RE: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] REMINDER: Next Call 28 Nov 1600 UTC

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

I may not be able to attend tomorrow's call.  In that case, I wanted to
offer a few comments concerning the MAAWG submission.  I believe it
makes three main points.
 
First, it underscores the urgency of finding a solution to the issues
identified.  We have heard this from other commenters and I believe we
are in agreement with this view and want to communicate that urgency to
the entities that are called upon to take the next steps (GNSO, SSAC and
ICANN staff).  
 
Second, it makes a forceful case to "standardize on English as a core
interoperable and seamlessly available universal language for DNRD."
While this is close to one of the options we developed (US-ASCII as a
"must be present" script), it goes somewhat beyond that model.  I
believe it should be included as one of the options for resolving the
issue, just as we expanded the options in response to public comments on
our initial draft report.  
 
(In this regard, I note the MAAWG submission's reference to the approach
taken by "APNIC region ccTLD-supporting entities (such as JPNIC)".  I
find it somewhat surprising that -- at least to my recollection -- the
approach described in the MAAWG comments was never presented to the
Working Group, even though we had participants at various points from
the ccTLD community.  It certainly would be interesting for the staff to
look at this approach in preparing the issue report requested by our
final report.)  
 
Third, I believe MAAWG makes a valuable point (p. 6) about the risk of
abuse from any model that does not include a requirement for a "must be
present" script.  I know this topic came up at a couple of points during
our meetings but I believe it is worth emphasizing as MAAWG has done.  
 
I hope these comments are helpful.  I will try to make tomorrow's call
but as noted above I may not be able to do so.  
 
Steve Metalitz  
________________________________

From: owner-ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 1:14 PM
To: ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] REMINDER: Next Call 28 Nov 1600 UTC


Dear IRD-WG members,

This is a reminder that our next meeting is tomorrow --  Monday, 28
November 2011 at 1600 UTC/0800 PST/1100 EST.   We will continue a
discussion of how to address the public comments as indicated in the
agenda below.  I have included some actions and brief notes from the
last meeting below.  These also are posted to the wiki at:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsossac/1.+Meetings.  I apologize
but I will have to miss tomorrow's call, but Steve Sheng will be
available to support it.

Agenda:


1.      Finish up discussion of WEIRDS comments 
2.      Discuss how to address MAAWG comments
        


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.