I like it, tx Peter and Emily. However, I defer to our lead IDN drafters, Sarmad and Michael, for final approval. What I like is that it helps makes the whole issue approachable -- and hopefully 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 forgotten, is that internationalised WHOIS data isn't just an IDN problem, but one which has been around ever since Chinese, Arabic and Russian speakers have been registering domain names. So, the delay in addressing this has not just been a year (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.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au <mailto:Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au>> wrote:
Hello again all,
As I’ve said previously, I’m 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 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 International Domain Names (IDNs). IDNs have been available for registration at the second level 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 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 transliterated into a format ill-suited to the purpose. The NORC Study on Data Accuracy highlighted IDN contact data as a major cause of apparent inaccuracy.
The failure to reflect internationalised registration data does not just affect IDNs, however, and has existed for much longer - ever since domain names have been registered by registrants globally. Global users need to represent their local names, postal addresses and other contact and technical information 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 Registration Data – IRD WG). As the need is imminent, this work needs to proceed with priority in coordination with other relevant work beyond ICANN’s ambit, to make internationalised domain name registration data accessible.
*From:*rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org <mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> [mailto: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-whois@icann.org <mailto:rt4-whois@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 findings). 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 the 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 wording changes (I don't think). Does some of the text below cover your thoughts?
Best and tx, Kathy
_Findings/Kathy: _[from the Executive Summary] Policy and implementation of the Whois protocol and registration data have not kept pace with the real world. International Domain Names (IDNs) were introduced to great fanfare by ICANN in 2000, 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 for example, the contact information for these domains must still be transliterated into a format ill-suited to the purpose. [from the Public Forum Slides] These are difficult issues, and members of the ICANN Community have worked hard to date, but the current 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 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 (IDN), which have been available for registration at the second level for over a decade, and at the Top Level for more than a year. During this time, WHOIS policies were not amended to accommodate the obvious need to support non-ASCII character sets even though there was a recognition that Internationalisation is essential for the Internet’s development as a global resource. There is ongoing work within ICANN (e.g. joint gNSO and SSAC working group on Internationalised Registration Data – 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’s ambit (e.g. WIERDS initiative at IETF), to make internationalised domain name registration data accessible.
The NORC Study on Data Accuracy highlighted IDN contact data as a major cause 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 all 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, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com <http://www.axway.com>.
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org <mailto: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 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily@emilytaylor.eu <mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>
*www.etlaw.co.uk <http://www.etlaw.co.uk>*
Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.