Dear all, As requested, attached is the proposed Council response to the Board’s letter regarding the IRD Final Report containing the edits suggested by Amr. Staff has updated it with the additional suggestion from Darcy and a few non-substantive formatting and typographical corrections. This is therefore the proposed final version to be transmitted to the Board – please send any concerns or comments you may have to this list by the end of Sunday in your time zone, so that staff can prepare the letter for forwarding to the Board first thing on Monday morning 19 December. Thank you. Cheers Mary On 12/15/16, 22:24, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Amr Elsadr" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote: 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@endurance.com> 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@egyptig.org> 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@verisign.com> wrote: >> >> >> Thanks Amr. I agree. >> >> Best, >> Keith >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@egyptig.org> 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 >> > > >