Proposal for Merging CL&D and Translation & Transliteration Implementation
Dear IRT Members, As you may be aware, the ICANN board has directed staff to develop an implementation plan for the GNSO Recommendations on the Translation and Transliteration (T/T) of Contact Information (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#1. b <https://features.icann.org/gnso-council-recommendations-translation-and-tra nsliteration-contact-information> ). More recently, the ICANN Board further directed staff to incorporate the recommendations of the Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) Working Group Final Report¹s into the T/T implementation plan where appropriate (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10-en#1. e) Considering our overarching goal to minimize impact on affected parties and to bundle related implementation where possible (per the GDD¹s policy change calendar at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may 15-en.pdf), we are considering merging the implementation of the T/T and IRD recommendations into the Consistent Labeling and Display (CL&D) work stream of the Thick Whois Implementation. We would like to gather your thoughts on this proposal while we are similarly engaging with the T/T PDP Working Group chairs, and before we request consideration of this proposal by the GNSO Council. We¹ve identified a number of synergies between CL&D, RDAP, T/T and IRD that we believe will lower the marginal costs of implementation for both affected parties and ICANN: * T/T Implementation will primarily affect RDDS output * * T/T Implementation will require new extensions to EPP (language tag and T/T flag) as may be the case from CL&D (depending on the final implementation proposal) * T/T Implementation is recommended to be coordinated with the roll-out of RDAP (which is already synchronized with implementation of CL&D) * The data model for the T/T implementation is relatively consistent with the RDAP model and a ³harmonization exercise² between the two was recommended in the IRD Report * Instead of creating and managing a specific IRT for the T/T implementation, we could leverage the expertise we have gathered already in the Thick Whois IRT * Ultimately, contracted parties would be tasked with implementing a single package of consensus policies rather than several discrete one While we don¹t expect that such a merger would impact the transition from thin to thick of .COM, .NET and .JOBS, we have estimated that it would add at least 6 months to the timeline of the CL&D implementation. Ultimately, we believe that this is a more time- and resource-efficient option than recruiting a separate IRT for T/T and carrying out a separate implementation. Before we request that the GNSO Chairs include this proposal as an item on their Consent Agenda for their meeting on 12 May, we would like to gather your thoughts. We would appreciate if you could share your thinking in relation to the above proposal by next Thursday 28 April COB in your time zone. Thank you for your consideration Best Regards -- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN
It might be something we want to try and combine some of these projects. Currently, there are too many ongoing WHOIS projects, finished and unfinished projects might indeed create overlap and overhead. That being said, the T/T recommendations might not be everyone's cup of tea and there might be a risk we get stuck, would that delay the WHOIS migration? How do we handle such scenarios? Furthermore do we currently have enough coverage member wise to handle this? Thank you, Theo Geurts Fabien Betremieux schreef op 2016-04-21 10:46 PM:
Dear IRT Members,
As you may be aware, the ICANN board has directed staff to develop an implementation plan for the GNSO Recommendations on the Translation and Transliteration (T/T) of Contact Information (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#1.b [1]). More recently, the ICANN Board further directed staff to incorporate the recommendations of the Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) Working Group Final Report's into the T/T implementation plan where appropriate (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10-en#1.e)
Considering our overarching goal to minimize impact on affected parties and to bundle related implementation where possible (per the GDD's policy change calendar at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may...), we are considering merging the implementation of the T/T and IRD recommendations into the Consistent Labeling and Display (CL&D) work stream of the Thick Whois Implementation.
We would like to gather your thoughts on this proposal while we are similarly engaging with the T/T PDP Working Group chairs, and before we request consideration of this proposal by the GNSO Council.
