ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Draft Letter for Review re: IRD-WG Final Report Delivery to Board
  • From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:38:23 +0200
  • In-reply-to: <CC5D30C3.202CE%steve.sheng@icann.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <CC5D30C3.202CE%steve.sheng@icann.org>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Following on from my email last week I have removed item 3 from our draft 
agenda and kept the IRD approval in our consent agenda.

Glen, please make sure we add a link on the agenda to the SSAC letter to serve 
as a reference for Councillors when we come to approve this during the Sept 13 
meeting. Thanks.

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

Le 25 août 2012 à 00:40, Steve Sheng a écrit :

> 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
> protocol. 
> 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
> data.
> 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, 
> Steve
> -----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 (
>> 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-WG¹s
>>> 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

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