[ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD-WG: Notes/Next Call 28 Nov 1600 UTC

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear IRD-WG members,

Our next meeting is next Monday, 28 November 2011 at 1600 UTC/0800 PST/1100 
EST.   We will continue a discussion of how to address the public comments.  I 
have included some actions and brief notes from today’s meeting below.  These 
also are posted to the wiki at: 
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsossac/1.+Meetings.  Please let me know 
if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Julie

Attendees:  Avri Doria, Sarmad Hussain, Bob Hutchinson, Steve Metalitz, Owen 
Smigelski; apologies: Jim Galvin; Julie Hedlund, Nathalie Peregrine, Dave 
Piscitello, Steve Sheng

Actions:

1.  Sarmad will post to the list his thoughts on a script tag.
2. The IRD-WG will produce a response concerning the comments received on the 
IRD-WG draft Final Report for staff to include in the Summary & Analysis Report.

Brief Notes on Public Comments:

1. ALAC Statement on the Draft Final Report of the Internationalized 
Registration Data Working Group 
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/ird-draft-final-report/msg00003.html>


 *   The Summary & Analysis Report should note the ALAC’s support for the 
IRD-WG draft Final Report recommendations.
 *   What about the reference to the RAA?  What they are saying is that they 
are supportive of this kind of effort.
 *   The Analysis should just thank and acknowledge their support.

2. INTA Internet Committee, Domain Disputes and Whois Subcommittee 
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/ird-draft-final-report/msg00002.html>  Claudio Di 
Gangi


 *   The key comment is that the INTA urges that the recommendations should be 
conducted expeditiously given the pending new gTLD program.
 *   Not sure how we comment other than to say “thanks” and we hope it can 
happen expeditiously.
 *   The Analysis can call attention to other activity in IETF WEIRDS and the 
follow on to the SAC51 recommendations (Board directive for staff to develop a 
Road Map in coordination with the community).
 *   The concern from the INTA was about the timing and that there needed to be 
follow up.
 *   The Analysis should also point out that the IRD-WG agrees with what INTA 
is saying that this work should be expedited.
 *   The IRD-WG will be disbanded once the Final Report is approved by the SSAC 
and the GNSO Council, unless it is tasked with more work, such as 
monitoring/tracking effort to implement the Final Report recommendations, but 
this is not something that has to be included in the Analysis of the comments.
 *   Who will take up the implementation of the Final Report recommendations? 
The IETF will take up the data model work, but it is unclear what the WEIRDS 
group will pick up.
 *   What about the language tag?  Is this requirement coming from ICANN?  
There are multiple steps: 1) come up with a data model (xml schema) that 
includes language and character set tags that includes those elements that the 
IRD-WG Final Report has identified.  2) Socialize the data model with the 
community and get cooperation in the IETF to move towards a standards track and 
their may be work in the WEIRDS group.  3) Create an Issues Report and initiate 
a PDP that would identify the schema that registries/registrars in gTLDs and 
ccTLDs would adopt.
 *   Should there be a script tag along with a language tag?  Note that the 
character set comes from multiple scripts so you may not be able to tell which 
scripts the character set is from.  This issue is important for a discussion of 
possible changes to the Final Report.  Sarmad should send information on this 
issue to the IRD-WG list.

3.  [weirds] Internationalized Registration Data 
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/ird-draft-final-report/msg00000.html>  Alessandro 
Vesely


 *   The  comment talks about changing “must be present” to “may be present,” 
which would be permitting ASCII to the extent allowed.  This is something that 
the Issues Report might address but this seems to be different from any of the 
four models.  The comments seems to suggest that the local presentation is the 
“must be present” but then “may be present” would be if registrar or registry 
policy allows an ASCII version of that representation.  The IRD-WG members 
agreed to discuss this comment further on the next call.