Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: from tw01.dept.gov.au (203.9.200.46) by eht01.dept.gov.au (10.202.0.234) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.159.2; Sat, 5 May 2012 02:35:28 +1000 Received: from dcita00001.intellicentre.net.au (dcita00001.intellicentre.net.au [210.193.134.230]) by tw01.dept.gov.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 174EDB8C487 for ; Sat, 5 May 2012 02:35:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from dcita00001.intellicentre.net.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.intellicentre.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 39A646022 for ; Sat, 5 May 2012 02:35:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from mm.icann.org (mm.icann.org [208.77.188.100]) by dcita00001.intellicentre.net.au ( Postfix) with ESMTP id E43BB601E for ; Sat, 5 May 2012 02:35:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mm.icann.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mm.icann.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q44GZ4Qh002945; Fri, 4 May 2012 16:35:04 GMT Received: from pechora3.lax.icann.org (pechora3.icann.org [IPv6:2620:0:2d0:201::1:73] (may be forged)) by mm.icann.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q44GZ3va002942 for ; Fri, 4 May 2012 16:35:04 GMT Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by pechora3.lax.icann.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q44GYfGj028420 for ; Fri, 4 May 2012 16:35:02 GMT Received: by werf13 with SMTP id f13so867460wer.3 for ; Fri, 04 May 2012 09:34:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.78.105 with SMTP id a9mr14327322wix.20.1336149279481; Fri, 04 May 2012 09:34:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from UserPC ([182.185.143.254]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ea6sm2191624wib.5.2012.05.04.09.34.33 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 04 May 2012 09:34:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "Sarmad Hussain" To: "'Kathy Kleiman'" , "'Emily Taylor'" cc: "rt4-whois@icann.org" Sender: "rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org" Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 02:34:33 +1000 Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up to the readability of the rest of the Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Thread-Topic: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up to the readability of the rest of the Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Thread-Index: Ac0qEdr2J13WZMnBS36brzThEBM8sQAAY09A Message-ID: <4fa4051e.8661b40a.36b5.ffff8625@mx.google.com> References: <4FA2090F.6000701@kathykleiman.com> <4FA28B61.9090303@kathykleiman.com> <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A335274B5F5@EMB01.dept.gov.au> <4FA401A1.6040306@kathykleiman.com> List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , In-Reply-To: <4FA401A1.6040306@kathykleiman.com> X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthMechanism: 10 X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: eht01.dept.gov.au X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-perlmx-spam: Gauge=%%XGAUGE%%%%IGAUGE%%, Probability=%%PROB%%, Report='%%HITS%%' x-tmwd-spam-summary: TS=20120504163527; ID=1; SEV=2.4.2; DFV=B2012050421; IFV=NA; AIF=B2012050421; RPD=7.03.0049; ENG=NA; =?utf-8?q?RPDID=3D7374723D3?= =?utf-8?q?03030312E30413135303230352E34464134303534462E303039373A5343465354?= =?utf-8?q?4154333637343239302C73733D312C72653D2D342E3030302C6667733D30=3B?= CAT=NONE; CON=NONE; SIG=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0sGG5gAAfQ== x-pmx-version: 5.6.1.2065439 x-wss-id: 0M3IBF3-01-10Y-02 Errors-To: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org x-beenthere: rt4-whois@icann.org x-mailman-version: 2.1.9 list-id: Mailing list to be used by the WHOIS Policy Review Team Members list-post: list-archive: x-greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( pechora3.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.73]); Fri, 04 May 2012 16:35:03 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=_004_4fa4051e8661b40a36b5ffff8625mxgooglecom_ MIME-Version: 1.0 --_004_4fa4051e8661b40a36b5ffff8625mxgooglecom_ Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_000_4fa4051e8661b40a36b5ffff8625mxgooglecom_ --_000_4fa4051e8661b40a36b5ffff8625mxgooglecom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am Ok with the revisions. Regards, Sarmad From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On B= ehalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 9:20 PM To: Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up to th= e readability of the rest of the Summary [SEC=3DUNCLASSIFIED] I like it, tx Peter and Emily. However, I defer to our lead IDN drafters, S= armad and Michael, for final approval. What I like is that it helps makes the whole issue approachable -- and hope= fully the rest of the Community will spend more time and attention on this = issue in which a core of dedicated people have worked so hard and so well. Best, Kathy Thank you Peter I think this is a good synthesis. One extra element, which is easily forg= otten, is that internationalised WHOIS data isn't just an IDN problem, but = one which has been around ever since Chinese, Arabic and Russian speakers h= ave been registering domain names. So, the delay in addressing this has no= t just been a year (since introduction of IDN.IDN) or a decade (IDN.tld), i= t's even longer than that. So, I've added some language for this, based on the first paragraph of the = IDN chapter (highlighted below). Kind regards Emily On 4 May 2012 08:08, Nettlefold, Peter > wrote: Hello