
it is imperative that we capture what you've said here and put it out for
public comment. I imagine we will see strong criticism (and I do not doubt
that you anticipate this).

In parallel, I'm very interested in hearing comments from the working group
regarding my strawman analysis of what data associated with a registration
might be represented in ASCII only, what data might be "localized", what
this division implies for registrants/users, and what obligations fall upon
registrars and registries. I think your original taxonomy and these two
emails call attention to two of the most critical issues we need to
consider.

Thanks,

Dave


On 1/13/10 6:03 PM  Jan 13, 2010, "Jay Daley" <jay@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Consider C as the set of TLDs {C1, C2, ...Cn}, data in script {S1, S2,
>> ...Sn}, etc. While there is admittedly duplication, don't we end up with the
>> Babel scenario?
>> 
>> Law enforcement, IP, and other businesses that automate/make use of Whois
>> are likely to be interested in a lingua franca, right? So would these
>> parties say that this alternative satisfies the needs of a local community
>> at the expense (and considerable risk) to the global community?
> 
> The reality of the world we live is in that there is no lingua franca and we
> should not fall into the trap of believing there is one.  We already have the
> Babel scenario and cannot get away from that.  In domain names by our use of
> ASCII we have not created a lingua france but simply excluded those people who
> do not use it.  That is a state of affairs that cannot continue.
> 
> To be accurate, there are two Babel scenarios that need to be separated out.
> 
> - the first is where different self-contained groups have there own languages
> and scripts which are used within a *local context*.  Some people
> speak/read/write more than one language/script for communications with others
> outside of that local context.
> 
> - the second is where multiple languages scripts are used outside of the local
> context and communications breaks down.
> 
> My suggestions above have all been about recognising the first scenario and
> trying to avoid the second.
> 
> That leads onto the point about law enforcement, IPR etc.  It is in my view,
> entirely unreasonable for us to insist that all registration data be
> duplicated in ASCII for English speaking law enforcement and law firms to be
> able to use it.  That would exclude all those law enforcement officers and law
> firms that do not read ASCII or speak English.
> 
> The alternative, where we expect registration data in every language is
> clearly absurd, so we are left with the scenario where some registration data
> can only be understood in the local context, which mirrors the real world.
> 
> The argument that "all registration data is currently in ASCII and so readable
> by law enforcement, IPR concerns etc and we can't lose that" is completely
> bogus.  We only have that situation because a lot of people have been excluded
> and we cannot continue that way.