Re: [council] IRD report-- follow up actions

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Ching,

The approach you suggest is dependent on a motion being made for Toronto to 
have the Council initiate an IR. If such a motion is to be made, please be 
mindful of the fast approaching deadline (Oct 9).

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM NetNames France
----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director
NetNames
T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51
F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61


Le 5 oct. 2012 à 04:35, Ching Chiao [Registry.Asia] a écrit :

> Dear Stéphane, Councilors, 
> 
> I'd like to have your attention on the possible follow-up action items for 
> IRD. 
> 
> In the co-signed GNSO-SSAC letter sent to the Board last month, we have 
> mentioned that 
> 
> "requesting the (IRD) implementation plan time-lines and clarifying that any 
> policy implications in implementing the recommendations will have to be 
> considered by the GNSO Council".
> 
> As we are expecting the Board / Staff to provide time-lines, as well as to 
> receive the regular updates from the Staff on the technical front (refer to 
> recommendation 1 -- IRD submission and display AND 3 -- IRD access protocol). 
> It is my belief that the Council can work in parallel and initiate the work 
> on preparing the issue report for recommendation 2: 
> 
> "
> 2.  The GNSO Council and the SSAC should request a common Issue Report on 
> translation and transliteration of contact information. The Issue Report 
> should consider whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a 
> single common language or transliterate contact information to a single 
> common script. It should also consider who should bear the burden and who is 
> in the best position to address these issues. The Issue Report should 
> consider policy questions raised in the IRD-WG Final Report and should also 
> recommend whether to start a policy development process (PDP) to address 
> those questions. "
> 
> 
> 
> The RySG has agreed such approach and I am expecting further feedback from 
> the RrSG as well. From an operational viewpoint, translation and/or 
> transliteration of registration data does require clear responsibilities from 
> registrants and registrars. As the Toronto meeting approaches, I feel that 
> it's rather important to address this issue timely not only the ground works 
> has been done for few years, but the result of the work should offer complete 
> clarity for IDN gTLD. 
> 
> 
> 
> If you all agree, we would then ask the corresponding staff to prepare:
> 
> 1) IRD technical update
> 
> 2) Resolution of issue report on Rec. 2
> 
> 
> 
> for the Toronto meeting. 
> 
> 
> 
> Comments and suggestions are welcome. Thank you very much.
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Ching 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>