ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

[council] Response to Board Request re: IRD Working Group Report

  • To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] Response to Board Request re: IRD Working Group Report
  • From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 23:26:36 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx;
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secureservernet.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-godaddy-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=VPI7jdGRMrneskHZcVrbSo9dFCE+2M6x5SlvcLISt28=; b=4N6MKGbyTbQKR+55wpSPwocutRrqaKxyC6zzwaJ1zc75NuybNxa8iP9KNwWzADe0/v1evMNYJlXT8ZoOQ2iISJ+3yZ3wGYK7RIuMnCT7tviJOdhTDGr0v5gtmp/H3uSjW/UJah7Gtwgv3e1N5mfK7fPz7t3lSFzRPqvsjogh6ac=
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
  • Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
  • Thread-index: AQHST08FL4hDqRI0MU2PZBaOnP0Iig==
  • Thread-topic: Response to Board Request re: IRD Working Group Report
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1a.0.160910

Councilors -

If you recall, several months ago the Board requested that we examine the 
recommendations of the IRD WG, and (1) refer these to the RDS PDP for 
consideration during their work, and (2) confirm that they were compatible with 
the (concluded) Translation & Transliteration (T&T) PDP.  We did both of these, 
and James Galvin prepared a lengthy response addressing the second question, 
concluding that these recommendations were not in conflict.

Marika and I have reformatted the information provided by James as a response 
to the original Board letter (attached and copied below).  I realize there 
hasn’t been much traffic on this topic, so I would ask that folks please review 
this response and share with your SG/Cs to see if any concerns arise.

Assuming that everyone is good with this letter, then I would ask the Council 
if there are any objections to sending the letter, or if folks would rather see 
this presented formally as a motion for our next meeting.
Thank you,

5 December 2016

Response to ICANN Board Letter concerning GNSO consideration of the policy 
implications of the Internationalized Registration (IRD) Working Group’s Final 

Steve Crocker
Chair, ICANN Board

Dear Steve,

On behalf of the GNSO Council, I am responding to your letter of 11 May 2016. I 
apologize for the delay in developing this response but it was necessary to 
take this time to gather and consider the information needed to comprehensively 
respond to your request.

In your letter, you asked the GNSO ‘to consider the policy implications of the 
IRD’s report, follow up as the Council deems appropriate, and, at a minimum, 
forward the IRD’s report as an input to the Working Groups engaged in the Next 
Generation Registration Directory Services (RDS) to Replace WHOIS PDP’.

With regard to the latter request, the IRD report was forward to the RDS PDP 
Working Group for consideration during their work on 7 July 2016.  With regard 
to the former request, we consulted with representatives from the (previously 
concluded) Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (T&T) PDP 
Working Group, and as a result the GNSO concludes that:

  *   The IRD recommendations were, in fact, considered in the development of 
the T&T recommendations, and
  *   Those members who participated in both efforts (T&T and the IRD Expert 
WG) made a point to explicitly compare the discussions, to flag any issues that 
appeared to be in conflict, and bring these to the attention of both groups, and
  *   All discrepancies were reviewed in detail within each group, and
  *   The short answer to the concern of whether or not the two sets of 
recommendations are in conflict is, "No, they are not." A more complete, 
nuanced response is as follows.

The following two recommendations are intended to be equivalent.

  *   From the T&T:  The Working Group recommends that the language(s) and 
script(s) supported for registrants to submit their contact information data 
may be chosen in accordance with gTLD-provider business models.

  *   From the IRD:  A registry must be able to accept and store any language 
or script that might reasonably be expected to be used in their target market.

There is a natural tension regarding the language and script used to represent 
the data among all of the points from a registrant to the final display of the 
data, including how the date is collected by the registrar, and how it is 
stored by the registry. Both the T&T and the IRD working groups recognized this 
and both groups agreed with full consensus that the appropriate place to anchor 
this preference is with the registry.  The gTLD registry operator’s business 
model will determine how it intends to serve its target registrants, and 
subsequently drive the decision on which language(s) and script(s) it will use 
to present and manage its services.

The IRD working group went a step further in its deliberations and included the 
following additional recommendation:

  *   Registrants should only be required to input registration data in a 
language(s) or script(s) with which they are skilled.

The purpose of this recommendation was to mitigate any requirement that would 
burden registrants with special skills or requirements. The IRD recommendations 
are based on three foundational principles, and among these is the "User 
Capability Principle:  the capability of the data-submitting user should be the 
constraining factor. Such users should not be burdened with tasks that cannot 
be completed under ordinary circumstances." This principle is the primary 
motivation for this recommendation.

These three recommendations are intended to be complementary.  A registry is 
expressly permitted to engage in any approved business model with any 
registrant, but it must expect that only registrants who ordinarily work with 
the languages and scripts supported by the registry may use the services of the 
registry.  Some might consider this point obvious from a business perspective, 
but nonetheless, the IRD working group believed this point was often overlooked 
in discussions of internationalization and thus chose to make it explicitly.

As a result, the GNSO concludes there is no conflict between these sets of 
recommendations, and as such recommends that the T&T IRT factors in the IRD 
Expert Working Group recommendations as part of their implementation efforts. 
However, should the T&T IRT find that there are policy implications resulting 
from the IRD Expert Working Group recommendations, we would refer them to 
existing mechanisms for the IRT to flag these and submit them to the GNSO 
Council for appropriate action.

If there are no objections or further questions from the ICANN Board on this 
approach, I propose that I share this communication with the T&T IRT for their 

Best regards,

James Bladel
GNSO Chair

Attachment: Response to ICANN Board - IRD Final Report - 5 DEC 2016.docx
Description: Response to ICANN Board - IRD Final Report - 5 DEC 2016.docx

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