[ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD-WG Call 08 August: Actions/Notes

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear IRD-WG members,

Here are some brief notes from today’s meeting.  The full transcript and 
recording also will be provided.    Our next call will be Monday, 22 August at 
1500 UTC/0800 PDT/1100 EDT.  The teleconference details will be sent with the 
reminder.

Best regards,

Julie

Attendees:  Scott Austin; Jim Galvin, Rafik Dammak, Sarmad Hussain, Bob 
Hutchinson, Steve Metalitz; Julie Hedlund, Steve Sheng, Dave Piscitello, 
Gisella Gruber

Actions:  Steve Sheng will send a draft report prior to the next call.  Jim and 
Sarmad will provide Devanagari and Arabic script examples.  Dave will provide 
text for the findings section (4.2) and Steve and Scott will comment.

Notes (continuing discussion of outline):

Section 4.2, Second Bullet
Question:  Language or script or language and script?  Answer:  RFC tags both 
language and script.  Sarmad:  A string could be valid in more than one script. 
 Would it be arbitrarily based on the user-selected language?  In that case it 
would be necessary to tag the language.  User could indicate language and 
script.  Jim:  The issue Sarmad is raising goes back to the discussion with 
CNIC and Andrew Sullivan at IETF.  We have a technical issue and we should 
probably say something about it with examples to show that you need both the 
language and the script.  It will be good to have examples from Jim and Sarmad 
(Devanagari and Arabic script examples, respectively). If we are asking the 
users to supply this information we should make this more clear, but it might 
be sufficient for us to observe that the data needs to be tagged in this way.  
With the additional examples, separate this into two sections for clarity.
Section 4.2, Third Bullet
Question: Change “many of the elements” to “all of the elements”?  Answer: We 
don’t have consensus on what is registration data.  There is another technical 
issue:  Not all elements have standards at this time.
Next Two Points (re: Internationalizing Contact Information: Names and 
Addresses) -- Question: Not clear what we are trying to say here?  Are we 
saying the models are out of scope?  Jim:  We were not able to come to 
consensus on the models in this group.  It is not our place to say what should 
or shouldn’t happen, although we could make a recommendation if we could come 
to consensus.   I think we need to document this discussion and we could 
observe that no consensus was forthcoming on our group or in the Public Forum.  
We could recommend that other parties could examine these issues in detail.  
(Change “options” to “model” in preceding points.)  Change the section “while 
it is not in the remit...” to note that there was some discussion in the group, 
but no final consensus.  But, is there a consensus emerging around how this 
data flows and its sourcing, we could acknowledge that we have to operate 
within the constraints of the system.  That the data is sourced by the 
registrant, the ability to enter scripts and languages is constrained by the 
registrar and registry and those policies that exist ad hoc today will probably 
exist in a future system and these are what we have to shape the policy in the 
future.  It is important to include this dialog in the final report even if 
there is no consensus to help to provide reference.  Rewrite this section an 
discuss at the next meeting.  Dave will produce some text and Steve and Scott 
will contribute.

Recommendations:  Look at the Policy Development Process and match it with the 
recommendations.  Example: “The Community needs to adopt a model...” and “The 
Community needs to develop an issues report...”  Steve will rework this section 
and ask for specific comments when the group considers the first draft of the 
final report text.