[ssac-gnso-irdwg] V3 of the Report
Dear IRD-WG members, Thank you for the latest round of comments, especially from Sarmad, Steve and John Klesin. I have gone through the document and address them, attached please find version 3. The major changes are: 1) tighten up the terminology section to make it technically more accurate. Thanks to Sarmad and John Klensin. I have also reached out to Patrik Falstrom (IDNA author) and Andrew Sullivan regarding the definition of IDNs, U-label and A-label, and I expect those to be resolved shortly. 2) added references to SAC 051, EPP, and current EAI drafts. 3) Revised the section on translation and transliteration per Sarmad’s comments. 4) Leave the transcription out for the moment. I have been going back and forth on this (as it clearly showed my lack of expertise on this). I sought some guidance from John Klensin on this matter and he said “In usual usage, transcription technically has to with reducing something presented orally. For example, transcription is what occurs during ICANN plenary sessions. Transliteration usually involves a mapping between written forms, one script to another. So Chinese Hanzi to Pinyin would normally be transliteration. Things get complicated because Pinyin is a phonetic form that was, at least in theory, developed directly from the spoken language not equivalences among letter forms; transliteration is usually a mapping from one alphabetic-phonetic script to another, using a character by character mapping table. I'd still contend that Hanzi-> Pinyin is transliteration ...” 5) Address issues raised by John Klensin as much as I could, mostly technical and editorial issues. There are a few issues that we need to address before this goes on public comment, and some suggestions on how to reach closure: 1) Liz suggested a revised version of recommendation 2, I put it at the end of the document. This needs to be resolved one way or the other. Can people comment on the list? 2) Not all of Sarmad’s comment on transliteration is addressed, and it is not because I am unwilling, but simply I am not knowledgeable enough on these matters. Sarmad, please provide alternative text directly if you are not satisifed with the current wording. 3) Regarding John Klesin’s comments, some major ones left unaddressed. My sense is that this requires substantial discussion and input. I suggest we leave it here for now, and address them with the rest of the comments received in the public comment forum. We could also put them as items for discussion in Dakar face to face meeting. 4) Nothing on IDN variants is included in the text yet, I do not know what’s the WG’s stand on this. Edmon, can you take the lead to produce some text to be included and circulate on the mailing list before next monday? If not, then we will probably say nothing. As Julie sent out the notice, we will have another call next Monday morning, hopefully these issues will be addressed, and the report can go on public comment on Monday. Finally, here is what in the attachments: 1) September 28 Draft Final IRD Report.doc – the latest version with track changes on. 2) September 20 IRD Report v2-JCK-response.docx – the version lists how I address each of John Klensin’s comment. 3) IRD-WG-review-jck20110922-response.docx – lists how I address each of John’s high level comments. Note in some cases, I simply say “this issue has to be addressed.”. Kind regards, Steve Attachment:
September 20 IRD Report v2-JcK-response.docx Attachment:
September 28 Draft Final IRD Report.doc Attachment:
IDR-WG-review-jck20110922-response.docx
|