[ssac-gnso-irdwg] Relevant UPU standards
Dear IRD-WG members, As requested by Edmon, attached please find the relevant UPU standards that may be of interest to the group. Sorry for the long delay in sending the document. Warmly, Steve On 2/16/10 4:13 PM, "Julie Hedlund" <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Dear IRD-WG members, Below are the action items and main discussion points from the 15 February 2010 meeting of the IRD-WG. These also are on the wiki at: https://st.icann.org/int-reg-data-wg/index.cgi?internationalized_registration_data_working_group <https://st.icann.org/int-reg-data-wg/index.cgi?internationalized_registration_data_working_group> . Please let me know if you have any changes or questions. Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday, 01 March at 1900 UTC, 11:00 PST, 14:00 EST, 19:00 London, 20:00 CET; 02 March: 03:00 Beijing, 04:00 Japan, 08:00 New Zealand. Note: Please let us know if you plan to attend the ICANN meeting in Nairobi as we may consider holding a face-to-face meeting there, depending on the number of WG members who are present. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support Attendees: Jeremy Hitchcock, Jim Galvin, Robert Hutchinson, Yao Jiankang, and Steve Metalitz; From staff: Gisella Gruber-White, Julie Hedlund, Dave Piscitello, and Steve Sheng Actions/Discussion: During Monday's call we discussed several considerations for accommodating "internationalized" registration data. We attempted to decompose registration data into several individual and sets of data objects: 1) Domain name We have agreed that the IDN A-label and U-label encodings are sufficient and necessary and no further encodings are needed. In the call two weeks ago, WG members agreed that registrars / registries should accept both U-label and A-label queries, and return results both in U-label and A-label. In cases where there are bundled domains, querying one domain in the bundle should return all other domains in the bundle. 2) Registrar information This includes the sponsoring registrar, status, creation/update/expiration dates. WG Members on the call agreed on the following points. * This is information that is administered by the registrar (and registry); * GTLDs today largely capture this information in "English/ASCII7"; * Certain ccTLD operators display this information in local languages; * ccTLDs have their own practices and it is the hope of this WG that that the recommendations of this WG be considered by ccTLDs as well; * There is value in continuing to make this information available in English/ASCII7 for abuse reporting, especially if "sponsoring registrar" could be used to obtain an abuse point of contact via ICANN or some other list of POCs; and * This set of data objects is perhaps a good example of one that could be always available in English/ASCII7 and also published by registrar Whois using characters of a local language. 3) Telephone and fax numbers This is information for which international standards/conventions exist and these should be applied. Steve Sheng studied this a bit further and summarized the current state as follows: WG members on the call agreed to use E.123 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.123), the ITU standard for printed representation of internationalized notation for telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Web addresses as a standard to display the telephone numbers in Whois. The telephone numbers should be displayed in international notation (+31 42 123 4567). The WG did not make recommendations on how registrars should store these data, but noted that some registrars or registries may have to convert their registrant phone numbers to this format. 4) Email addresses WG members on the call thought that that the IRD should consider the IETF's work on internationalizing email address (http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/eai-charter.html). Steve Sheng, Yao Jiankang, and Jim Galvin are studying the relevant RFCs of the IETF working group on internationalized email (RFC 4952, 5335, 5336, 5337, 5504) and will report to the WG via the mailing list. 5) Contact information WG members on the call agreed on the value of treating all the data associated with a contact's real world, postal/street address as a set of data objects. They agreed that there should be no mixed scripts in the contact information. Specifically, the WG members discussed applying criteria similar to IDN label composition to data such as "street address," "post office box," "city," "state," "province," and "country." WG members discussed whether this meant that no provision would be made for also providing a "plain ASCII" version of contact information. WG members agreed that prohibiting mixed scripts did not exclude the possibility of making full contact information available in characters from a local language/script and a separate but equally full contact information in ASCII characters as well. This is a separate, ongoing discussion. Some WG members suggested that we use UTF-8 as the encoding but this needs to be discussed further. Attachment:
standards of interest.doc
|