ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Ching Chiao <chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: Draft Letter for Review re: IRD-WG Final Report Delivery to Board
  • From: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:40:12 -0700
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US
  • Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <CAKddyOjwgzavaJch1US=YemR1xjm55cbig-xztnnCdRs+aTy0g@mail.gmail.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Ac2CSW3ewej7ngTpTmOCpGftGRL0Fg==
  • Thread-topic: [council] Fwd: Draft Letter for Review re: IRD-WG Final Report Delivery to Board
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/

Hello Ching,

 As the staff support for the IRD working group and also a participant in
the IETF Web Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (weirds) WG, I
echo your suggestion that there should be some regular update of the IETF
efforts to the Council. This way, the policy community will be informed on
the technical community's progress. If council agrees, We could arrange
the first briefing to the council in Toronto.

I also agree with you that once the IETF work is finished, the
council could address the IRD issue through a PDP to replace the Whois

I want to add one suggestion to your proposal. The translation and
transliteration PDP that the IRD-WG called for is not tied to the IETF
work, and it would be better to start this sooner.

So we could have a two part PDP. Part A addresses the translation or
transliteration requirement, if any. Part B addresses the Whois protocol
replacement issue to consistently support internationalized registration

Regardless of your decision to adopt some or all of the suggestions, and I
realize council have other considerations, we thank the council in advance
for considering this issue for many non-ASCII internet users.

Let me know if you have any questions, I am happy to discuss this further
by email or phone. 

Kind regards, 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ching Chiao <chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: Draft Letter for Review re: IRD-WG Final
Report Delivery to Board

>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 (
>). 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,
>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
>> implementation plan time-lines and clarifying that any policy
>> in implementing the recommendations will have to be considered by the
>> Council".
>> Ching volunteered to draft the letter and we were looking to approve it
>> our next meeting, which is scheduled for Sept 13. The SSAC proposed
>> obviously overlaps with this, but from what I can see introduces no new
>> elements apart from actually spelling out the IRD recommendations for
>> Board.
>> I would therefore suggest that we may wish to sign on to the proposed
>> letter, whilst also sending our own letter as planned. Ching and others,
>> please provide feedback on this suggestion and make any comments you
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> cover letter for the IRD-WG Final Report delivery to the Board that
>> Hedlund sent to you and me on 20 July (see original message below). I
>> 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
>> Dear Stéphane and Patrik,
>> On 27 June in Prague the GNSO Council passed a motion relating to the
>> Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group
>> In its motion the Council approved the delivery to the Board of the
>> Final Report and requested staff to draft a joint letter from the GNSO
>> the SSAC to the Board.  Attached for your consideration is the draft
>> letter from the GNSO and the SSAC to the Board in Word and PDF and the
>> Report.
>> Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
>> Best regards,
>> Julie
>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director/SSAC Support

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>