Fwd: [] Update: Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I am just getting around to reviewing tha changes made by the SSAC to the IRD's final report.

I don't know if the GNSO has reviewed or commented yet.  So hard to keep track of what the GNSO is up to these days.

In any case, if anyone has comments, i will pass them along to the WG.

avri



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng at icann.org>
> Subject: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Update: Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group
> Date: 27 April 2012 17:57:19 EDT
> To: "ssac-gnso-irdwg at icann.org" <ssac-gnso-irdwg at icann.org>
> 
> Dear members of IRD-WG, 
> 
>   Greetings. When the IRD-WG Final report was approved by the group in March. It was sent to GNSO and to SSAC for review  and approval. As a result, the SSAC provided a few comments, for your review and approval. 
> 
>   Most of these comments are to correct technical and other errors in the document. The only substantive change is that the SSAC proposed an additional recommendation: 
> 
> Recommendation 4: ICANN should take appropriate steps to require gTLD registries and registrars andpersuade ccTLD registries and registrars to support the following standards:
> Domain Names - both A-label and U-label; nameserver Names- A-label, and optionally U-label;
> Telephone/fax- ITU-T E.123; Email- IETF EAI WG RFCs; Registration Status- Exact EPP status where applicable; Dates - ISO 8601-2004. 
> 
> The rationale for this recommendation is that SSAC members asked: is there a reason why standards agreed to in Section 4.2 are not part of the final recommendations for action now?  For example, Nameserver, Phone/fax, Dates, Registration Status are fields where it appears the WG had consensus. By proposing recommendation 4, it made possible for possible actions where the IRD-WG had consensus, without having to wait for the translation and transliteration issue to resolve. 
> 
> Attached please find the report (REDLINE, clean version). 
> 
> We appreciate the IRD-WG members could review these changes and discuss whether to approve them by May 9, 2012. If the IRD-WG feel there is a need for a teleconference call, staff is happy to organize it. 
> 
> Kind regards, 
> Steve

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120505/ae9afca5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: April 26 Internation#381A9D.doc
Type: application/x-msword
Size: 542208 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120505/ae9afca5/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120505/ae9afca5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: April 26Internationalized_Registration Data Working Group Report.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 762575 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120505/ae9afca5/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120505/ae9afca5/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: April 26Internationalized_Registration Data Working Group Report CLEAN.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 658541 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120505/ae9afca5/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120505/ae9afca5/attachment-0003.html>