This is a list of the current and previous meetings of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group.
Next Meeting: TBD
Monday, 28 November 2011 (See Transcript and MP3)
Monday, 21 November 2011 (See Transcript and MP3)
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.
Thursday, 27 October 2011 (See Audiocast and Presentation)
Monday, 03 October 2011 (See Transcript and MP3)
Monday, 19 September 2011 (See Transcript and MP3)
Monday, 12 September 2011 (See Transcript, MP3, and Final Report Draft v1 08 Sept 2011)
Monday, 29 August 2011 (See Transcript, MP3, and Draft Extended Outline for Final Report)
Attendees Attendees: Scott Austin; Avri Doria, Jim Galvin, Rafik Dammak, Bob Hutchinson, Steve Metalitz, Owen Smigelski; Glen de Saint-Gery, Julie Hedlund, Steve Sheng, Dave Piscitello
Actions: Steve Sheng will revised the draft report based on the discussion. (See below.) Also fill in text where possible. Produce a redlined document by Tuesday the 6th.
Recommendations (starting on page 15 of the document):
- Develop a data model: Aren’t some data elements already specified? There isn’t total agreement on the elements. We may not want to be overly prescriptive concerning what the baseline should be, but the WG could propose something. In the last sentence change “tagging information” to “tagging elements”. Like the phrase “ICANN staff should develop, in consultation with the entire ICANN community...” (Add entire “ICANN” in the existing sentence.) Is the term “data model” confusing in the context of this document? Look through the document to make sure we are consistent in how we use the term and define it when it is first used in the document. We have discussed using XML as a representation language — should it be in this recommendation? The choice of a representation language would more properly belong to the IETF. Not sure the IETF should be involved in the formalization of the representation language, but would be interested in the protocol (versus the data).
- Issues Report: The GNSO Council requests an Issues Report (should be clear in this document). The SSAC also can request an Issues Report, as can the ccNSO. “The GNSO Council or the SSAC should request an Issues Report...” (See ICANN Bylaws at http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm.) May want to include here some of the elements that should be included in an Issues Report. Although the WG should have given specific advice concerning how to approach transliteration/translation requirements, but it did not produce a consensus on how to proceed on these specification. The question of who should provide transliteration/translation could be a policy issue, which is why there is a recommendation for an Issues Report. Editorial note: Make sure that the language in this recommendation meets the requirements in the Bylaws and also check it against the recommendations for changes to the PDP procedures from the PPSC-PDP work team (Policy Staff Support -- Marika).
- Identify a directory service: Need clarification. Make it clear that it is referencing a registration data directory service. Draw an important distinction between the protocol and the service. ICANN should define the service and separate it from the protocol that is currently in use. We have identified a deficiency that the service definition doesn’t exist so we are saying that ICANN needs to specify the service definition. Change “work with ICANN and the technical community” and “propose” not “identify” a “registration data directory service.” This is one piece of a very large set of work at ICANN and in the community. The recommendation should say specifically that this is part of other work. Change the trailing phrase “meetings the needs...enumerated in this report AND (add this) the WHOIS Service Requirements. Include language that says that internationalization should be part of that work. Reference the Board’s specific request for this work.
Previous Meetings:
Monday, 08 August 2011 (See Transcript and MP3)
...
Action Items: Staff will revise slides and send them to the WG for review. Done. See Draft IRD-WG Preliminary Approach Slides for ICANN Brussels Meeting
Brief Notes: The WG members discussed a very rough draft of slides for a presentation in Brussels on Thursday, 24 June in the public session. It was noted that the slides should include a description of the four models, as suggested by Jim Galvin, along with other changes. Steve Sheng and Julie Hedlund noted suggested changes and agreed to draft a revised set of slides. Jeremy Hitchcock agreed to give the presentation in Brussels.
...
Action Items: Based on the working group members’ comments the staff will revise the matrix and send an updated matrix for further review.https://icann-community.icannatlassian.orgnet/wiki/download/attachments/11995194/Copy+of+matrix107053165/Copy%20of%20matrix-draft-revised+414revised%20414.xls?version=1&modificationDate=1302025996000
Monday, 29 March 2010 at 1900 UTC (See Transcript, MP3, and Summary.)
...
Action Items: Based on the working group members’ comment as well as the comment received in the email list, the staff will revise the matrix, and send an updated matrix for further review.
https://icann-community.icannatlassian.orgnet/wiki/download/attachments/11995199107053167/IRD-WG+Notes+29+March+2010+MeetingWG%20Notes%2029%20March%202010%20Meeting.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1302026209000
Monday, 15 March 2010 at 1400 UTC (See Transcript, MP3, and Summary.)
...
Monday, 07 December 2009 at 1400 UTC (See MP3, Transcript IRD WG 07 December 2009)
Attendees: WG Members: Edmon Chung, Steve Crocker, Rafik Dammak, Bob Hutchinson, Yao Jiankang, Mark Kosters, June Seo (absent apologies: Avri Doria and Jeremy Hitchcock); ICANN Staff: Francisco Arias, Gisella Gruber-White, Julie Hedlund, and Dave Piscitello.
1. Action Items: WG members should consider on the list possible requirements that could form part of a check list to decide what is, or is not, in the scope of the work of the WG.
2. Main Discussion Points: The Charter calls for co-chairs from the GNSO and SSAC. The WG approved Jeremy Hitchcock as co-chair from SSAC. Edmon Chung suggested that to help further define the scope/mission/goals the WG could begin by looking at requirements for registration data. Dave Piscitello noted that based on the survey he conducted one possible requirement could be that in addition to collecting and displaying data in ASCII/roman script, if it was beneficial data also could be displayed in local script. Bob Hutchinson asked whether there was any sense of the degree of difficulty for adding data display in local script. He wondered whether it would be helpful to formulate a set of specific questions that could form a larger survey of ccTLDs. Edmon noted that a survey could be a good idea, particularly in understanding how registries currently receive and display data, although he noted that the goals of the ccTLDs would likely be different from those of the gTLDs. Dave suggested that one requirement could be to tag each piece of data and Mark Kosters asked whether such a requirement would be in the scope of the WG. Dave noted that the requirement would not have to change what data is collected today. He also noted that ICANN staff are studying Whois service requirements at the request of the GNSO Council (the “May 7 request of the GNSO Council”) and this study considers a data schema for registration data in the context of a broad set of service requirements including IRD. Edmon suggested that it might be useful to prepare a checklist of possible requirements for receiving and displaying internationalized registration data and use the list to decide what is, or is not, in the scope of the WG. Bob questioned whether there was a consensus on a recommendation for structure data and didn’t know if displaying in a local language would require a significant amount of work. Steve Sheng, Edmon, and Yao Jiankang all noted that there could be challenges for translation of an address into Chinese. Edmon suggesting using the summary provided by Dave of the survey of 16 ccTLDs as a basis to produce an initial checklist of requirements to decide what is in scope. Dave noted that the WG would not have to recommend a specific format, but could use the United Postal Union (UPU) standard as an analog for how data could be represented using Roman characters and additionally represented for a recipient or viewer of the data. In the UPU example, the recipient is both the addressee and the postal workers in the destination country; in the Whois case, the recipient/viewer could be an application (that already assumes USASCII7) or a viewer who may or may not understand roman characters but does understand characters of his local language.
https://icann-community.icannatlassian.orgnet/wiki/download/attachments/11995205107053171/IRD-WG+Notes+12+April+2010+MeetingWG%20Notes%2012%20April%202010%20Meeting.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1302026628000