again all, As I=92ve said previously, I=92m no expert in this area, but to hopefully h= elp move this forward I have attempted to pick up what seemed to be the maj= or themes from both sets of text. I hope this helps, and please feel free to edit or discard as needed. Cheers, Peter Findings Developments associated with the WHOIS protocol and registration data have = not kept pace with the real world. A significant example of this is Interna= tional Domain Names (IDNs). IDNs have been available for registration at th= e second level for over a decade, and were introduced in 2010 at the root l= evel. However, these developments were not accompanied by corresponding cha= nges related to WHOIS. In short, the current WHOIS protocol has no support = for non-ASCII characters, and cannot signal a non-ASCII script. This means that while domain names can now be written in a range of scrips = (such as Arabic and Cyrillic), the contact information must still be transl= iterated into a format ill-suited to the purpose. The NORC Study on Data Ac= curacy highlighted IDN contact data as a major cause of apparent inaccuracy= . The failure to reflect internationalised registration data does not just af= fect IDNs, however, and has existed for much longer - ever since domain nam= es have been registered by registrants globally. Global users need to repr= esent their local names, postal addresses and other contact and technical i= nformation in the script(s) which they use. These are difficult issues, and there is ongoing work within ICANN in this = area (e.g. the joint gNSO and SSAC working group on Internationalised Regis= tration Data =96 IRD WG). As the need is imminent, this work needs to proce= ed with priority in coordination with other relevant work beyond ICANN=92s = ambit, to make internationalised domain name registration data accessible. From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mail= to:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Beha= lf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Thursday, 3 May 2012 11:43 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up to the re= adability of the rest of the Summary Dear All, I appreciate the evolution of the IDNs text (and see nice changes in the fi= ndings). Canwe go a bit further? I was wondering if we might take one more = attempt to a) define IDNs (for the many readers who will have no idea), b) = and define better the ambiguous term "this environment". For smarter (and more awake) people than I am, do you see a way to merge th= e two texts below? I truly want to make sure that everyone understands the = importance and timeliness of our recommendations! Also, I saw that Peter has some ideas in this area, but did not propose wor= ding changes (I don't think). Does some of the text below cover your though= ts? Best and tx, Kathy Findings/Kathy: [from the Executive Summary] Policy and implementation of the Whois protoco= l and registration data have not kept pace with the real world. Internation= al Domain Names (IDNs) were introduced to great fanfare by ICANN in 2000, a= nd in 2010 at the root level, without a corresponding change to its policie= s related to WHOIS. What this means, is that while domain names can now be written in Arabic fo= r example, the contact information for these domains must still be translit= erated into a format ill-suited to the purpose. [from the Public Forum Slid= es] These are difficult issues, and members of the ICANN Community have wor= ked hard to date, but the current Whois protocol has no support for non-ASC= II characters and cannot signal a non-ASCII script. Some ccTLD registries a= nd registrars have implemented ad hoc solutions and arbitrary mappings of l= ocal scripts onto ASCII code points, and as a result, IDN Whois data today = often appears as a nonsense sequence of ASCII characters. Findings/Sarmad Perhaps it should be no surprise that within this environment [Kathy: which= environment?] , policy and implementation have not kept pace with the real= world. A significant example of this is Internationalised Domain Names (I= DN), which have been available for registration at the second level for ove= r a decade, and at the Top Level for more than a year. During this time, WH= OIS policies were not amended to accommodate the obvious need to support no= n-ASCII character sets even though there was a recognition that Internation= alisation is essential for the Internet=92s development as a global resourc= e. There is ongoing work within ICANN (e.g. joint gNSO and SSAC working gro= up on Internationalised Registration Data =96 IRD WG) in this area. As the= need is imminent, this work needs to proceed with priority in coordination= with other relevant work outside the ICANN=92s ambit (e.g. WIERDS initiati= ve at IETF), to make internationalised domain name registration data access= ible. The NORC Study on Data Accuracy highlighted IDN contact data as a major cau= se of apparent inaccuracy. Having internationalized data will also address= this source of inaccuracy. [end] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy al= l copies of the original message. This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirab= le content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products pleas= e visit www.axway.com. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 =95 m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily@emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wal= es No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. --_000_4fa4051e8661b40a36b5ffff8625mxgooglecom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am Ok with the revisions. 

