Dear Stéphane, I am wondering if it would be useful to include in the delivery letter the next step that Ching noted below, that is to add the following text: "The GNSO and the SSAC request that ICANN Staff should prepare a timeline or roadmap for the implementation of the recommendations in the IRD-WG Final Report and liaise with the GNSO and the SSAC on any policy issues." This would provide the Board with an explicit next step and give direction to staff also. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Date: Thursday, August 23, 2012 10:05 AM To: Ching Chiao <chiao@REGISTRY.ASIA<mailto:chiao@REGISTRY.ASIA>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft Letter for Review re: IRD-WG Final Report Delivery to Board Thanks Ching. If everyone is in agreement with the proposed suggestion that we cosign the SSAC letter, then I will alter the Sept 13 agenda and add approval of us cosigning the letter to the consent agenda, which would have the added benefit of removing a full agenda item from what at present is a very, very full agenda. If anyone objects, please say so by COB tomorrow. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Le 22 août 2012 à 12:27, Ching Chiao a écrit : Stéphane / All, My apology for not being responsive on this issue. Stéphane -- I'd agree your approach on co-signing the SSAC letter, which is simply to deliver the report to the Board. The Council has already authorize the Chair to do so. After the submission of this joint letter, the Board / Staff should prepare for the IRD implementation timeline and liaise with GNSO / SSAC if there's any policy issues -- a useful and similar reference could be ICANN's roadmap on SAC 051 ( http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-6-04jun12-en.htm ). The question now is when the GNSO / ICANN community can see such timeline therefore we should request for it. In reality, based on my understanding, the policy works / motion may come a year later or even longer. Here's why. Some of you may have noticed the new development of the WEIRDS-WG (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/weirds/charter/) in IETF. At the bottom of that web page you can see the proposed milestones for standardizing RDDS. ICANN is relying on WEIRDS-WG to get the ball rolling and ultimately fix the WHOIS / RDDS standardization issues, and this include the IRD. Unless the Council is thinking something else, this IRD / WEIRDS is pretty much driven by the progress / efficiency of technical standard updates, and I assume that many registry / registrar players are involved in that process. So my take at the moment would be getting Staff to brief the Council regularly, and we will have better sense of when to request a formal plan or report from the Board / Staff, as well as to decide when to request for issue report or to initiate PDP. Just my two cents for this big issue. Other comments and suggestions are certainly welcome and appreciated. Best regards, Ching On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> wrote: Councillors, Please see below the correspondence from Patrik Fälström, SSAC Chair. You will remember that we discussed the IRD-WG FR at our last meeting and it was decided that we should draft a letter to send the Board "requesting the implementation plan time-lines and clarifying that any policy implications in implementing the recommendations will have to be considered by the GNSO Council". Ching volunteered to draft the letter and we were looking to approve it at our next meeting, which is scheduled for Sept 13. The SSAC proposed letter obviously overlaps with this, but from what I can see introduces no new elements apart from actually spelling out the IRD recommendations for the Board. I would therefore suggest that we may wish to sign on to the proposed SSAC letter, whilst also sending our own letter as planned. Ching and others, please provide feedback on this suggestion and make any comments you feel are relevant to this and the SSAC letter. I will, as planned, add the approval of Ching's letter to the Sept 13 consent agenda. I will also add an agenda item on the proposed SSAC IRD-WG letter. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Début du message réexpédié : De : Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se<mailto:paf@frobbit.se>> Objet : Rép : Draft Letter for Review re: IRD-WG Final Report Delivery to Board Date : 7 août 2012 07:58:11 UTC+02:00 À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Cc: Jim Galvin <jgalvin@afilias.info<mailto:jgalvin@afilias.info>>, Ram Mohan <rmohan@afilias.info<mailto:rmohan@afilias.info>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Stéphane, I have consulted with my Vice Chair, Jim Galvin, and with Ram Mohan, the SSAC Liaison to the Board, and we would like to suggest changes to the draft cover letter for the IRD-WG Final Report delivery to the Board that Julie Hedlund sent to you and me on 20 July (see original message below). I have attached a revised version for your consideration in Word and PDF. The primary changes are that we included the recommendations from the IRD-WG Final Report in the cover letter for the Board's reference. These are highlighted as tracked changes in the revised draft letter. Best regards, Patrik From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>>, Patrik Fältström <patrik@frobbit.se<mailto:patrik@frobbit.se>> Subject: Draft Letter for Review re: IRD-WG Final Report Delivery to Board Dear Stéphane and Patrik, On 27 June in Prague the GNSO Council passed a motion relating to the Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG). In its motion the Council approved the delivery to the Board of the IRD-WG’s Final Report and requested staff to draft a joint letter from the GNSO and the SSAC to the Board. Attached for your consideration is the draft joint letter from the GNSO and the SSAC to the Board in Word and PDF and the Final Report. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director/SSAC Support

