[ssac-gnso-irdwg] RE: Version 2 of the Draft Final Report - suggested staff edit of Recommendation #2

[Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

I would like to propose a slight modification to Recommendation 2 in your draft 
Final Report, v. 2 regarding the request for an Issue Report (the Issue Report 
is a preliminary report that staff writes, which typically is the first step to 
launching a Policy Development Process (PDP)).  Over the last months, a GNSO 
Work Team has been updating the GNSO Policy Development Process to include 
additional fact-finding before the typical "Issue Report" would be requested of 
Staff.  The rationale for conducting fact finding before preparation of an 
Issue Report is to help assure that there is sufficient information available 
upon which staff can base the determinations and other content typically 
addressed in an Issue Report.  In this case, fact finding could take the form 
of a Request for Information to ask the community questions about "whether it 
is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or 
transliterate contact information to a single common script". An RFI could also 
ask the community to provide their insights and viewpoints about "who should 
bear the burden and who is in the best position to address these issues."  
Another means of fact-finding in addition to (or in lieu of) a possible RFI 
approach might be to develop and plan a workshop, for example in Costa Rica, to 
delve into these questions, and expand the documented record of these issues 
prior to moving to the Issue Report stage.  My concern about Recommendation 2 
as written, is that it would be very difficult for staff to prepare an informed 
Issue Report on the topics requested, without additional information.

Here is the current language and a modest proposal to change it:

Current:

Recommendation 2: The GNSO council and SSAC should request a common issues 
report on translation, transliteration or transcription of contact information. 
The issues report should consider whether it is desirable to translate contact 
information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to 
a single common script. It should also consider who should bear the burden and 
who is in the best position to address these issues. The report should consider 
policy questions raised in this document and should also recommend whether to 
start a policy development process (PDP).

Proposed:

Recommendation 2: The GNSO council and SSAC should coordinate the planning of a 
series of fact-finding steps that could lead to an Issues Report on the 
translation, transliteration or transcription of gTLD Whois contact 
information. Fact-finding should consider whether it is desirable to translate 
contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact 
information to a single common script. It should also consider who should bear 
the burden and who is in the best position to address these issues. Following 
this fact-finding, the GNSO and SSAC should consider whether an Issue Report 
should be requested to consider policy questions raised in the IRD Working 
Group Final Report and to recommend whether to start a policy development 
process (PDP).

Please feel free to modify the language, it's just a draft, but the crux of the 
proposed revision is a desire to make sure that staff has the information upon 
which to prepare an Issue Report before one is requested.

Thanks so much for considering.

Best, Liz Gasster

Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN


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