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

[joy <joy@xxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thanks Stephane - happy with that approach
Joy

On 27/08/2012 8:38 p.m., Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQPUgtAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq0WgH/2MCaHA2TmUczjj5UWgw+V17
+MsnToRE/xUwT9rV4LfJFAfB0JpDgbNqL+04a9gePsizKiOSSxoRbEV27brpuKnW
MuuEsudItFVvSnkmHLb3s3mRlvQg1vQ/nj6WHhH4AHBr9Z9OW6VXyPGJonztSu8L
mTGvo7+IwmW0opGjoVjmmNZJMVolIkXJXs4fhVMa2P39qjGRHi7DvV6/E3V/hYiX
3PZClwSTr3eGkfybcNIqNpGjHqtC919MakfA1Dk5LQZyl/uqpv8hDz2eE2QLlLKC
+Oof35Hum0PjnnZuaMcvNlaBg3K401D/USugY80QribUHZ2WtpNYJozPt6YFAGk=
=3NTj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----