RE: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] V3 of the Report

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Everyone,

 

Sorry this came so late.  Nevertheless, here are my suggestions:

 

a) Addition bullet point just before end of Section 3.1

 

- For IDN registrations, according to the IDN guidelines, additional data, such 
as the IDN Language Tag, and information regarding IDN Variants may be required.

 

 

b) Addition to Section 3.4 before "ccTLD practices"

 

Some registries offering IDN registrations with IDN Variants will include 
variant information in the WHOIS display for queries to the primary IDN (i.e. 
registered domain name) as well as its IDN Variants.

 

 

c) Addition to Section 4.2 after first bullet (•   Domain name)

 

- IDN information (including e.g. IDN Language Tag and IDN Variant information)

 

 

d) Addition to Section 4.2 

 

Domain names (RAA 3.3.1.1): The IRD-WG recommends that WHOIS services should 
return both A-label and U-label representation for the given IDN domains 
queried.  

 

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 
focused on whether a domain is delegated into the DNS (i.e. whether an IDN 
Variant is activated or simply reserved).  The IRD-WG members agree that a 
Whois service query of IDNs delegated into the DNS (i.e. an activated variant) 
should return the domain of which it is a variant for (i.e. registered IDN / 
primary IDN) 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 (i.e. domains reserved but 
not delegated into the DNS) returns is a matter of local policy.

 

 

Talk to you all soon.

 

Edmon

 

 

 

 

 

From: owner-ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Steve Sheng
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:17 AM
To: ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] V3 of the Report
Importance: High

 

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