ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Response to Board Request re: IRD Working Group Report
  • From: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 16:52:33 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=verisign.com; l=6552; q=dns/txt; s=VRSN; t=1481043156; h=from:to:cc:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=8dRMBfqFkbWpp0VT8oXoJ3ki7DKgdJ5XzBgpWEb8ix4=; b=Drc/hW4tbN8/JwlyMnC9r9yZTP91Rdvna6yN00FOt077AtOfB0w2qu05 Dv/0Gm7g+83LxaLaTlNokoIF0BaQN2beueelWcuBq/RNjUsoG53vWnAgd vDfdypVfi5XOOfL2jmT5xTAJiXmOc4BjAmJJFMA5ZUyPwvU2bPVr29V74 5eHyBdouwzneEyi+dWizoMKXKyWqI4haRSuZCbHgduDAqhWYwZexrgBfS 4QHbnN8oOpqmncbOD9GsH/R+yaMLmZfXG6qWeuVYk4j3Aq9czbimxG8BH KQFrAu3zVpxWXJU+YIEUzPLAvpJvo7jOuQ29J860R1OMm23nhA6yXhy9d A==;
  • In-reply-to: <175B591A-60F0-4989-A7C3-705211F30458@godaddy.com>
  • Ironport-phdr: 9a23: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
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <175B591A-60F0-4989-A7C3-705211F30458@godaddy.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AQHST+Ektl0pIOywsUKFUY8q/Ku2LA==
  • Thread-topic: [EXTERNAL] [council] Response to Board Request re: IRD Working Group Report

This looks good to me. No objection to sending the letter without a formal 


> On Dec 5, 2016, at 5:27 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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,
> J.
> 5 December 2016
> Response to ICANN Board Letter concerning GNSO consideration of the policy 
> implications of the Internationalized Registration (IRD) Working Group’s 
> Final Report
> 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 information.
> Best regards,
> James Bladel
> GNSO Chair
> <Response to ICANN Board - IRD Final Report - 5 DEC 2016.docx>

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