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

[Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for these edits and commentary in today's meeting, Amr.  That was
very helpful.

I have one suggestion to page 2 of the letter, with new language shown in
yellow below:

"A registry or registrar 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."

>From an operational perspective, registries do not engage with registrants,
so the original wording didn't quite make sense.

Thanks,
Darcy

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I’ve made some track changes to the draft response to Steve’s letter, and
> attached them to this email. Again, I apologize for waiting so long before
> weighing in on this, but I hope that these changes will add reassurance to
> the Board regarding Steve’s questions on how the GNSO has taken the IRD
> WG's recommendations in to consideration in its policy development to date.
>
> I should probably add that whatever response we do send, I don’t believe
> it requires a formal motion and vote.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 2016, at 6:35 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thanks Amr.  I agree.
> >
> > Best,
> > Keith
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 10:34 AM
> > To: GNSO Council List
> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Response to Board Request re: IRD
> Working Group Report
> >
> >
> > Hi again,
> >
> >> On Dec 13, 2016, at 5:30 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >
> > [SNIP]
> >
> >> 3. unless explicitly stated otherwise, all data elements should be
> tagged with the languages/scripts in use, and this information should
> always be available with the data element. (not addressed)
> >>
> >> I also note that the input we received from Jim Galvin addressed this
> issue, and that the T/T consensus policy on this point does require that
> internationalized data elements fields in the RDS should be easily
> identifiable. Furthermore, the consensus policy requires identification of
> the language in which the authoritative IRD was originally submitted, in
> the event T/T takes place. These all seem to be nicely consistent with the
> findings of the IRD WG, and should hopefully address Steve's questions.
> >
> > Incidentally, this is also consistent with the consistent labelling and
> display requirement in the "thick" WHOIS CP.
> >
> > Thanks again.
> >
> > Amr
> >
>
>
>