[RDS-WHOIS2-IDNS] Initial letter

[Dmitry Belyavsky]

Dear Lili,

The only problems with EAI I see are:

1. Registrar's mailing system can fail sending notifications to the
clients. It seems to be a infrastructure problem and not problem ow Whois.
2. The EAIs cannot be represented in plain ASCII, and if we think that old
Whois stays forever with us, it's a problem. In case of RDAP it is not a
problem, I think.

Thank you!

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 6:37 AM, SUN Lili <L.SUN at interpol.int> wrote:

> Dear both,
> First of all, I sincerely apologise for the delay due to the private
> matters during my annual leave. At the same time, I constantly have
> problems to access my mailbox via laptops.
> I have no knowledge about IDNS before. After doing some basic research, I
> agree with your conclusion in general. We should provide descriptive
> assessment on the implementation of Rec 12 and 13. As to Rec 14, it is also
> relevant to Rec 5-9 Data Accuracy, and I also have the impression that some
> of Rec 5-9 are still under implementation, we may need to cross check the
> conclusion with that subgroup.
> When it comes to EAI, I have some further doubts. To my understanding, the
> email address has special purpose comparing to other registration fields,
> e.g. sending out automatic reminder to Registrant for WHOIS updating on a
> annually basis. In this case, special requirements and/or supports are
> expected for EAI, right?
> Hope the above is helpful.
> Thanks,
> Lili
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 19 Dec 2017, at 8:05 PM, Dmitry Belyavsky <beldmit at gmail.com<mailto:
> beldmit at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear Alan,
>
> Thank you for your comprehensive analysis!
>
> I agree with you in total, and after checking the RDAP specification, I
> have no more questions about EAI.
>
> Lili, do you have something to add?
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<
> mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:
> After doing a brief review of the three IDN-related Recommendation from
> the first WHOIS RT, here are my conclusions. Note I am not an IDN expert,
> but have been involved in these discussions for quite some time.
>
> Rec 12 and 13 seem to have been fully addressed, with further action
> pending the GNSO RDS PDP. Clearly we need to review the Recs and reports in
> details, but superficially, that seems to be the case.
> Translated/transliterated may be a bit more difficult, because my
> recollection is that the report leaves open a lot of questions.
>
> Rec 14 I find more difficulty as it was looking at accuracy and metrics
> for accuracy and I am not at all sure how it can be marked as complete when
> the internationalized data has not yet been implemented.
>
> So for "Questions we will need to answer in assessing whether the
> objective has been reached", the answer is that we need to verify that the
> reports address all aspects of the Rec. issues, up to the point where they
> need to be implemented.
>
> I would put the complexity at 3, since it will take careful work to assess
> how well the work is done since we cannot rely on final results  - those
> are impossible until we have a new RDS that handles the internationalized
> data (and multiple forms for translated/transliterated data).
>
> Workload I put at a 2. Not much more than carefully reading the Recs and
> their background and the reports.
>
> Team size I would put at 3. If 3 of us can agree, I think that is enough.
>
> New data (in addition to the written briefings we are already asking for),
> only perhaps a discussion with the SMEs within ICANN on the difficulty of
> proceeding. No external experts.
>
> Related to EAI, I really don't see the issue. If the new RDS fields can
> hold names and addresses using multiple scripts, why is the e-mail address
> a special case?  Worthy of double checking with an RDAP expert, but I am
> not expecting anything other than a confirmation that the e-mail address is
> just another field. It IS interesting in that the part to the right of the
> @ sign could be stored either in its own natural language or in punycode,
> but I don't think that is more than a technical decision on which way to go.
>
> At 04/12/2017 02:00 PM, Dmitry Belyavsky wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Let’s make an initial discussion of the scope of our subgroup.
> I kindly ask Lili and Alan to share their ideas on our duties not later
> than December 7.
>
> According to Susan's letter
>
> =============
> Please note that the following actions will need to be achieved by
> December 12, 2017:
>
