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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Darcy,

Thanks. Sounds good to me. The term used in the T&T final report was “gTLD 
provider”. This was meant to cover both gTLD registries and registrars.

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Dec 15, 2016, at 4:10 PM, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> 
> 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
>> 
> 
> 
>