[ssac-gnso-irdwg] For Today's Call: Preliminary approach for Brussels

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear IRD-WG members,

For today’s call at 1400 UTC I would like to suggest that we discuss the 
following possible preliminary approach.  As a reminder from our last call, 
this was an attempt to pull together the elements where there was perhaps some 
possibility of consensus and also those from the 4 models that the WG members 
have discussing into one possible approach.  We are preparing to have a 
presentation at the public session of our IRD-WG meeting at the ICANN meeting 
in Brussels and we would like to see if there is a single possible approach 
that we could present for discussion.

Thank you and I look forward to speaking with you on the call today.

Best regards,

Julie

------ Forwarded Message
From: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 11:11:12 -0700
To: Ird <ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [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.




------ End of Forwarded Message