Re: [council] IRD report-- follow up actions

["Ching Chiao [Registry.Asia]" <chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Stéphane. I will then propose the motion prior to the Oct 9
deadline.

Ching


On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder <
stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks Ching,
>
> The approach you suggest is dependent on a motion being made for Toronto
> to have the Council initiate an IR. If such a motion is to be made, please
> be mindful of the fast approaching deadline (Oct 9).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> Directeur Général / General manager
> INDOM NetNames France
> ----------------
> Registry Relations and Strategy Director
> NetNames
> T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51
> F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61
>
>
> Le 5 oct. 2012 à 04:35, Ching Chiao [Registry.Asia] a écrit :
>
> Dear Stéphane, Councilors,
>
> I'd like to have your attention on the possible follow-up action items for
> IRD.
>
> In the co-signed GNSO-SSAC letter sent to the Board last month, we have
> mentioned that
>
> "*requesting the (IRD) implementation plan time-lines and clarifying that
> any policy implications in implementing the recommendations will have to be
> considered by the GNSO Council*".
>
> As we are expecting the Board / Staff to provide time-lines, as well as to
> receive the regular updates from the Staff on the technical front (refer to
> recommendation 1 -- IRD submission and display AND 3 -- IRD access
> protocol). It is my belief that the Council can work in parallel and
> initiate the work on preparing the issue report for recommendation 2:
>
> "
>
> 2.  The GNSO Council and the SSAC should request a common Issue Report on
> translation and transliteration of contact information. The Issue Report
> should consider whether it is desirable to translate contact information to
> a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single
> common script. It should also consider who should bear the burden and who
> is in the best position to address these issues. The Issue Report should
> consider policy questions raised in the IRD-WG Final Report and should also
> recommend whether to start a policy development process (PDP) to address
> those questions. "
>
>
> The RySG has agreed such approach and I am expecting further feedback from
> the RrSG as well. From an operational viewpoint, translation and/or
> transliteration of registration data does require clear responsibilities
> from registrants and registrars. As the Toronto meeting approaches, I feel
> that it's rather important to address this issue timely not only the ground
> works has been done for few years, but the result of the work should offer
> complete clarity for IDN gTLD.
>
>
> If you all agree, we would then ask the corresponding staff to prepare:
>
> 1) IRD technical update
>
> 2) Resolution of issue report on Rec. 2
>
>
> for the Toronto meeting.
>
>
> Comments and suggestions are welcome. Thank you very much.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Ching
>
>
>
>
>
>
>