Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Update: Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group

["Robert C. Hutchinson" <rchutch@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Steve - I support making the data forms recommended in the report into a
separate summary recommendation as you noted -
.....
Telephone/fax- ITU-T E.123; Email- IETF EAI WG RFCs; Registration Status-
Exact EPP status where applicable; Dates - ISO 8601-2004.
.....

The standards referenced include multiple formats which if implemented
differently by each registry will make common whois readers unnecessarily
difficult.  We did not discuss this, but it is noted in the text of the
report that for example; ITU E.123 should use the international form for
telephone numbers [not the local form].  Additionally -- the ISO standard
for dates includes many forms - we should pick one.  I would recommend
explicitly stating dates should be represented in the YYYYDDD "ordinal"
form ONLY.  Also - since time may be important to some registrations - I
recommend picking the HHMMSS time format [optional].

So I would recommends we change the text as proposed to:

Telephone/fax- ITU-T E.123 [(+12 234 223 2235)international form only];
Email- IETF EAI WG RFCs;
Registration Status- Exact EPP status where applicable;
Dates and Time- ISO 8601-2004 [Date form YYYYDDD only.  Time form HHMMSS
only].

Best Regards,

Bob Hutchinson


On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Scott Austin <saustin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>
>  This substantive change appears appropriate and I would support its
> adoption and inclusion in an amendment to our Final Report.
>
> Scott Austin
>    [image: Gordon & Rees LLP] [image: Gordon & Rees LLP]
> *Scott R. Austin*
> *Partner*
> saustin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> vCard <http://www.gordonrees.com/vcards/saustin.vcf> |  My 
> Bio<http://www.gordonrees.com/atty/atty_bio_template.cfm?attyid=saustin>
>
> 200 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 4300
> Miami, FL 33131
> Main Phone: (305) 668-4433
> Mobile: (216) 870-7954
> Direct Fax: (877) 644-6207
>
> www.gordonrees.com
>  *National Offices:*
> California
> New York
> Texas
> Illinois
> Nevada
> Arizona
> Colorado
> Washington
> Oregon
> New Jersey
> Florida
> Georgia <http://www.gordonrees.com/offices/index.cfm>
> P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* owner-ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> owner-ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Steve Sheng
> *Sent:* Friday, April 27, 2012 5:57 PM
> *To:* ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Update: Final Report of the
> Internationalized Registration Data Working Group
>
>  Dear members of IRD-WG,
>
>   Greetings. When the IRD-WG Final report was approved by the group in
> March. It was sent to GNSO and to SSAC for review  and approval. As a
> result, the SSAC provided a few comments, for your review and approval.
>
>   Most of these comments are to correct technical and other errors in the
> document. The only substantive change is that the SSAC proposed an
> additional recommendation:
>
>  *Recommendation 4:* ICANN should take appropriate steps to require gTLD
> registries and registrars andpersuade ccTLD registries and registrars to
> support the following standards:****
>
> Domain Names - both A-label and U-label; nameserver Names- A-label, and
> optionally U-label;****
>
> Telephone/fax- ITU-T E.123; Email- IETF EAI WG RFCs; Registration Status-
> Exact EPP status where applicable; Dates - ISO 8601-2004. ****
>
> The rationale for this recommendation is that SSAC members asked: is
> there a reason why standards agreed to in Section 4.2 are not part of the
> final recommendations for action now?  For example, Nameserver,
> Phone/fax, Dates, Registration Status are fields where it appears the WG
> had consensus. By proposing recommendation 4, it made possible for
> possible actions where the IRD-WG had consensus, without having to wait for
> the translation and transliteration issue to resolve.
>
> Attached please find the report (REDLINE, clean version).
>
> We appreciate the IRD-WG members could review these changes and discuss
> whether to approve them by *May 9, 2012. *If the IRD-WG feel there is a
> need for a teleconference call, staff is happy to organize it.
>
> Kind regards,
> Steve
>
>
>     ------------------------------
>
> California * New York * Texas * Illinois * Nevada * Arizona * Colorado *
> Washington
>
>    Oregon * New Jersey * Florida * Georgia * Connecticut * Missouri *
> Washington, DC * Pennsylvania
>
>
> This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO
> MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only for the use of the intended
> recipients identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this
> communication, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use,
> dissemination, distribution, downloading, or copying of this communication
> is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have
> received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply
> email, delete the communication and destroy all copies.
>
>     IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE
> To ensure compliance with requirements by the IRS, we inform you that any
> U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments)
> is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose
> of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
> promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or
> matter addressed herein.
>  GORDON & REES LLP
> http://www.gordonrees.com
>