Re: [council] Draft Letter for Review re: IRD-WG Final Report Delivery to Board

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

Thanks Ching.

If everyone is in agreement with the proposed suggestion that we cosign the 
SSAC letter, then I will alter the Sept 13 agenda and add approval of us 
cosigning the letter to the consent agenda, which would have the added benefit 
of removing a full agenda item from what at present is a very, very full agenda.

If anyone objects, please say so by COB tomorrow.

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director
Group NBT

Le 22 août 2012 à 12:27, Ching Chiao a écrit :

> Stéphane / All,
> 
> My apology for not being responsive on this issue.
> 
> Stéphane -- I'd agree your approach on co-signing the SSAC letter,
> which is simply to deliver the report to the Board. The Council has
> already authorize the Chair to do so. After the submission of this
> joint letter, the Board / Staff should prepare for the IRD
> implementation timeline and liaise with GNSO / SSAC if there's any
> policy issues -- a useful and similar reference could be ICANN's
> roadmap on SAC 051 (
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-6-04jun12-en.htm
> ). The question now is when the GNSO / ICANN community can see such
> timeline therefore we should request for it.
> 
> In reality, based on my understanding, the policy works / motion may
> come a year later or even longer. Here's why. Some of you may have
> noticed the new development of the WEIRDS-WG
> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/weirds/charter/) in IETF. At the
> bottom of that web page you can see the proposed milestones for
> standardizing RDDS. ICANN is relying on WEIRDS-WG to get the ball
> rolling and ultimately fix the WHOIS / RDDS standardization issues,
> and this include the IRD. Unless the Council is thinking something
> else, this IRD / WEIRDS is pretty much driven by the progress /
> efficiency of technical standard updates, and I assume that many
> registry / registrar players are involved in that process. So my take
> at the moment would be getting Staff to brief the Council regularly,
> and we will have better sense of when to request a formal plan or
> report from the Board / Staff, as well as to decide when to request
> for issue report or to initiate PDP.
> 
> Just my two cents for this big issue. Other comments and suggestions
> are certainly welcome and appreciated.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Ching
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder
> <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Councillors,
>> 
>> Please see below the correspondence from Patrik Fälström, SSAC Chair.
>> 
>> You will remember that we discussed the IRD-WG FR at our last meeting and it
>> was decided that we should draft a letter to send the Board "requesting the
>> implementation plan time-lines and clarifying that any policy implications
>> in implementing the recommendations will have to be considered by the GNSO
>> Council".
>> 
>> Ching volunteered to draft the letter and we were looking to approve it at
>> our next meeting, which is scheduled for Sept 13. The SSAC proposed letter
>> obviously overlaps with this, but from what I can see introduces no new
>> elements apart from actually spelling out the IRD recommendations for the
>> Board.
>> 
>> I would therefore suggest that we may wish to sign on to the proposed SSAC
>> letter, whilst also sending our own letter as planned. Ching and others,
>> please provide feedback on this suggestion and make any comments you feel
>> are relevant to this and the SSAC letter.
>> 
>> I will, as planned, add the approval of Ching's letter to the Sept 13
>> consent agenda. I will also add an agenda item on the proposed SSAC IRD-WG
>> letter.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Stéphane Van Gelder
>> Directeur Général / General manager
>> INDOM Group NBT France
>> ----------------
>> Head of Domain Operations
>> Group NBT
>> 
>> Début du message réexpédié :
>> 
>> De : Patrik Fältström <paf@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Objet : Rép : Draft Letter for Review re: IRD-WG Final Report Delivery to
>> Board
>> Date : 7 août 2012 07:58:11 UTC+02:00
>> À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Jim Galvin <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ram Mohan <rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> Stéphane,
>> 
>> I have consulted with my Vice Chair, Jim Galvin, and with Ram Mohan, the
>> SSAC Liaison to the Board, and we would like to suggest changes to the draft
>> cover letter for the IRD-WG Final Report delivery to the Board that Julie
>> Hedlund sent to you and me on 20 July (see original message below). I have
>> attached a revised version for your consideration in Word and PDF. The
>> primary changes are that we included the recommendations from the IRD-WG
>> Final Report in the cover letter for the Board's reference. These are
>> highlighted as tracked changes in the revised draft letter.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>>  Patrik
>> 
>> From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, Patrik Fältström
>> <patrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Draft Letter for Review re: IRD-WG Final Report Delivery to Board
>> 
>> Dear Stéphane and Patrik,
>> 
>> On 27 June in Prague the GNSO Council passed a motion relating to the Final
>> Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG).
>> In its motion the Council approved the delivery to the Board of the IRD-WG’s
>> Final Report and requested staff to draft a joint letter from the GNSO and
>> the SSAC to the Board.  Attached for your consideration is the draft joint
>> letter from the GNSO and the SSAC to the Board in Word and PDF and the Final
>> Report.
>> 
>> Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Julie
>> 
>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director/SSAC Support
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>