Re: Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group Thursday 30 October 2014 / some further comments/questions, etc
Dear All, Just a last minute summary of
Some further comments/questions/inputs/suggestions:
(collected from the IP point of view)
Note thatICANN issued an advisory last month clarifying technical aspects of provisions of the 2013 RAA and new gTLD Registry Agreement regarding uniform requirements for presenting Whois data.<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-agreement-spec4-raa-rdds-2014-09-12-en>.Significantly , it states that “Registries and Registrars are encouraged to only use US-ASCII encoding and character repertoire for WHOIS port 43 output.” The purpose is to facilitate parsing of Whois data by automated tools such as ICANN’s centralized Whois data portal,<http://whois.icann.org/>. Similar arguments would apply to facilitating machine translation.
Thus the status quo is (or will be, by February 2015) that contracted parties are at least “encouraged” to transliterate into ASCII if Whois data is submitted in some other script. Has anyone heard any howls of outrage from registries and registrars over this? The advisory also states”All domain name labels in the values of any of the fields described in section 1.4.2 of the 2013 RAA, and sections 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7 of Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement (e.g., Domain Name, Name Server, email) MUST be shown in ASCII-compatible form (A-Label).
For example, a name server with an IDN label should be shown as: Name Server: ns1.xn--caf-dma.example.”
The referenced fields include virtually all the registrant data we are concerned with. See the listing in section 1.4.2 of Specification 3 of the 2013 RAA,<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en>. I’m not certain whether this ASCII requirement applies only to the labels (e.g., “Name Server”) or to the content following the label --- the example given suggests the latter—which further solidifies the idea that contracted parties are already required to transliterate Whois data into ASCII. But I could be misreading this requirement.
§§§
· "I think it would be useful to suggest the requirement that all Whois text be machine-readable text. I’m not sure if that’s already a recommendation of the EWG report, but as one can imagine, the Whois systems that substitute graphics for the e-mail (which, for all we know, could spread to other fields) would stymie attempts at automated translation by users of Whois.
· Does anyone have any ideas for avoiding flight by bad actors to the least translatable languages? One idea would be to require:
·Whois info to be in either the language of the registrar or registrant (i.e. can’t pick some random language just to make it hard to translate),and
·translation or transliteration is required if it’s not in a) Latin characters, b) one of the six U.N. languages, or c) possibly some larger but reasonable set of well-known and widely translatable languages (say, 20 or so)." -- Petter Rindforth, LL M
Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu
NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you
16 oktober 2014, Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> skrev:
Dear All,
The nextTranslation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group teleconference is scheduled forThursday 30 October 2014 at 1300 UTC
06:00 PDT, 09:00 EDT, 14:00 London, 15:00 CEST For other places see: <http://tinyurl.com/mzwzbwl>
Adobe ConnectWITH AUDIO enabled: <http://icann.adobeconnect.com/gnsocontactinfopdpwg/>
Mailing list archives: <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg/>
Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/FTR-Ag>
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/>
The dial-in details are below - please let me know if you require a dial-out. Please confirm your dial-out requests GNSO Secretariats<gnso-secs@icann.org>
_____________________________________________________________________
Participant passcode: CONTACT
Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free NumberARGENTINA 0800-777-0519AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795BRAZIL 0800-7610651CHILE 1230-020-2863CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324ESTONIA 800-011-1093FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856HUNGARY 06-800-12755INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368ISRAEL 1-80-9216162ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439LATVIA 8000-3185LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065MEXICO 001-866-376-9696NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065PERU 0800-53713PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716POLAND 00-800-1212572PORTUGAL 8008-14052RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702
Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew
Dear Petter Thank you for your message, and apologies for the delay in responding to your points. I wanted to address the claim that because contracted parties had not made noises about ICANN’s advisory they must be okay with it. I’ve attached a letter that I'm informed was provided by the RySG to ICANN staff as a result of the RySG being provided an early version of the advisor for comment. I understand that none of these comments were taken into account by ICANN when they published the advisory and despite being asked why, I don’t believe any answer was forthcoming. In short, there have been expressions of concern over the recent advisory, and my understanding from discussions on the RrSG list is that many have concerns over transliteration and translation of WHOIS data. Kind regards Emily On 30 October 2014 13:20, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> wrote:
Dear All,
Just a last minute summary of *Some further comments/questions/inputs/suggestions:*
(collected from the IP point of view)
Note that ICANN issued an advisory last month clarifying technical aspects of provisions of the 2013 RAA and new gTLD Registry Agreement regarding uniform requirements for presenting Whois data. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-agreement-spec4-raa-rdds-2014... . Significantly , it states that “*Registries and Registrars are encouraged to only use US-ASCII encoding and character repertoire for WHOIS port 43 output*.” The purpose is to facilitate parsing of Whois data by automated tools such as ICANN’s centralized Whois data portal, http://whois.icann.org/ . Similar arguments would apply to facilitating machine translation.
Thus the status quo is (or will be, by February 2015) that contracted parties are at least “encouraged” to transliterate into ASCII if Whois data is submitted in some other script.