We've identified a number of synergies between CL&D, RDAP, T/T and IRD that we believe will lower the marginal costs of implementation for both affected parties and ICANN:
* T/T Implementation will primarily affect RDDS output * T/T Implementation will require new extensions to EPP (language tag and T/T flag) as may be the case from CL&D (depending on the final implementation proposal) * T/T Implementation is recommended to be coordinated with the roll-out of RDAP (which is already synchronized with implementation of CL&D) * The data model for the T/T implementation is relatively consistent with the RDAP model and a "harmonization exercise" between the two was recommended in the IRD Report * Instead of creating and managing a specific IRT for the T/T implementation, we could leverage the expertise we have gathered already in the Thick Whois IRT * Ultimately, contracted parties would be tasked with implementing a single package of consensus policies rather than several discrete one
While we don't expect that such a merger would impact the transition from thin to thick of .COM, .NET and .JOBS, we have estimated that it would add at least 6 months to the timeline of the CL&D implementation. Ultimately, we believe that this is a more time- and resource-efficient option than recruiting a separate IRT for T/T and carrying out a separate implementation.
Before we request that the GNSO Chairs include this proposal as an item on their Consent Agenda for their meeting on 12 May, we would like to gather your thoughts.
We would appreciate if you could share your thinking in relation to the above proposal by next Thursday 28 April COB in your time zone.
Thank you for your consideration
Best Regards
-- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN
Links: ------ [1] https://features.icann.org/gnso-council-recommendations-translation-and-tran... _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
Good Morning, I think there were several conversations around this topic when we were in Buenos Aires. My biggest concern then and now is delay. I agree that there are several streams of WHOIS work being actively worked and it would be nice to consolidate but I don't think that these two international (T/T, IRD) work products are far enough along to incorporate into our Thick/CL&D work. Originally I thought that the T/T work could go through a fairly quick Implementation Review, but after several discussions during and after Buenos Aires it appears that there are several widely divergent mindsets on a couple of the recommendations, particularly recommendations 2 and 7 and how/if they relate to recommendation 1. I would estimate that this implementation review will need 9-12 months and possibly more. As far as the IRD, aren't these just proposals? Isn't there PDP and IRT work that needs to be completed? The Board resolution that you mention (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10-en#1.e) seems to call out that the IRD work should be looked at in other WHOIS policy and specifically mentions the IRD work be used as an input into the RDS PDP that is currently ongoing. As much as I like the charge to consolidate the WHOIS efforts I think that incorporating either or both of these two (T/T, IRD) work products into the Thick/CL&D would create an unnecessary delay on the current Thick/CL&D schedule. To me, the more logical consolidation is wrapping these two items (T/T, IRD) into the currently ongoing RDS PDP. Thanks Roger -----Original Message----- From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of gtheo Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 6:39 AM To: Fabien Betremieux <fabien.betremieux@icann.org> Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Proposal for Merging CL&D and Translation & Transliteration Implementation It might be something we want to try and combine some of these projects. Currently, there are too many ongoing WHOIS projects, finished and unfinished projects might indeed create overlap and overhead. That being said, the T/T recommendations might not be everyone's cup of tea and there might be a risk we get stuck, would that delay the WHOIS migration? How do we handle such scenarios? Furthermore do we currently have enough coverage member wise to handle this? Thank you, Theo Geurts Fabien Betremieux schreef op 2016-04-21 10:46 PM:
Dear IRT Members,
As you may be aware, the ICANN board has directed staff to develop an implementation plan for the GNSO Recommendations on the Translation and Transliteration (T/T) of Contact Information (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28 -en#1.b [1]). More recently, the ICANN Board further directed staff to incorporate the recommendations of the Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) Working Group Final Report's into the T/T implementation plan where appropriate (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10 -en#1.e)
Considering our overarching goal to minimize impact on affected parties and to bundle related implementation where possible (per the GDD's policy change calendar at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar -13may15-en.pdf), we are considering merging the implementation of the T/T and IRD recommendations into the Consistent Labeling and Display (CL&D) work stream of the Thick Whois Implementation.
We would like to gather your thoughts on this proposal while we are similarly engaging with the T/T PDP Working Group chairs, and before we request consideration of this proposal by the GNSO Council.