 

Regards,
Sarmad

 

 

From: rt4-whois-boun= ces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 9:20 PM
To: Emily Taylor
Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it u= p to the readability of the rest of the Summary [SEC=3DUNCLASSIFIED]

 

I like it, tx Peter and Emily. However, I defer to o= ur lead IDN drafters, Sarmad and Michael, for final approval.

What I like is that it helps makes the whole issue approachable -- and hope= fully the rest of the Community will spend more time and attention on this = issue in which a core of dedicated people have worked so hard and so well.

Best,
Kathy




Thank you Peter

 

I think this is a good synthesis.   One extra e= lement, which is easily forgotten, is that internationalised WHOIS data isn= 't just an IDN problem, but one which has been around ever since Chinese, A= rabic and Russian speakers have been registering domain names.  So, the delay in addressing this has not just been a y= ear (since introduction of IDN.IDN) or a decade (IDN.tld), it's even longer= than that.

 

So, I've added some language for this, based on the = first paragraph of the IDN chapter (highlighted below).

 

Kind regards


Emily

On 4 May 2012 08:08, Nettlefold, Peter <Peter.Nettlefol= d@dbcde.gov.au> wrote:

Hello again all,

 

As I=92ve said previously, I=92m no expert in this area, but= to hopefully help move this forward I have attempted to pick up what seemed to be the major themes fro= m both sets of text.

 

I hope this helps, and please feel free to edit or discard a= s needed.

 

Cheers,

 

Peter

 

 

Findings

 

Developments associated with the WHOIS protocol and regis= tration data have not kept pace with the real world. A significant example of this is International Domain= Names (IDNs). IDNs have been available for registration at the second leve= l for over a decade, and were introduced in 2010 at the root level. However= , these developments were not accompanied by corresponding changes related to WHOIS. In short, the current WHOIS pro= tocol has no support for non-ASCII characters, and cannot signal a non-ASCI= I script.

This means that while domain names can now be written in = a range of scrips (such as Arabic and Cyrillic), the contact information must still be transl= iterated into a format ill-suited to the purpose. The NORC Study on Data Ac= curacy highlighted IDN contact data as a major cause of apparent inaccuracy= .  

 

The failure to reflect internationalised registration d= ata does not just affect IDNs, however, and has existed for much longer - e= ver since domain names have been registered by registrants globally.  Global users need to r= epresent their local names, postal addresses and other contact and technica= l information in the script(s) which they use.   