Has anyone heard any howls of outrage from registries and registrars over this?
The advisory also states” All domain name labels in the values of any of the fields described in section 1.4.2 of the 2013 RAA, and sections 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7 of Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement (e.g., Domain Name, Name Server, email) MUST be shown in ASCII-compatible form (A-Label).
For example, a name server with an IDN label should be shown as:
*Name Server: ns1.xn--caf-dma.example.”*
The referenced fields include virtually all the registrant data we are concerned with. See the listing in section 1.4.2 of Specification 3 of the 2013 RAA, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en .
I’m not certain whether this ASCII requirement applies only to the labels (e.g., “Name Server”) or to the content following the label --- the example given suggests the latter—which further solidifies the idea that contracted parties are already required to transliterate Whois data into ASCII. But I could be misreading this requirement.
§§§
· "I think it would be useful to suggest the requirement that all Whois text be machine-readable text. I’m not sure if that’s already a recommendation of the EWG report, but as one can imagine, the Whois systems that substitute graphics for the e-mail (which, for all we know, could spread to other fields) would stymie attempts at automated translation by users of Whois.
· Does anyone have any ideas for avoiding flight by bad actors to the least translatable languages? One idea would be to require:
· Whois info to be in either the language of the registrar or registrant (i.e. can’t pick some random language just to make it hard to translate), *and*
· translation or transliteration is required if it’s not in a) Latin characters, b) one of the six U.N. languages, or c) possibly some larger but reasonable set of well-known and widely translatable languages (say, 20 or so)."
-- Petter Rindforth, LL M
Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu
NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you
-- Emily Taylor *MA(Cantab), MBA* Director *Netistrar Ltd *- Domain Names at Trade Prices W: http://www.netistrar.com | M: 07540 049322 | T: 01283 617808 Repton House, Bretby Business Park, Bretby, Derbyshire, DE15 0YZ Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332
Thanks, Emily. I'll have a meeting within 20 min from now to further discuss this topic (at INTA). Best,Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 11 november 2014, Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@netistrar.com> skrev:
Dear Petter Thank you for your message, and apologies for the delay in responding to your points.
I wanted to address the claim that because contracted parties had not made noises about ICANN’s advisory they must be okay with it.I’ve attached a letter that I'm informed was provided by the RySG to ICANN staff as a result of the RySG being provided an early version of the advisor for comment. I understand that none of these comments were taken into account by ICANN when they published the advisory and despite being asked why, I don’t believe any answer was forthcoming.
In short, there have been expressions of concern over the recent advisory, and my understanding from discussions on the RrSG list is that many have concerns over transliteration and translation of WHOIS data.
Kind regards
Emily On 30 October 2014 13:20, Petter Rindforth <<petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>> wrote:
Dear All, Just a last minute summary of
Some further comments/questions/inputs/suggestions:
(collected from the IP point of view)
Note thatICANN issued an advisory last month clarifying technical aspects of provisions of the 2013 RAA and new gTLD Registry Agreement regarding uniform requirements for presenting Whois data.<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-agreement-spec4-raa-rdds-2014-09-12-en>.Significantly , it states that “Registries and Registrars are encouraged to only use US-ASCII encoding and character repertoire for WHOIS port 43 output.” The purpose is to facilitate parsing of Whois data by automated tools such as ICANN’s centralized Whois data portal,<http://whois.icann.org/>. Similar arguments would apply to facilitating machine translation.
Thus the status quo is (or will be, by February 2015) that contracted parties are at least “encouraged” to transliterate into ASCII if Whois data is submitted in some other script. Has anyone heard any howls of outrage from registries and registrars over this? The advisory also states”All domain name labels in the values of any of the fields described in section 1.4.2 of the 2013 RAA, and sections 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7 of Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement (e.g., Domain Name, Name Server, email) MUST be shown in ASCII-compatible form (A-Label).
For example, a name server with an IDN label should be shown as: Name Server: ns1.xn--caf-dma.example.”
The referenced fields include virtually all the registrant data we are concerned with. See the listing in section 1.4.2 of Specification 3 of the 2013 RAA,<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en>. I’m not certain whether this ASCII requirement applies only to the labels (e.g., “Name Server”) or to the content following the label --- the example given suggests the latter—which further solidifies the idea that contracted parties are already required to transliterate Whois data into ASCII. But I could be misreading this requirement.
§§§
· "I think it would be useful to suggest the requirement that all Whois text be machine-readable text. I’m not sure if that’s already a recommendation of the EWG report, but as one can imagine, the Whois systems that substitute graphics for the e-mail (which, for all we know, could spread to other fields) would stymie attempts at automated translation by users of Whois.