We've identified a number of synergies between CL&D, RDAP, T/T and IRD that we believe will lower the marginal costs of implementation for both affected parties and ICANN:
* T/T Implementation will primarily affect RDDS output * T/T Implementation will require new extensions to EPP (language tag and T/T flag) as may be the case from CL&D (depending on the final implementation proposal) * T/T Implementation is recommended to be coordinated with the roll-out of RDAP (which is already synchronized with implementation of CL&D) * The data model for the T/T implementation is relatively consistent with the RDAP model and a "harmonization exercise" between the two was recommended in the IRD Report * Instead of creating and managing a specific IRT for the T/T implementation, we could leverage the expertise we have gathered already in the Thick Whois IRT * Ultimately, contracted parties would be tasked with implementing a single package of consensus policies rather than several discrete one
While we don't expect that such a merger would impact the transition from thin to thick of .COM, .NET and .JOBS, we have estimated that it would add at least 6 months to the timeline of the CL&D implementation. Ultimately, we believe that this is a more time- and resource-efficient option than recruiting a separate IRT for T/T and carrying out a separate implementation.
Before we request that the GNSO Chairs include this proposal as an item on their Consent Agenda for their meeting on 12 May, we would like to gather your thoughts.
We would appreciate if you could share your thinking in relation to the above proposal by next Thursday 28 April COB in your time zone.
Thank you for your consideration
Best Regards
-- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN
Links: ------ [1] https://features.icann.org/gnso-council-recommendations-translation-an d-transliteration-contact-information _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
Agreed. Thank you again, Roger. I want to re-emphasize the following two (2) key points: * Please consolidate (T/T, IRD) into the current RDS PDP in order to 1) Garner registrar support and 2) Ensure a successful outcome * T/T Implementation Review will need a minimum of 9 months (if consolidation doesn't occur) Thank you, Jennifer Jennifer Gore Senior Policy Director Web.com 12808 Gran Bay Parkway, West | Jacksonville, FL 32258 Office: 904. 680-6919| Cell: 904. 401-4347 [cid:image003.png@01CFD6B5.902BADC0] -----Original Message----- From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Roger D Carney Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 11:47 AM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Proposal for Merging CL&D and Translation & Transliteration Implementation Good Morning, I think there were several conversations around this topic when we were in Buenos Aires. My biggest concern then and now is delay. I agree that there are several streams of WHOIS work being actively worked and it would be nice to consolidate but I don't think that these two international (T/T, IRD) work products are far enough along to incorporate into our Thick/CL&D work. Originally I thought that the T/T work could go through a fairly quick Implementation Review, but after several discussions during and after Buenos Aires it appears that there are several widely divergent mindsets on a couple of the recommendations, particularly recommendations 2 and 7 and how/if they relate to recommendation 1. I would estimate that this implementation review will need 9-12 months and possibly more. As far as the IRD, aren't these just proposals? Isn't there PDP and IRT work that needs to be completed? The Board resolution that you mention (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10-en#1.e) seems to call out that the IRD work should be looked at in other WHOIS policy and specifically mentions the IRD work be used as an input into the RDS PDP that is currently ongoing. As much as I like the charge to consolidate the WHOIS efforts I think that incorporating either or both of these two (T/T, IRD) work products into the Thick/CL&D would create an unnecessary delay on the current Thick/CL&D schedule. To me, the more logical consolidation is wrapping these two items (T/T, IRD) into the currently ongoing RDS PDP. Thanks Roger -----Original Message----- From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of gtheo Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 6:39 AM To: Fabien Betremieux <fabien.betremieux@icann.org<mailto:fabien.betremieux@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Proposal for Merging CL&D and Translation & Transliteration Implementation It might be something we want to try and combine some of these projects. Currently, there are too many ongoing WHOIS projects, finished and unfinished projects might indeed create overlap and overhead. That being said, the T/T recommendations might not be everyone's cup of tea and there might be a risk we get stuck, would that delay the WHOIS migration? How do we handle such scenarios? Furthermore do we currently have enough coverage member wise to handle this? Thank you, Theo Geurts Fabien Betremieux schreef op 2016-04-21 10:46 PM:
Dear IRT Members,
As you may be aware, the ICANN board has directed staff to develop an
implementation plan for the GNSO Recommendations on the Translation
and Transliteration (T/T) of Contact Information
(https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28
-en#1.b [1]). More recently, the ICANN Board further directed staff to
incorporate the recommendations of the Internationalized Registration
Data (IRD) Working Group Final Report's into the T/T implementation
plan where appropriate
(https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10
-en#1.e)
Considering our overarching goal to minimize impact on affected
parties and to bundle related implementation where possible (per the
GDD's policy change calendar at:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar
-13may15-en.pdf), we are considering merging the implementation of the
T/T and IRD recommendations into the Consistent Labeling and Display
(CL&D) work stream of the Thick Whois Implementation.
