Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Relevant UPU standards

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thanks for this, 

So one idea would be to define XML that super-setted this and was consistent 
with it to include the different fields that we would need.

a.

On 15 Mar 2010, at 09:52, Steve Sheng wrote:

> 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.
> <standards of interest.doc>