Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Draft matrix

[Jay Daley <jay@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Steve

Work pressures have prevented me from joining any calls recently so apologies 
if these comments seem to backtrack at all.

1. Models

I am happy with models 1 and 2 as they both seem sensible possibilities.  

Model 3 however seems unfeasable - I cannot imagine a situation where model 3 
will be the *only* model allowed, which means it effectively describes 'added 
value'.  Our focus (as with all policy groups) should be on baseline behaviour 
as there is an infinite spectrum of added value that we cannot predict.  I 
consequently won't be commenting on model 3.

It is interesting to note there are no models that push the problem to 
registries.  Is this a deliberate omission?  I would be happy if it is but I 
think the reasoning needs to be recorded.

2.  Impact to registrars
This is entirely gTLD specific.  Given the importance of ccTLDs in this 
particular arena I think that needs to be corrected.  That doesn't take too 
much work - just a note that 'most' ccTLDs also require ASCII in addition to 
the local script.

The claimed cost issues are irrelevant and can go - registrars will ultimately 
choose what to support and will do so on a cost/benefit analysis that is out of 
scope for us to go into.

3.  Impact to registries
For thin registries surely the box should say "no impact" - the whole 
definition of a thin registry is that they don't have registrant data?  I would 
say that cell B11 and B12 need to be combined into B12 and C11 moved to C12, 
leaving "no impact" in C11 and C12.

The "if a registry needs to get involved in administering a domain" in C11/C12 
hides masks the big issue.  

The gTLD model and most ccTLD models are quite clear - the registrants are 
customers of the registrar not the registry and so all interaction with them is 
through the registrar.  Every day on mailing lists I see abusive domains 
reported and almost always the only interaction from the registry is to prompt 
the registrar to do something.

I think this should say "The impact is that the registry will not be able to 
interpret the registrant information unless that have a service (internal or 
otherwise) that can translate the script/language used.  This will prevent them 
from engaging in administering a domain or from extracting detailed statistical 
information.  If may also hinder them when looking for similar data in 
different registrations for such purposes as abuse detection.  Under the 
current model of gTLDs and most ccTLDs there is no official role for the 
registry to do any of these but if such a role were to develop then this would 
prevent it."

4.  Impact to registrant
No comment.

5.  Impact to WHOIS user
Need to add lines for "non-local user receiving WHOIS display in 'official' 
language" and "non-local user receiving WHOIS display in local language".

The comment "Pose signficant challenges as Whois now in many languages that the 
local user would not understand" is not necessarily true - it depends on 
whether model 2 includes "from a restricted set that the TLD supports" or not.  
If it does then this comment is not valid. 

kind regards
Jay



On 30/03/2010, at 4:36 AM, Steve Sheng wrote:

> Dear IRD-WG, 
> 
>   Attached please find the draft matrix requested by the WG in the last call. 
> This matrix identifies three different models for registration data and the 
> impact of each model on potential stakeholders. 
> 
>   Before using this matrix for further deliberation, we want to make sure of 
> its correctness. So I feel it is important for WG members who are from (or 
> knowledgeable of) registrar, registries operations to comment on the 
> registrar and registry section;  for WG members who represent registrants’ 
> right, or users of Whois to comment the respective sections as well. 
> 
>   Last but not least, if there are additional models that needs to be 
> considered, please don’t hesitate to put them on the table. 
> 
> 
> Warmly, 
> Steve 
> 
> <matrix-draft-329.xls>


-- 
Jay Daley
Chief Executive
.nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited)
desk: +64 4 931 6977
mobile: +64 21 678840