Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Preliminary approach to Brussels

[James M Galvin <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm sorry my comments are after your Thursday deadline, and I'm sorry I 
have a conflict for this week's meeting.
I have one issue with what you drafted here.  Perhaps it's just me but 
I've reviewed this several times and it is not apparent to me how you 
are going to be presenting the 4 models we've discussed.  I also do not 
believe we have consensus regarding the status of these 4 models.
Perhaps when I see the actual presentation you'll be using my concern 
will be addressed.
I don't think I disagree with anything you've proposed here, as long as 
the discussion of our 4 models is not yet closed.
Are we still in discussion?

Thanks,

Jim



-- On May 27, 2010 11:11:12 AM -0700 Steve Sheng 
<steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote regarding [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Preliminary 
approach to Brussels --
> Dear IRD-WG,
>
> The action item from Monday’s meeting was for staff to provide a
> suggested preliminary approach for your consideration based on the
> many weeks of Working Group discussion, both during meetings and on
> the list.  Please note that there will be a public session of the
> IRD-WG in Brussels and we would like to be able to prepare some brief
> slides outlining a possible preliminary approach to encourage
> discussion at the session.  Your input on the following suggestions
> will help us to develop a preliminary approach for Brussels.  It is
> important that we get input from all Working Group members so we
> welcome and encourage your comments.  Please respond by Thursday, 03
> June so that we can collect all comments for discussion at our
> meeting on Monday, 09 June, at 1400 UTC.  Thank you for your
> assistance.”
>
>
> Warmly,
> Steve
>
>
> Possible Preliminary Approach for Working Group Consideration:
>
> 1.    What should we require of the WHOIS service in the IDN
> environment?
>
>
> 1) WHOIS clients must be able to accept a user query of domain name
> in either U- or A-label format; 2) WHOIS clients must be able display
> result of queries in a) in both in U- and A-label for the domain
> names; and 3) Bundled representations (e.g. both the simplified and
> traditional Chinese) of a single A or U-label query should be
> returned.
>
>
> 2.    What do we require from internationalized registration data to
> accommodate users who want to submit and have registration data
> displayed in “familiar” characters from local scripts?
>
>
> The various elements of registration data could be separately
> internationalized and dealt with as follows:
>
> a) Domain names (RAA 3.3.1.1): WHOIS services should return both
> A-label and U-label representation for the given IDN domains queried.
> b) Name server names (RAA 3.3.1.2): Currently all of them are in
> US-ASCII. However, with internationalized domain names, it is
> possible that some will publish their name servers in IDN. Note —
> the Working Group has not discussed this issue. Suggested approaches
> are welcome.
> c) Sponsoring Registrar (RAA 3.3.1.3): Make available in ASCII to aid
> investigation purposes of law enforcements.
> d) Telephone/Fax (RAA 3.3.1.7,8): Apply the UPU E. 123 standard using
> the international notation (+31 42 123 4567).
> e) Email address (RAA 3.3.1.7,8): Use RFC 5335 as a basis.
> f) Dates (RAA 3.3.1.4,5) Include creation date, expiration date, and
> update date of the domain. Note -- the Working Group has not
> discussed the internationalization of this field.  Suggested
> approaches are welcome.
> g) Registration Status: Registrars and registries often provide the
> status of the registration. For example client-hold, delete
> prohibited, update prohibited, etc. Note -- the Working Group has not
> discussed the internationalization of this field.  The following are
> approaches to consider.  Please indicate which approach you prefer or
> you are welcome to suggest alternative approaches.
>   1) leave it in ASCII 7;
>   2) always publish the exact EPP status code and leave it to the
> clients to decide whether to localize or not;
>   3) identify a more easily understood representation (for the
> mandatory character set); or
>   4) publish the easily understood representation in mandatory and
> local character sets.
> h) Entity names (RAA 3.3.1.6,7,8) (registrant, admin contact,
> technical contact) and Postal addresses (RAA 3.3.1.6,7,8)
> 1)Registrants submit in a “must be present” language to WHOIS; 2)
> registrants have the option to submit in a local script; 3)
> registrars must provide backwards compatibility for Port 43 when
> necessary.