Hi guys Thanks for absorbing the SSAC document. SSAC have made a conscious effort to include us in their draft-report loop in order to help us with our work, which is very good of them. For the benefit of members of the team who may be sinking under the load of documents to be read, would you mind reproducing the terms that you think we should adopt (in the body of an e-mail), and any _brief_ reasoning which might assist comprehension. Much appreciated, Emily On 28 September 2011 06:45, Smith, Bill <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> wrote:

I support adopting the suggestions re clearly defining data, protocol, etc.

On Sep 27, 2011, at 10:27 PM, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:

...

Dear Tema Members,

whiole waiting for my flight back home to Europe on Friday, I had the opportunity to consciously read the various documents, already having the considerations of the F2F meeting in my (almost empty :-) ) head.

After doing so, I am wondering what the position of the team is wer the recommendations of the SSAC, specifically to think about adopting their proposals for terminology.

I think adopting the basic suggestions to clearly specify registration data, protocol stuff and directory service/display for the end-user does make a lot of sense.

I am less convinced that the more detailed and specific terminology suggestions and acronyms would really benefit the readers of our final report.

Does anyone have a particular pov or guidance?

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

_______________________________________________ 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 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily@emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.

Emily Taylor wrote:

Hi guys

Thanks for absorbing the SSAC document. SSAC have made a conscious effort to include us in their draft-report loop in order to help us with our work, which is very good of them.

For the benefit of members of the team who may be sinking under the load of documents to be read, would you mind reproducing the terms that you think we should adopt (in the body of an e-mail),

Sure, here we go, although a bit belated, sorry. In Section 2. Taxonomy of Trms, on page 5 of the SSAC document https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/SSAC+-+WHOIS+Advisory the authors set out to introduce 3 terms and abbreviations, see below. [For the full text please refer to the document] <quote> When one speaks about WHOIS, it is often unclear which part of the system he/she is referring to. To avoid confusion, SSAC proposes the following terms to better distinguish the components of the WHOIS system: </quote> btw, this text c|should be copied verbatim to a prominent place in our document and/or referred to. 1) Domain Name Registration Data (DNRD) – refers to the information that registrants provide when registering a domain name and that registrars or registries collect. Some of this information is made available to the public. [...] 2) Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol (DNRD-AP) – refers to the elements of a (standard) communications exchange – queries and responses - that make access to registration data possible. For example, the WHOIS protocol (RFC 3912) and HTTP (RFC 2616 and its updates) are commonly used to provide public access to DNRD. 3) Domain Name Registration Data Directory Service (DNRD-DS) – refers to the service(s) offered by registries and registrars to provide access to (potentially a subset of) the Domain Name Registration Data. [...]

and any _brief_ reasoning which might assist comprehension.

I think adopting these 3 terms is fully in line with all the discussions and interactions we had so far, and will help in making it obvious to the reader which aspect we are talking about. We may opt to be a tad sloppy and omit the "Domain Name" prefix, where it is obvious from context (most of the time), but stick to the abbreviations - DNRD for the Registration Data itself, - DNRD-AP for the Access Protocol, and - DNRD-DS for the Directory Service. In a subsequent section, SSAC develops some additional terms and abbreviations, like - DRNDe for "individual elements in DNRD", - "internationalised" and "localised" DNRD and - DNRD-DSD to denote a subset of DNRD that is made available by the DNRD-DS While I do agree, there is technical merit in defining this stuff, I believe that the Hamming Distance[1] is too small for the average reader to be useful. If your head is spinning now with Ds, Rs, Ns and Ds - you are in good company :-) Sticking to the 3 should be good enough!

Much appreciated,

You are welcome!

Emily

Hope this has been useful, cheers, Wilfried. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_distance

Hi Wilfried Thank you for looking at this. I agree with you that the pinpoint accuracy of the terminology makes it rather difficult for the uninitiated (ie me) to tell the difference, and therefore I would be in favour of finding slightly more user friendly labels. However, the content and analysis of the meanings of the different terms are very helpful in my view. Would you or Sarmad be able to feedback on this to Jim Galvin, who was keen to know our thoughts on the SSAC study. Kind regards Emily On 3 October 2011 23:41, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet < Woeber@cc.univie.ac.at> wrote:

Emily Taylor wrote:

...

Hi guys

Thanks for absorbing the SSAC document. SSAC have made a conscious effort to include us in their draft-report loop in order to help us with our work, which is very good of them.

For the benefit of members of the team who may be sinking under the load of documents to be read, would you mind reproducing the terms that you think we should adopt (in the body of an e-mail),

Sure, here we go, although a bit belated, sorry.

In Section 2. Taxonomy of Trms, on page 5 of the SSAC document

https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/SSAC+-+WHOIS+Advisory the authors set out to introduce 3 terms and abbreviations, see below. [For the full text please refer to the document]

<quote> When one speaks about WHOIS, it is often unclear which part of the system he/she is referring to. To avoid confusion, SSAC proposes the following terms to better distinguish the components of the WHOIS system: </quote>

btw, this text c|should be copied verbatim to a prominent place in our document and/or referred to.

1) Domain Name Registration Data (DNRD) – refers to the information that registrants provide when registering a domain name and that registrars or registries collect. Some of this information is made available to the public. [...]

2) Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol (DNRD-AP) – refers to the elements of a (standard) communications exchange – queries and responses - that make access to registration data possible. For example, the WHOIS protocol (RFC 3912) and HTTP (RFC 2616 and its updates) are commonly used to provide public access to DNRD.

3) Domain Name Registration Data Directory Service (DNRD-DS) – refers to the service(s) offered by registries and registrars to provide access to (potentially a subset of) the Domain Name Registration Data. [...]

...

and any _brief_ reasoning which might assist comprehension.

I think adopting these 3 terms is fully in line with all the discussions and interactions we had so far, and will help in making it obvious to the reader which aspect we are talking about.

We may opt to be a tad sloppy and omit the "Domain Name" prefix, where it is obvious from context (most of the time), but stick to the abbreviations

- DNRD for the Registration Data itself, - DNRD-AP for the Access Protocol, and - DNRD-DS for the Directory Service.

In a subsequent section, SSAC develops some additional terms and abbreviations, like - DRNDe for "individual elements in DNRD", - "internationalised" and "localised" DNRD and - DNRD-DSD to denote a subset of DNRD that is made available by the DNRD-DS

While I do agree, there is technical merit in defining this stuff, I believe that the Hamming Distance[1] is too small for the average reader to be useful. If your head is spinning now with Ds, Rs, Ns and Ds - you are in good company :-)

Sticking to the 3 should be good enough!

...

Much appreciated,

You are welcome!

...

Emily

Hope this has been useful, cheers, Wilfried.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_distance

-- * * 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily@emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.