 

These are difficult issues, and there is ongoing work wit= hin ICANN in this area (e.g. the joint gNSO and SSAC working group on Internationalised Registration Da= ta =96 IRD WG). As the need is imminent, this work needs to proceed with pr= iority in coordination with other relevant work beyond ICANN=92s ambit, to = make internationalised domain name registration data accessible.
 

 

From: rt4-whois-= bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Thursday, 3 May 2012 11:43 PM
To: rt4-who= is@icann.org
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up to= the readability of the rest of the Summary

 

Dear All,
I appreciate the evolution of the IDNs text (and see nice changes in the fi= ndings). Canwe go a bit further? I was wondering if we might take one more = attempt to a) define IDNs (for the many readers who will have no idea), b) = and define better the ambiguous term "this environment".

For smarter (and more awake) people than I am, do you see a way to merge th= e two texts below? I truly want to make sure that everyone understands the = importance and timeliness of our recommendations!

Also, I saw that Peter has some ideas in this area, but did not propose wor= ding changes (I don't think). Does some of the text below cover your though= ts?

Best and tx,
Kathy


Findings/Kathy:
[from the Executive Summary] Policy and implementation of the Whois pro= tocol and registration data have not kept pace with the real world. Interna= tional Domain Names (IDNs) were introduced to great fanfare by ICANN in 200= 0, and in 2010 at the root level, without a corresponding change to its policies related to WHOIS.

What this means, is that while domain names can now be written in Arabic fo= r example, the contact information for these domains must still be translit= erated into a format ill-suited to the purpose. [from the Public Forum Slid= es] These are difficult issues, and members of the ICANN Community have worked hard to date, but the curre= nt Whois protocol has no support for non-ASCII characters and cannot signal= a non-ASCII script. Some ccTLD registries and registrars have implemented = ad hoc solutions and arbitrary mappings of local scripts onto ASCII code points, and as a result, IDN Whois data t= oday often appears as a nonsense sequence of ASCII characters.

Findings/Sarmad
Perhaps it should be no surprise that within this environment [Kathy= : which environment?] , policy and implementation have not kept pace with the real world.&nbs= p; A significant example of this is Internationalised Domain Names (IDN), w= hich have been available for registration at the second level for over a de= cade, and at the Top Level for more than a year. During this time, WHOIS policies were not amended to accommodate t= he obvious need to support non-ASCII character sets even though there was a= recognition that Internationalisation is essential for the Internet=92s de= velopment as a global resource. There is ongoing work within ICANN (e.g. joint gNSO and SSAC working group on In= ternationalised Registration Data =96 IRD WG) in this area.  As the ne= ed is imminent, this work needs to proceed with priority in coordination wi= th other relevant work outside the ICANN=92s ambit (e.g. WIERDS initiative at IETF), to make internationalised domain n= ame registration data accessible.
 
The NORC Study on Data Accuracy highlighted IDN contact data as a major cau= se of apparent inaccuracy.  Having internationalized data will also ad= dress this source of inaccuracy.

[end]


------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)=
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized <= br> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the <= br> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy al= l
copies of the original message.

This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate.
MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirab= le content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products pleas= e visit www.axway.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------


_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois



 

--


  

   &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           

76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 =95 m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
emily@emilytaylor= .eu

www.etlaw.co.uk=

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wal= es No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.

 

 

--_000_4fa4051e8661b40a36b5ffff8625mxgooglecom_-- --_004_4fa4051e8661b40a36b5ffff8625mxgooglecom_ Content-Type: text/plain; name=ATT00001.txt Content-Description: ATT00001.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=ATT00001.txt; size=143; creation-date="Fri, 04 May 2012 16:35:27 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 04 May 2012 16:35:27 GMT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NClJ0NC13aG9p cyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNClJ0NC13aG9pc0BpY2Fubi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vbW0uaWNhbm4ub3Jn L21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcnQ0LXdob2lzDQo= --_004_4fa4051e8661b40a36b5ffff8625mxgooglecom_--