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