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

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jim,

Thanks for your comments.  I thought we decided at the last meeting to pull
together one model as a preliminary approach from the elements of the 4
models that seemed to have a possibility of consensus.  That is what we have
tried to do here.  Does that seem acceptable to you?  I apologize if we were
not clear in what we were suggesting.

We'll discuss this on today's call too and I'll be sure to capture the
discussion in the notes that I will send out to the group.

Thanks again,

Julie


On 6/6/10 8:34 PM, "Jim Galvin" <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 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 Monday¹s 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.²
>> 
>> 
>> 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 ³familiar² 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 ³must be present² 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>