All, Following on from my email last week I have removed item 3 from our draft agenda and kept the IRD approval in our consent agenda. Glen, please make sure we add a link on the agenda to the SSAC letter to serve as a reference for Councillors when we come to approve this during the Sept 13 meeting. Thanks. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Le 25 août 2012 à 00:40, Steve Sheng a écrit :

Hello Ching,

As the staff support for the IRD working group and also a participant in the IETF Web Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (weirds) WG, I echo your suggestion that there should be some regular update of the IETF efforts to the Council. This way, the policy community will be informed on the technical community's progress. If council agrees, We could arrange the first briefing to the council in Toronto.

I also agree with you that once the IETF work is finished, the council could address the IRD issue through a PDP to replace the Whois protocol.

I want to add one suggestion to your proposal. The translation and transliteration PDP that the IRD-WG called for is not tied to the IETF work, and it would be better to start this sooner.

So we could have a two part PDP. Part A addresses the translation or transliteration requirement, if any. Part B addresses the Whois protocol replacement issue to consistently support internationalized registration data.

Regardless of your decision to adopt some or all of the suggestions, and I realize council have other considerations, we thank the council in advance for considering this issue for many non-ASCII internet users.

Let me know if you have any questions, I am happy to discuss this further by email or phone.

Kind regards, Steve

-----Original Message----- From: Ching Chiao <chiao@REGISTRY.ASIA> To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: Draft Letter for Review re: IRD-WG Final Report Delivery to Board

...

Stéphane / All,

My apology for not being responsive on this issue.

Stéphane -- I'd agree your approach on co-signing the SSAC letter, which is simply to deliver the report to the Board. The Council has already authorize the Chair to do so. After the submission of this joint letter, the Board / Staff should prepare for the IRD implementation timeline and liaise with GNSO / SSAC if there's any policy issues -- a useful and similar reference could be ICANN's roadmap on SAC 051 ( http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-6-04jun12-en.htm ). The question now is when the GNSO / ICANN community can see such timeline therefore we should request for it.

In reality, based on my understanding, the policy works / motion may come a year later or even longer. Here's why. Some of you may have noticed the new development of the WEIRDS-WG (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/weirds/charter/) in IETF. At the bottom of that web page you can see the proposed milestones for standardizing RDDS. ICANN is relying on WEIRDS-WG to get the ball rolling and ultimately fix the WHOIS / RDDS standardization issues, and this include the IRD. Unless the Council is thinking something else, this IRD / WEIRDS is pretty much driven by the progress / efficiency of technical standard updates, and I assume that many registry / registrar players are involved in that process. So my take at the moment would be getting Staff to brief the Council regularly, and we will have better sense of when to request a formal plan or report from the Board / Staff, as well as to decide when to request for issue report or to initiate PDP.

Just my two cents for this big issue. Other comments and suggestions are certainly welcome and appreciated.

Best regards,

Ching

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> wrote:

...

Councillors,

Please see below the correspondence from Patrik Fälström, SSAC Chair.

You will remember that we discussed the IRD-WG FR at our last meeting and it was decided that we should draft a letter to send the Board "requesting the implementation plan time-lines and clarifying that any policy implications in implementing the recommendations will have to be considered by the GNSO Council".

Ching volunteered to draft the letter and we were looking to approve it at our next meeting, which is scheduled for Sept 13. The SSAC proposed letter obviously overlaps with this, but from what I can see introduces no new elements apart from actually spelling out the IRD recommendations for the Board.