We would like to gather your thoughts on this proposal while we are
similarly engaging with the T/T PDP Working Group chairs, and before
we request consideration of this proposal by the GNSO Council.
We've identified a number of synergies between CL&D, RDAP, T/T and IRD
that we believe will lower the marginal costs of implementation for
both affected parties and ICANN:
*
T/T Implementation will primarily affect RDDS output
* T/T Implementation will require new extensions to EPP (language tag
and T/T flag) as may be the case from CL&D (depending on the final
implementation proposal)
* T/T Implementation is recommended to be coordinated with the
roll-out of RDAP (which is already synchronized with implementation of
CL&D)
* The data model for the T/T implementation is relatively consistent
with the RDAP model and a "harmonization exercise" between the two was
recommended in the IRD Report
* Instead of creating and managing a specific IRT for the T/T
implementation, we could leverage the expertise we have gathered
already in the Thick Whois IRT
* Ultimately, contracted parties would be tasked with implementing a
single package of consensus policies rather than several discrete one
While we don't expect that such a merger would impact the transition
from thin to thick of .COM, .NET and .JOBS, we have estimated that it
would add at least 6 months to the timeline of the CL&D
implementation. Ultimately, we believe that this is a more time- and
resource-efficient option than recruiting a separate IRT for T/T and
carrying out a separate implementation.
Before we request that the GNSO Chairs include this proposal as an
item on their Consent Agenda for their meeting on 12 May, we would
like to gather your thoughts.
We would appreciate if you could share your thinking in relation to
the above proposal by next Thursday 28 April COB in your time zone.
Thank you for your consideration
Best Regards
--
Fabien Betremieux
Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division,
ICANN
Links:
------
[1]
https://features.icann.org/gnso-council-recommendations-translation-an
d-transliteration-contact-information
_______________________________________________
Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list
Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
Hi Roger and Jennifer, I'd like to clarify a couple of things. As far as I know, T&T is already a policy recommendation adopted by both the gNSO council and the Board. Absent new instructions (from the Board?) on the contrary, we have to start implementation, either bundled with RDAP/Thick Whois or separately. Regarding the IRD report recommendations, you are right, these are not policy recommendations, but recommendations from a WG convened under the Whois Review. The Board resolution passed in Marrakech instructs staff to work with the community to implement only those recommendations form the report that are consistent with existing requirements (e.g., T&T policy recommendation). If the decision were not to bundle T&T/IRD with RDAP/Thick Whois, we would have to convene a new IRT and follow the rest of the policy implementation process. Given where we are with RDAP/Thick Whois, my forecast is that we'd request implementation for these two initiatives with a difference of one implementation cycle, i.e., 6 months separation. Finally, regarding the implementation timeline, it would seem that we are in agreement. Fabien email said we are looking at potentially a 6-month delay, which translates to a 9-month cycle of work with the bundled IRT. Regards, -- Francisco P.S. I believe the T&T/IRD recommendations to implement are mostly additions to the gTLD RDAP profile regarding language tags and additional optional translated/transliterated registration data. On 4/22/16, 11:00 AM, "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jennifer Gore Standiford" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org on behalf of JStandiford@web.com> wrote:
Agreed. Thank you again, Roger.
I want to re-emphasize the following two (2) key points: · Please consolidate (T/T, IRD) into the current RDS PDP in order to 1) Garner registrar support and 2) Ensure a successful outcome · T/T Implementation Review will need a minimum of 9 months (if consolidation doesn’t occur)
Thank you, Jennifer
On 4/22/16, 8:47 AM, "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Roger D Carney" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org on behalf of rcarney@godaddy.com> wrote:
Good Morning,
I think there were several conversations around this topic when we were in Buenos Aires.
