Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] proposed new structure and recommendations for final report

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

Thank you for this detailed proposal Jim. I will probably not be able to join 
today's call but will comment on list. 

Steve Metalitz

Sent from my iPhone

On May 15, 2011, at 6:20 PM, "James M Galvin" <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> We are meeting on Monday, 16 May, at 1500 UTC.  Our last two
> meetings have been cancelled due to lack of participation.  However,
> it is important that we move forward and seek closure on our work in
> this group.
> 
> I am going to propose a path to closure in this message.  It
> represents my understanding of our last meeting on 18 April
> (transcript has been available for some time), our public meeting
> during ICANN San Francisco (transcript has been available for some
> time), and a few private conversations I have had since and between
> those two meetings.
> 
> I am submitting this proposal as an individual.  I welcome
> discussion on its merits and completeness both in the meeting on 16
> May and on this mailing list.
> 
> Speaking as co-Chair, I am going to press to move forward with this
> plan, incorporating feedback and suggestions from our discussion in
> our next meeting on 16 May as well as any future discussions in
> meetings and on this mailing list.  I will interpret silence as
> agreement with this plan and its evolution.
> 
> In the rest of this message I am speaking as an individual.
> 
> As a reminder, the mission of this working group is as follows:
> 
> The IRD-WG shall study the feasibility and suitability of
> introducing display specifications to deal with the
> internationalization of Registration Data.
> 
> In our interim report we have evolved 4 models and we sought
> community input on the efficacy of the those models.  We did get a
> few well reasoned comments but it is fair to say that we did not
> receive anything close to a community consensus on how to choose
> between the models.  I would like to propose something different
> than choosing between the 4 models, which we discussed during our
> last meeting.
> 
> In my opinion, the models are trying to address the problem of
> executing translation and transliteration.  Model 1 is status quo,
> i.e., we stick with the system we have and require US-ASCII to be
> present at all times.  The other models distribute the translation
> and transliteration services in various ways.  I do not think we
> need to solve this problem.  I think we identify this as the problem
> that needs further study.
> 
> Specifically, I suggest the outline below for our final report.
> This is an expanded outline insofar as I try to say a bit about what
> I would expect to be in each section.  It is probably not explained
> as well as it could be but I do hope it gets the point across.  I
> did not want to make this message any longer than it already is.  I
> also was not trying to write the report since I do want some
> discussion about this approach first.
> 
> The model for the outline is we state what we have, we make some
> observations about what we have, and we propose further
> study of a few specific issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. INTRODUCTION - Mostly boilerplate information including problem
> statement and details about the formation of this group.  We can
> re-purpose a great deal of what is in the interim report.
> 
> 2. BACKGROUND - This should include all the facts we need to support
> our findings.  Most of this is in our interim report.
> 
> a. what we know various registrars and registries are doing today to
> support the display of internationalizes data.
> 
> b. what we know about the existing WHOIS protocol.
> 
> c. what we know about the definition of registration data.
> 
> d. what we know about where different registration data elements are
> collected, stored, managed, and displayed.
> 
> 3. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS - This could be a part of the background
> information but my current thinking is that it is better to elevate
> to a major section.  In this section we summarize all the
> international standards and standard practices that exist for
> internationalizing the various elements of existing registration
> data.  Most of this is in our interim report.
> 
> 4. FINDINGS - In this section we list the conclusions we can draw
> from all the facts stated previously.
> 
> a. WHOIS is insufficient.  It has no structure and hence no method
> of signaling encodings.
> 
> a.1. Registration data has multiple purposes and
> internationalization requirements are different depending on the
> purpose.  To the extent the data is already represented in XML,
> e.g., within EPP between registrars and registries,
> internationalization is primarily ensuring the data is properly
> tagged with the script that is in use.
> 
> a.2. The lack of structure in WHOIS excludes any signaling
> mechanism, thus the data can not be correctly tagged and further it
> can not be correctly displayed.
> 
> a.3. There are recognized standards for internationalizing many of
> the elements of registration data but in many cases the data would
> need to be translated or tranliterated for use with the current
> WHOIS.
> 
> b. Registrants are monolingual.  This is intended to highlight the
> problem of who does the translation or transliteration and what it
> means to responsibility for quality and compliance.
> 
> c. Quality of data is not a well defined phrase.  Registrants are
> expected to provide high quality data but can it be verified?  Even
> if could what happens to the quality after translation and
> transliteration and who is responsible for that?
> 
> d. Registration data is itself undefined.  WHOIS services do vary.
> WHOIS requirements vary between registrars and registrants as
> evidenced by the contracts.
> 
> 4. RECOMMENDATIONS
> 
> a. Seek a plan to define registration data, who collects it, who
> stores it, who is responsible for it, and specify its purpose.
> 
> b. Seek a plan to replace WHOIS.  In other words, although the data
> can probably be internationalized, displaying it is problematic with
> the current system.  This study would need to consider if
> registration data should be translated or transliterated, who should
> do it, what it means to the overall registration data
> infrastructure, and what it means to the quality of the data.
> 
> c. As an interim solution, given the continued use of WHOIS, as much
> as possible, all parties in the lifecyle of the registration data
> should adopt the international standards noted above for
> registration data elements wherever they can.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jim
> 
>