Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Version 2 of the Draft Final Report

[Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Steve for your helpful comments, see my responses below.


On 9/27/11 7:22 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx> wrote:

The report seems to be in good shape, but I have a couple of comments.

First, regarding "transcription":  I was quite surprised to see that what I 
have always considered to be "transliteration" is defined in an RFC as 
"transcription."  So making this change may be technically accurate, but will 
likely be extremely confusing to nearly all readers of the document.  In fact, 
it may not even be technically accurate, since the RFC definition of 
transcription refers to "spoken language."  In any case, I would opt for 
readability and continue to refer to transliteration, perhaps with a footnote 
referencing the RFC definition of "transcription."

[steve sheng] I am ok with this, what do others think?


Second, and as a recurring illustration of how difficult it can be to apply 
these different concepts, in section 4.3 (page 17 of the redline) I don't think 
it is accurate to describe the issue of محمد (the "commonly used name in Arabic 
script") as a matter of translation.  None of the examples given beginning with 
"Mohammed" is a translation of محمد .  All are transliterations.

[steve sheng] I have checked this point with Sarmad when he is in LA last week, 
he said that it would be both translation and transliteration. So I would use 
translation/transliteration in the document regarding this example.


Third, regarding variants, I don't feel competent to evaluate Edmond's 
suggested recommendations.  Sarmad, are you suggesting that we not address this 
topic in the working group's report, or that we append to the text Edmond has 
drafted something along the lines of "there needs to be a more open debate on 
this, involving all stake holders including the various language communities 
and other constituencies (e.g. ccNSO)"?

[steve sheng] I think this is an excellent suggestion, what do others think?


Fourth, I have briefly reviewed John Klensin's comments and wonder if we should 
discuss whether to take any of his general comments on board.  Or should we 
issue the report and invite further comments from John and from the rest of the 
community?

[steve sheng] For the moment,  I should at least address John’s editorial 
comments to make the document technically correct. I will also go through 
John’s comment in great detail today and see how we can address them.


Steve, thanks for all your work on this.

Steve Metalitz


________________________________
From: owner-ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Steve Sheng
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 9:20 PM
To: ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Version 2 of the Draft Final Report

See Sarmad’s email.

Steve
------ Forwarded Message
From: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 07:32:18 -0700
To: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Version 2 of the Draft Final Report

Dear Steve,

Thanks for the report, which looks very good.  The recommendations are all 
reasonable.

On a separate note, in a recent meeting of the Arabic Script Variant Issues 
Project team meeting, we had a reasonably extensive discussion on variants and 
concluded that there are possibly multiple states including: allocated, 
reserved, blocked and activated.

How the WHOIS information is tied to such variant labels is an interesting 
debate (e.g. the Arabic VIP team came up with a slightly different approach 
from what IRD-WG is suggesting).  It is perhaps better to have a more open 
debate on this, involving all stake holders including the various language 
communities and other constituencies (e.g. ccNSO).  As we discussed, the final 
solution will also depend on how variants will eventually resolve (e.g. through 
delegation, DNAME like mechanism or some other way).


Regards,
Sarmad



From: owner-ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Steve Sheng
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:50 PM
To: Steve Sheng; ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Version 2 of the Draft Final Report

Dear IRD-WG,

  Thank you all for the latest round of feedback as well as detailed 
discussions on the phone calls, attached please find a revised version of the 
draft final report as well as a redline version (as compared with version 1). 
Changes from version 1 are:

  - reworded recommendations as discussed on the phone call.
  - cleaned up the document
  - addressed most of Avri’s comments
  - revised the translation and transliteration section.
  - provided more text on section 3.4.
  - added some text about transcription, along with translation and 
transliteration.

 At the direction of the chairs, this document is now in last call status, WG 
members are encouraged to provide comments by close of business September 27 
everywhere.

 Also as agreed two calls ago, I have circulated this report to IETF IDN expert 
John Klensin for his comments.

 Finally, on the last phone call, there are two issues raised:

 1) whether to add some text about transcription. - I think Jim and Avri think 
this should be added. I have also recommended this to make the document 
technically correct. If others have a different opinion, would encourage you to 
raise it now.

 2) whether to include texts on variants, Edmon suggested yes and to include 
the following text (from interim report), but would need more opinion from the 
WG, is there any support or objection to include the following text from the 
interim report into section 4.2 under domain names?  Your opinion is greatly 
appreciated:

The IRD-WG members discussed the issue of how to query and display variants 
extensively.  They provide the following observations:

·   There is no uniform definition of variant. Different organizations and 
different countries define it differently. However, in general, variants can be 
categorized as activated variants and reserved variants. Activated variants are 
variants of a domain name that are put in the corresponding DNS zone file, thus 
resolvable through normal DNS lookups. Reserved variants are variants reserved 
for a specific domain name and cannot be registered, but are otherwise not in 
the DNS zone file.
•   IRD-WG members noted that it is outside the scope of the IRD-WG to define 
variants or discuss how different languages handle variants. Rather, the IRD-WG 
use the categories as they are generallly defined (activated vs. reserved).
•   The IRD-WG members agree that a Whois service query of an activated variant 
should return the domain of which it is a variant in its response, as well as 
an indication that the label queried is a variant of the original domain. The 
IRD-WG members agree that this should be consistent across Whois services.
•   The IRD-WG members also agree that defining a Whois service query of a 
reserved variant returns is a matter of local policy. The IRD-WG has identified 
two options: A query of a reserved variant for XYZ domain should return a 
message saying that this variant is a reserved variant of XYZ domain or 
(alternatively) a query of a reserved variant should return the same 
information as the query for an activated variant. The WG further agreed that 
having the Whois service response provide a link to the registrar/registries’ 
variant policy would be helpful.



Kind regards,
Steve






On 9/8/11 11:13 PM, "Steve Sheng" <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear IRD-WG,

  Thanks for those who have provided comments to this report, attached please 
find version 1 of the draft final report. (apologies for sending it late).

 Changes from version 0:

  - reorganize the findings section to make it flow better
  - added additional discussions about translation and transliteration.
  - added text where necessary.
  - addressed some editor notes.

 For your reference, I have also included a redline version compared with 
version 00.

Kind regards,
Steve


------ End of Forwarded Message