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

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Stéphane, will do.

Glen

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: lundi 27 août 2012 10:38
To: Steve Sheng; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Draft Letter for Review re: IRD-WG Final Report Delivery 
to Board

All,

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<mailto:chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
To: Stéphane Van Gelder 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Jim Galvin <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Ram Mohan 
<rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>>
To: Stéphane Van Gelder 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>, Patrik 
Fältström
<patrik@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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