[ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD-WG Call 1 August: Actions/Notes

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

All,

Here are some brief notes from today’s meeting.  The full transcript and 
recording also will be provided.

Our next call will be Monday, 08 August at 1500 UTC/0800 PDT/1100 EDT.  The 
teleconference details will be sent with the reminder.

Best regards,

Julie

Attendees:  Scott Austin; Avri Doria, Jim Galvin, Bob Hutchinson, Steve 
Metalitz; Julie Hedlund, Steve Sheng, Dave Piscitello, Glen de Saint-Gery

Actions:  Steve Sheng will begin work on writing the report based on comments 
on the outline received through section 4.1.  WG members should provide any 
text they think is missing and should be included.

Notes (continuing discussion of outline from 2.3):

2.3 — Current Practices:  2nd bullet point -- add practices by other 
registries.  Reword to “to support Internationalized Data many registries 
currently support UTF8.”  We should be able to give some examples of what we do 
know is being used.  Combine second and third bullet in some fashion, but 
eliminate the 2nd bullet as it is currently written.  4th bullet:  Say that 
registries whose business targets countries with internationalized languages 
requiring greater than ASCII 7 support have acquired a way to do this.  Add 
either to the 1st bullet point to after the 4th bullet point.

Section 3 — International Standards: This section is included to show that 
there are some recognized standards, although we don’t have a finding or 
recommendation that speaks to this issue.  Make a note to add it.  We need to 
speak to the issue that the reason we are including these references is because 
they are useful to use for the data elements.  This group could recommend that 
where data elements can take advantage of these standards they should do so.

Section 4 — Findings
4.1: Second to last bullet is not complete.  Last bullet:  What does it mean?  
We are trying not to get bogged down in other options, such as intellectual 
property interests.  The main point is that registration data serves purposes 
other than the life cycle of a domain name.  The focus for this report should 
just be the suitability and feasibility of displaying the data and not the uses 
of the data.  However, we don’t specifically state the purpose of the data, 
which is an interesting point.  It is hard to make a finding about the 
suitability and feasibility without speaking to the uses.  We are not 
comprehensively trying to survey all of the uses, but the preceding paragraph 
makes the point that for some uses for WHOIS data there are issues with 
internationalized registration data.  There is a need for some clarity here.  
The last bullet is probably an overstatement.  We could reference some of the 
other work that we know has existed.  We should stay away from the policy 
discussions and find a neutral expression to avoid a subjective evaluation of 
the validity of an outcome.  Separate out the notion of abuse.  We have noted 
that registrants are monolingual, which leads us to translation and 
transliteration, but it is not possible for this group to answer that question 
since it is a policy question and therefore is out of scope.  Action:  Include 
the discussions on the burdens associated with suitability and feasibility of 
display for background — how the WG explored the issue.
4.2 --- Re: First paragraph Port 43:  Note Steve Metalitz’s comment that 
perhaps the solutions could be described.  Also, when you go into “must be 
present” script that seems to go into the area of policy.  For the tagging — 
who will have to deal with this?  Probably all parties at some level.   Note 
that ccTLD registries probably would not have consistent policies and 
requirements.  Need to revisit the issue of how to word this.  Concerning the 
policy questions on page 8, these seem terse and should probably be filled out 
with additional explanatory text.