I would therefore suggest that we may wish to sign on to the proposed SSAC letter, whilst also sending our own letter as planned. Ching and others, please provide feedback on this suggestion and make any comments you feel are relevant to this and the SSAC letter.

I will, as planned, add the approval of Ching's letter to the Sept 13 consent agenda. I will also add an agenda item on the proposed SSAC IRD-WG letter.

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

Début du message réexpédié :

De : Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> Objet : Rép : Draft Letter for Review re: IRD-WG Final Report Delivery to Board Date : 7 août 2012 07:58:11 UTC+02:00 À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Cc: Jim Galvin <jgalvin@afilias.info>, Ram Mohan <rmohan@afilias.info>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>

Stéphane,

I have consulted with my Vice Chair, Jim Galvin, and with Ram Mohan, the SSAC Liaison to the Board, and we would like to suggest changes to the draft cover letter for the IRD-WG Final Report delivery to the Board that Julie Hedlund sent to you and me on 20 July (see original message below). I have attached a revised version for your consideration in Word and PDF. The primary changes are that we included the recommendations from the IRD-WG Final Report in the cover letter for the Board's reference. These are highlighted as tracked changes in the revised draft letter.

Best regards,

Patrik

From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, Patrik Fältström <patrik@frobbit.se> Subject: Draft Letter for Review re: IRD-WG Final Report Delivery to Board

Dear Stéphane and Patrik,

On 27 June in Prague the GNSO Council passed a motion relating to the Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG). In its motion the Council approved the delivery to the Board of the IRD-WG¹s Final Report and requested staff to draft a joint letter from the GNSO and the SSAC to the Board. Attached for your consideration is the draft joint letter from the GNSO and the SSAC to the Board in Word and PDF and the Final Report.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director/SSAC Support

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thanks Stephane - happy with that approach Joy On 27/08/2012 8:38 p.m., Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

All,

Following on from my email last week I have removed item 3 from our draft agenda and kept the IRD approval in our consent agenda.

Glen, please make sure we add a link on the agenda to the SSAC letter to serve as a reference for Councillors when we come to approve this during the Sept 13 meeting. Thanks.

Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT

Le 25 août 2012 à 00:40, Steve Sheng a écrit :

...

Hello Ching,

As the staff support for the IRD working group and also a participant in the IETF Web Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (weirds) WG, I echo your suggestion that there should be some regular update of the IETF efforts to the Council. This way, the policy community will be informed on the technical community's progress. If council agrees, We could arrange the first briefing to the council in Toronto.

I also agree with you that once the IETF work is finished, the council could address the IRD issue through a PDP to replace the Whois protocol.

I want to add one suggestion to your proposal. The translation and transliteration PDP that the IRD-WG called for is not tied to the IETF work, and it would be better to start this sooner.

So we could have a two part PDP. Part A addresses the translation or transliteration requirement, if any. Part B addresses the Whois protocol replacement issue to consistently support internationalized registration data.

Regardless of your decision to adopt some or all of the suggestions, and I realize council have other considerations, we thank the council in advance for considering this issue for many non-ASCII internet users.

Let me know if you have any questions, I am happy to discuss this further by email or phone.

Kind regards, Steve

-----Original Message----- From: Ching Chiao <chiao@REGISTRY.ASIA <mailto:chiao@REGISTRY.ASIA>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com <mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: Draft Letter for Review re: IRD-WG Final Report Delivery to Board

...

Stéphane / All,

My apology for not being responsive on this issue.

Stéphane -- I'd agree your approach on co-signing the SSAC letter, which is simply to deliver the report to the Board. The Council has already authorize the Chair to do so. After the submission of this joint letter, the Board / Staff should prepare for the IRD implementation timeline and liaise with GNSO / SSAC if there's any policy issues -- a useful and similar reference could be ICANN's roadmap on SAC 051 ( http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-6-04jun12-en.htm

). The question now is when the GNSO / ICANN community can see such

...

timeline therefore we should request for it.