My biggest concern then and now is delay. I agree that there are several streams of WHOIS work being actively worked and it would be nice to consolidate but I don't think that these two international (T/T, IRD) work products are far enough along to incorporate into our Thick/CL&D work.
Originally I thought that the T/T work could go through a fairly quick Implementation Review, but after several discussions during and after Buenos Aires it appears that there are several widely divergent mindsets on a couple of the recommendations, particularly recommendations 2 and 7 and how/if they relate to recommendation 1. I would estimate that this implementation review will need 9-12 months and possibly more.
As far as the IRD, aren't these just proposals? Isn't there PDP and IRT work that needs to be completed? The Board resolution that you mention (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10-en#1.e) seems to call out that the IRD work should be looked at in other WHOIS policy and specifically mentions the IRD work be used as an input into the RDS PDP that is currently ongoing.
As much as I like the charge to consolidate the WHOIS efforts I think that incorporating either or both of these two (T/T, IRD) work products into the Thick/CL&D would create an unnecessary delay on the current Thick/CL&D schedule. To me, the more logical consolidation is wrapping these two items (T/T, IRD) into the currently ongoing RDS PDP.
Thanks Roger
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of gtheo Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 6:39 AM To: Fabien Betremieux <fabien.betremieux@icann.org> Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Proposal for Merging CL&D and Translation & Transliteration Implementation
It might be something we want to try and combine some of these projects. Currently, there are too many ongoing WHOIS projects, finished and unfinished projects might indeed create overlap and overhead.
That being said, the T/T recommendations might not be everyone's cup of tea and there might be a risk we get stuck, would that delay the WHOIS migration? How do we handle such scenarios?
Furthermore do we currently have enough coverage member wise to handle this?
Thank you,
Theo Geurts
Fabien Betremieux schreef op 2016-04-21 10:46 PM:
Dear IRT Members,
As you may be aware, the ICANN board has directed staff to develop an implementation plan for the GNSO Recommendations on the Translation and Transliteration (T/T) of Contact Information (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28 -en#1.b [1]). More recently, the ICANN Board further directed staff to incorporate the recommendations of the Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) Working Group Final Report's into the T/T implementation plan where appropriate (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10 -en#1.e)
Considering our overarching goal to minimize impact on affected parties and to bundle related implementation where possible (per the GDD's policy change calendar at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar -13may15-en.pdf), we are considering merging the implementation of the T/T and IRD recommendations into the Consistent Labeling and Display (CL&D) work stream of the Thick Whois Implementation.
We would like to gather your thoughts on this proposal while we are similarly engaging with the T/T PDP Working Group chairs, and before we request consideration of this proposal by the GNSO Council.
We've identified a number of synergies between CL&D, RDAP, T/T and IRD that we believe will lower the marginal costs of implementation for both affected parties and ICANN:
* T/T Implementation will primarily affect RDDS output * T/T Implementation will require new extensions to EPP (language tag and T/T flag) as may be the case from CL&D (depending on the final implementation proposal) * T/T Implementation is recommended to be coordinated with the roll-out of RDAP (which is already synchronized with implementation of CL&D) * The data model for the T/T implementation is relatively consistent with the RDAP model and a "harmonization exercise" between the two was recommended in the IRD Report * Instead of creating and managing a specific IRT for the T/T implementation, we could leverage the expertise we have gathered already in the Thick Whois IRT * Ultimately, contracted parties would be tasked with implementing a single package of consensus policies rather than several discrete one
While we don't expect that such a merger would impact the transition from thin to thick of .COM, .NET and .JOBS, we have estimated that it would add at least 6 months to the timeline of the CL&D implementation. Ultimately, we believe that this is a more time- and resource-efficient option than recruiting a separate IRT for T/T and carrying out a separate implementation.