· Does anyone have any ideas for avoiding flight by bad actors to the least translatable languages? One idea would be to require:
·Whois info to be in either the language of the registrar or registrant (i.e. can’t pick some random language just to make it hard to translate),and
·translation or transliteration is required if it’s not in a) Latin characters, b) one of the six U.N. languages, or c) possibly some larger but reasonable set of well-known and widely translatable languages (say, 20 or so)." -- Petter Rindforth, LL M
Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 <tel:%2B46%280%298-4631010> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> <http://www.fenixlegal.eu>
NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, <http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you
--
Emily Taylor MA(Cantab), MBA DirectorNetistrar Ltd- Domain Names at Trade Prices W: http://www.netistrar.com <http://www.netistrar.com/>| M:07540 049322 | T:01283 617808 Repton House, Bretby Business Park, Bretby, Derbyshire, DE15 0YZ Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332
In regards this statement “Registries and Registrars are encouraged to only use US-ASCII encoding and character repertoire for WHOIS port 43 output.”. The paragraph from ICANN advisory notes on Sep 12 states: As described in RFC 3912, the WHOIS protocol (port-43) has not been internationalized. While a substitute protocol is being developed in the IETF, Registries and Registrars are encouraged to only use US-ASCII encoding and character repertoire for WHOIS (port-43) output. If the RegistryOperator/Registrar uses characters outside of the US-ASCII repertoire, the output MUST be encoded in UTF-8 to maximize the chances of interoperability. Although iCANN encourages use of US-ASCII it does not exclude the use of other characters sets as long as they are encoded in UTF-8. From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Petter Rindforth Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 6:41 PM To: Emily Taylor Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Re: Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group Thursday 30 October 2014 / some further comments/questions, etc Thanks, Emily. I'll have a meeting within 20 min from now to further discuss this topic (at INTA). Best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you 11 november 2014, Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@netistrar.com<mailto:emily.taylor@netistrar.com>> skrev: Dear Petter Thank you for your message, and apologies for the delay in responding to your points. I wanted to address the claim that because contracted parties had not made noises about ICANN’s advisory they must be okay with it. I’ve attached a letter that I'm informed was provided by the RySG to ICANN staff as a result of the RySG being provided an early version of the advisor for comment. I understand that none of these comments were taken into account by ICANN when they published the advisory and despite being asked why, I don’t believe any answer was forthcoming. In short, there have been expressions of concern over the recent advisory, and my understanding from discussions on the RrSG list is that many have concerns over transliteration and translation of WHOIS data. Kind regards Emily On 30 October 2014 13:20, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>> wrote: Dear All, Just a last minute summary of Some further comments/questions/inputs/suggestions: (collected from the IP point of view) Note that ICANN issued an advisory last month clarifying technical aspects of provisions of the 2013 RAA and new gTLD Registry Agreement regarding uniform requirements for presenting Whois data. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-agreement-spec4-raa-rdds-2014... . Significantly , it states that “Registries and Registrars are encouraged to only use US-ASCII encoding and character repertoire for WHOIS port 43 output.” The purpose is to facilitate parsing of Whois data by automated tools such as ICANN’s centralized Whois data portal, http://whois.icann.org/ . Similar arguments would apply to facilitating machine translation. Thus the status quo is (or will be, by February 2015) that contracted parties are at least “encouraged” to transliterate into ASCII if Whois data is submitted in some other script. Has anyone heard any howls of outrage from registries and registrars over this? The advisory also states” All domain name labels in the values of any of the fields described in section 1.4.2 of the 2013 RAA, and sections 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7 of Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement (e.g., Domain Name, Name Server, email) MUST be shown in ASCII-compatible form (A-Label). For example, a name server with an IDN label should be shown as: Name Server: ns1.xn--caf-dma.example.” The referenced fields include virtually all the registrant data we are concerned with. See the listing in section 1.4.2 of Specification 3 of the 2013 RAA, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en . I’m not certain whether this ASCII requirement applies only to the labels (e.g., “Name Server”) or to the content following the label --- the example given suggests the latter—which further solidifies the idea that contracted parties are already required to transliterate Whois data into ASCII. But I could be misreading this requirement. §§§ · "I think it would be useful to suggest the requirement that all Whois text be machine-readable text. I’m not sure if that’s already a recommendation of the EWG report, but as one can imagine, the Whois systems that substitute graphics for the e-mail (which, for all we know, could spread to other fields) would stymie attempts at automated translation by users of Whois. · Does anyone have any ideas for avoiding flight by bad actors to the least translatable languages? One idea would be to require: · Whois info to be in either the language of the registrar or registrant (i.e. can’t pick some random language just to make it hard to translate), and · translation or transliteration is required if it’s not in a) Latin characters, b) one of the six U.N. languages, or c) possibly some larger but reasonable set of well-known and widely translatable languages (say, 20 or so)." -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010<tel:%2B46%280%298-4631010> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you -- Emily Taylor MA(Cantab), MBA Director Netistrar Ltd - Domain Names at Trade Prices W: http://www.netistrar.com<http://www.netistrar.com/> | M: 07540 049322 | T: 01283 617808 Repton House, Bretby Business Park, Bretby, Derbyshire, DE15 0YZ Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332
participants (3)
-
Emily Taylor -
Petter Rindforth -
Tan Tanaka, Dennis