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

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

Thanks Steve -
I agree with your changes and rationale.
Are there any differing opinions, guidance in the WG?
Bob

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thank you Scott and Robert for voicing support to the proposed changes by
> the SSAC. Are there any differing opinions in the WG?
>
> Also thanks to  Robert for your excellent question on formats, I have
> checked with the relevant RFCs and standards, and propose the following
> revision to your clarification:
>
> Telephone/fax- ITU-T E.123 [(+12 234 223 2235)international form only];
> Email- IETF EAI WG RFCs; RFC 6531
>
> Registration Status- Exact EPP status where applicable;
> Dates and Time- ISO 8601-2004 [Date form YYYYDDD only.
> Time form HHMMSS only].
> Date and time in UTC as specified in [RFC3339], with no offset from the
> zero meridian.
>
> *Rationale: *
>
> For email, IETF EAI WG already produced RFCs, they are RFC 6530, 6531,
> 6532 and 6533. The email address syntax is specified in RFC 6531, and the
> actual UTF8 encoding definition is in RFC 6532.
>
> For Date and Time, your suggestion is fine, but we may also want to make
> sure there is no ambiguity with regards to timezones, so using RFC 3339 as
> a basis (which adopts ISO 8601-2004 and also defines a display format) and
> then specify no offset from the zero meridian would be good. It is a format
> that some gTLD registries already use today, and a requirement for new gTLD
> WHOIS.
>
> Kind regards,
> Steve
>
> From: "Robert C. Hutchinson" <rchutch@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:05:59 -0700
> To: Scott Austin <saustin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx>, "ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx" <
> ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Update: Final Report of the
> Internationalized Registration Data Working Group
>
> 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
>>
>
>