In reality, based on my understanding, the policy works / motion may come a year later or even longer. Here's why. Some of you may have noticed the new development of the WEIRDS-WG (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/weirds/charter/) in IETF. At the bottom of that web page you can see the proposed milestones for standardizing RDDS. ICANN is relying on WEIRDS-WG to get the ball rolling and ultimately fix the WHOIS / RDDS standardization issues, and this include the IRD. Unless the Council is thinking something else, this IRD / WEIRDS is pretty much driven by the progress / efficiency of technical standard updates, and I assume that many registry / registrar players are involved in that process. So my take at the moment would be getting Staff to brief the Council regularly, and we will have better sense of when to request a formal plan or report from the Board / Staff, as well as to decide when to request for issue report or to initiate PDP.

Just my two cents for this big issue. Other comments and suggestions are certainly welcome and appreciated.

Best regards,

Ching

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com <mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> wrote:

...

Councillors,

Please see below the correspondence from Patrik Fälström, SSAC Chair.

You will remember that we discussed the IRD-WG FR at our last meeting and it was decided that we should draft a letter to send the Board "requesting the implementation plan time-lines and clarifying that any policy implications in implementing the recommendations will have to be considered by the GNSO Council".

Ching volunteered to draft the letter and we were looking to approve it at our next meeting, which is scheduled for Sept 13. The SSAC proposed letter obviously overlaps with this, but from what I can see introduces no new elements apart from actually spelling out the IRD recommendations for the Board.

I would therefore suggest that we may wish to sign on to the proposed SSAC letter, whilst also sending our own letter as planned. Ching and others, please provide feedback on this suggestion and make any comments you feel are relevant to this and the SSAC letter.

I will, as planned, add the approval of Ching's letter to the Sept 13 consent agenda. I will also add an agenda item on the proposed SSAC IRD-WG letter.

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

Début du message réexpédié :

De : Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se <mailto:paf@frobbit.se>> Objet : Rép : Draft Letter for Review re: IRD-WG Final Report Delivery to Board Date : 7 août 2012 07:58:11 UTC+02:00 À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com <mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Cc: Jim Galvin <jgalvin@afilias.info <mailto:jgalvin@afilias.info>>, Ram Mohan <rmohan@afilias.info <mailto:rmohan@afilias.info>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>

Stéphane,

I have consulted with my Vice Chair, Jim Galvin, and with Ram Mohan, the SSAC Liaison to the Board, and we would like to suggest changes to the draft cover letter for the IRD-WG Final Report delivery to the Board that Julie Hedlund sent to you and me on 20 July (see original message below). I have attached a revised version for your consideration in Word and PDF. The primary changes are that we included the recommendations from the IRD-WG Final Report in the cover letter for the Board's reference. These are highlighted as tracked changes in the revised draft letter.

Best regards,

Patrik

From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com <mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>>, Patrik Fältström <patrik@frobbit.se <mailto:patrik@frobbit.se>> Subject: Draft Letter for Review re: IRD-WG Final Report Delivery to Board

Dear Stéphane and Patrik,

On 27 June in Prague the GNSO Council passed a motion relating to the Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG). In its motion the Council approved the delivery to the Board of the IRD-WG¹s Final Report and requested staff to draft a joint letter from the GNSO and the SSAC to the Board. Attached for your consideration is the draft joint letter from the GNSO and the SSAC to the Board in Word and PDF and the Final Report.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director/SSAC Support

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQPUgtAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq0WgH/2MCaHA2TmUczjj5UWgw+V17 +MsnToRE/xUwT9rV4LfJFAfB0JpDgbNqL+04a9gePsizKiOSSxoRbEV27brpuKnW MuuEsudItFVvSnkmHLb3s3mRlvQg1vQ/nj6WHhH4AHBr9Z9OW6VXyPGJonztSu8L mTGvo7+IwmW0opGjoVjmmNZJMVolIkXJXs4fhVMa2P39qjGRHi7DvV6/E3V/hYiX 3PZClwSTr3eGkfybcNIqNpGjHqtC919MakfA1Dk5LQZyl/uqpv8hDz2eE2QLlLKC +Oof35Hum0PjnnZuaMcvNlaBg3K401D/USugY80QribUHZ2WtpNYJozPt6YFAGk= =3NTj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----