> Establish mandate, objectives and timeline for the work
>
> Determine topics for investigation and validate against ICANN Bylaws
>
> Identify briefings/data sources needed
>
> Determine requirements for independent expert(s) and – if necessary –
> develop statement of work
>
> Adopt statement of work and assoociated work plan
>
> ================
>
> I tried to describe my understanding below, so any feedback is welcome.
> After that let's convert it to plan.
>
> As for now, I do not think we need conference calls, especially taking
> into account our geographical distribution. I hope we can just use mailing
> list for most cases.
>
>
> I suggest to start from the analysis of the RT1 recommendation and
> actions/decisions taken by board according to the materials of Briefing on
> WHOIS Recommendations [1], WHOIS Review Executive Summaries [2] and
> Detailed Quarterly Implementation Report on WHOIS Improvements[3].
>
>
> According to [2], p.23, “Implementation plan to be developed†but I
> have no idea what it is related to. According to [3] p.6, the
> implementation plan should be the part of completing Recommendation 13.
> Both Recommendations 12 and 13 are described as completed. If it is OK, I
> do not see what are we to do with it. According to [1] p.17 there is no
> recommendations by IRT to be implemented yet. So I think that we can just
> mention this situation and it will be OK.
>
>
> Regarding Recommendation 14, I think we have a previously-absent
> circumstances. I mean Email Address International (EAI). I know that at
> least some ccTLDs allow using such email addresses as email addresses of
> registrants. I expect that sooner or later EAI will be allowed in EPP
> protocol used in gTLDs so we need to say something about it. At least we
> must raise the question whether EAI addresses are RDAP-compatible in this
> or that way.
>
> According to [3] p.7, “Internationalized registration data (IRD) for
> WHOIS Records are being proactively identified in Phase I and Phase II of
> ARS reports†. But the EAI case was not covered.
>
> [1] https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69279139/
> WHOIS%20Briefing%20-%2028September2017%20-%20V2.0.pptx?version=1&
> modificationDate=1506686336000&api=v2
>
> [2] https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54691767/
> WHOIS%20Recs%201_16%2030Sept2016.pdf
>
> [3] https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54691767/
> WHOIS%20Quarterly%20Summary%2031December2016.pdf
>
>
> --
> SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
>          1;YQXPR0101MB1589;27:HE4HUjqHu1NifahA1P0Ja7cgQY//
> hrREQRCMICNrd4ntBo8XEr6KMIHfT00P2bd0Lou+nrKYrJxZY4kMdK9cZ6gekUmPXmC1Zx
> t/TbBpvn4F1j4alkW8gkrIeyTrHWKu
> X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info:
>          iFfZKQmok7EFRUMSvaVsvrAg0oFo8vTeQljbH5FEla/
> IIl9QXjTZzSoD3vurZR2DMqYYV/yQdwEvtHYlIDmuW75nhr5ulY1xhzSC
> bqvdVCjVmMy5tj5tMr9BlfgiU3lOa7YH5kSGjUa8bspVVYroWw==
>
> _______________________________________________
> RDS-WHOIS2-IDNS mailing list
> RDS-WHOIS2-IDNS at icann.org<mailto:RDS-WHOIS2-IDNS at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-idns
>
>
>
> --
> SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
> _______________________________________________
> RDS-WHOIS2-IDNS mailing list
> RDS-WHOIS2-IDNS at icann.org<mailto:RDS-WHOIS2-IDNS at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-idns
>
> ************************************************************
> ***************************************
> This message, and any attachment contained, are confidential and subject
> of legal privilege. It may be used solely for the designated police/justice
> purpose and by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. The
> information is not to be disseminated to another agency or third party
> without the author’s consent, and must not be retained longer than is
> necessary for the fulfilment of the purpose for which the information is to
> be used. All practicable steps shall be taken by the recipients to ensure
> that information is protected against unauthorised access or processing.
> INTERPOL reserves the right to enquire about the use of the information
> provided.
> If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received
> this message in error. In such a case, you should not print it, copy it,
> make any use of it or disclose it, but please notify us immediately and
> delete the message from any computer.
> ************************************************************
> *************************************
>



-- 
SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rds-whois2-idns/attachments/20180108/325f6450/attachment.html>