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

[Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Steve, your comment noted and will be discussed at today’s meeting.

Kind regards,
Steve


On 11/27/11 4:22 PM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx> wrote:

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.