[ssac-gnso-irdwg] Actions/Discussion Points: IRD-WG 12 July Meeting

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear IRD-WG members,

Below are the action items and main discussion points for the 12 July meeting 
of the IRD-WG prepared by Steve Sheng.  These also are on the wiki at: 
https://st.icann.org/int-reg-data-wg/index.cgi?internationalized_registration_data_working_group.
   Please let us know if you have any additions or questions.

Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday, 26 July at 1400 UTC, 07:00 PDT, 10:00 
EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 CEST, 22:00 Beijing, 23:00 Kyoto, 02:00 NZDT (Tues 27 
July)

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support

IRD-WG Meeting: 12 July 2010

Attendees: Rafik Dammak, Jeremy Hitchcock, Robert Hutchinson, Avri Doria, 
Jiankang Yao. Apologies: James Galvin, Steve Metaliz, Ram Mohan; Staff: Glen De 
Saint Gery, Gisella Gruber White, Steve Sheng, Dave Piscitello

Action items: Staff will prepare a report based on the slide deck from Brussels.

Summary of Main Discussion Points:

Jeremy Hitchcock first summarized the presentations he gave on behalf of the 
IRD working group at Brussels: a 10 -minute update to the GNSO council and at 
the IRD workshop. He felt that the feedback was positive for our work.

Discussion Points from Brussels Meeting Presentation (See: 
http://brussels38.icann.org/meetings/brussels2010/presentation-ird-whois-24jun10-en.pdf)

There were a couple of questions raised in Brussels. In the GNSO update, a 
question on “What PDP would come out of this?” was raised. In the IRD workshop, 
a question was raised on displaying variants in WHOIS. The working group 
discussed the variant issue. Steve Sheng first summarized the issue, that in 
some languages such as Indian and Chinese, there could be tens if not hundreds 
of variants. How should WHOIS handle these domain name variants in queries and 
in responses?

Jiankang mentioned that CNNIC use RFC 3743 (Guidelines for IDN registrations 
and Administration for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) to manage variants. In 
particular, they display two variants in the DNS zone file, and reserve the 
rest for registration purposes. He propose that instead of displaying all the 
variants, WHOIS should display only the variants that currently exists in the 
DNS zone file. Some WG members have raised the question “although variants may 
be important for localized user experience, what’s the rational for displaying 
variant in global gTLDs or registrars?”

Issues Remain to be Addressed:

The WG members discussed a set of open issues that needs to come to closure. 
The first one is “Which of these approaches of for contact information should 
we adopt?” The WG members have discussed three possible models. Which of these 
should the WG adopt as a recommendation? The second question that was raised is 
whether we treat port 43 and web based WHOIS separately and have different 
requirements. This question is related to the fact that there is more language 
support in the web based WHOIS and also the HTTP protocol is also more 
encapsulated.

Next steps in Preparing Recommendations/Implementation plan?
--Jeremy suggested we should have a report completed, including some 
recommendations by November.
--Some WG members suggested that staff should start to prepare a report on each 
of these issues, first by turning the slide deck into a working document, and 
then by using it as a way to put together recommendations for each of these 
issues.
--Other WG members suggested that staff should pull out the open issues and 
present them as agenda items for discussion at next meeting.