Michael, you are right, the idea is simple.

The problems are over whether translation or transliteration is what should be requested (and there are situations where one is more appropriate than the other, but it is sometimes depends on the particular string. Also, since this is a decision that will affect Registry/Registrar contracts, it must be addressed through a formal PDP. Also, who it is that should do the translation/transliteration is not obvious.

The Issue Report is at http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/37469 and slide 11 of beijing46.icann.org/meetings/beijing2013/presentation-gnso-council-10apr13-en.pdf has an interesting example.

Alan

At 18/06/2013 02:46 AM, Michael Yakushev wrote:
Alan,
thanks for clarification.
In fact, the idea of the wording on translation/transliteration was quite simpe: to introduce a clear obligation to all WHOIS "operators": if the information in IDN domains is represented in local langagues, _including_ WHOIS data, _certain_ (minimal) set of such data should be visible in ASCII codes. So the task is to fix, what information should be doubled (transliterated or translated): name, address, contact data etc., and what _unified_ methods should be introduced to represent such information.
Rgds,
Michael

2013/6/18 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca >
Michael,

With regard to Rec 12 and 13, my understanding was that 12 was addressing the overall issue of IDN registration data (ie Whois) presumably as entered in its native script. The lack of progress here is not good, in my mind.

13 was addressing a particular subset of that, how to render the IDN information in ASCII, either by translation or transliteration or some combination. This is an admittedly messy areas and one that there is no obvious answer to. The spreadsheet was not particularly helpful on this Recommendation, but I was aware of the current situation and chose not to ask for a clarification, since I can provide it myself. The GNSO requested an Issue Report (the first step to a PDP) on this last October (before the Board motion on the WHOIS RT), a preliminary report was delivered in January and the final one in March. Based on this Issue Report, the GNSO Council voted at its meeting last Thursday (June 13) to initiate a PDP. So that one is moving along about as well as can be expected.

I have no problem having staff give us their version for the records though.

Alan


At 17/06/2013 09:34 AM, Michael Yakushev wrote:
Dear Alan, colleagues,

I am very thankful to Alan for this comments/suggestions/requests. To be frank, I was much more polite with my own assessment of the current developments with the implementation of WHOIS RT procedures.
I do agree with all the proposed suggestions. I have to admit that I missed very important issue, mentioned by Alan in Item 9 ("The WRT recommendation as stated is not feasible.?etc.). This unfortunate situation really needs clarification.
May I also add a question in the table, prepared by Alan - re Recommendation 13. The staff indicated that they are still 'awaiting GNSO policy on translation or transliteration', while Recommendation 12 suggests that 'ICANN should task a working group' on such issues. The update/clarification is needed.

I fully agree that we need to have an updated feedback from the staff for the whole picture.

Kind regards,
Michael


2013/6/17 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca >
Please find attached my suggestions for the request for additional information.
Alan
_______________________________________________
workstream3-atrt2 mailing list
workstream3-atrt2@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/workstream3-atrt2