Before we request that the GNSO Chairs include this proposal as an item on their Consent Agenda for their meeting on 12 May, we would like to gather your thoughts.
We would appreciate if you could share your thinking in relation to the above proposal by next Thursday 28 April COB in your time zone.
Thank you for your consideration
Best Regards
-- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN
Links: ------ [1] https://features.icann.org/gnso-council-recommendations-translation-an d-transliteration-contact-information _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
Good Morning, Thanks for summarizing Francisco. So it appears that as a group we agree to the state of these two processes (T/T and IRD): T/T needs to move onto an IRT process; and the IRD recommendations need to be evaluated and as appropriate be incorporated into other GNSO policy work on WHOIS, at a minimum as it relates to the T/T IRT and RDS PDP. As stated before, I think consolidating this work is a great idea and suggest that the T/T IRT be run under the context of the RDS PDP and the relevant IRD recommendations will be evaluated and incorporated as appropriate. There have been several comments that the TT/IRD implementations are mostly RDAP additions and I am not sure that this comment digs deep enough as there will be a lot of work needed on updating the physical data structures (storage) and underlying communications protocols (EPP) to support these new data requirements (RDS will be updating these same system components as well). I see consolidating with the RDS PDP as a more logical grouping of work that will allow less rework (T/T IRT and then RDS) and it will allow the Thick WHOIS/RDAP/CL&D IRT work to continue on as planned without adding an additional 6-12 months delay to an already long plan. Thanks Roger -----Original Message----- From: Francisco Arias [mailto:francisco.arias@icann.org] Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 5:08 PM To: Roger D Carney <rcarney@godaddy.com>; Jennifer Gore Standiford <JStandiford@web.com> Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Proposal for Merging CL&D and Translation & Transliteration Implementation Hi Roger and Jennifer, I'd like to clarify a couple of things. As far as I know, T&T is already a policy recommendation adopted by both the gNSO council and the Board. Absent new instructions (from the Board?) on the contrary, we have to start implementation, either bundled with RDAP/Thick Whois or separately. Regarding the IRD report recommendations, you are right, these are not policy recommendations, but recommendations from a WG convened under the Whois Review. The Board resolution passed in Marrakech instructs staff to work with the community to implement only those recommendations form the report that are consistent with existing requirements (e.g., T&T policy recommendation). If the decision were not to bundle T&T/IRD with RDAP/Thick Whois, we would have to convene a new IRT and follow the rest of the policy implementation process. Given where we are with RDAP/Thick Whois, my forecast is that we'd request implementation for these two initiatives with a difference of one implementation cycle, i.e., 6 months separation. Finally, regarding the implementation timeline, it would seem that we are in agreement. Fabien email said we are looking at potentially a 6-month delay, which translates to a 9-month cycle of work with the bundled IRT. Regards, -- Francisco P.S. I believe the T&T/IRD recommendations to implement are mostly additions to the gTLD RDAP profile regarding language tags and additional optional translated/transliterated registration data. On 4/22/16, 11:00 AM, "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jennifer Gore Standiford" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org on behalf of JStandiford@web.com> wrote:
Agreed. Thank you again, Roger.
I want to re-emphasize the following two (2) key points: · Please consolidate (T/T, IRD) into the current RDS PDP in order to 1) Garner registrar support and 2) Ensure a successful outcome · T/T Implementation Review will need a minimum of 9 months (if consolidation doesn’t occur)
Thank you, Jennifer
On 4/22/16, 8:47 AM, "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Roger D Carney" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org on behalf of rcarney@godaddy.com> wrote:
Good Morning,
I think there were several conversations around this topic when we were in Buenos Aires.
My biggest concern then and now is delay. I agree that there are several streams of WHOIS work being actively worked and it would be nice to consolidate but I don't think that these two international (T/T, IRD) work products are far enough along to incorporate into our Thick/CL&D work.
Originally I thought that the T/T work could go through a fairly quick Implementation Review, but after several discussions during and after Buenos Aires it appears that there are several widely divergent mindsets on a couple of the recommendations, particularly recommendations 2 and 7 and how/if they relate to recommendation 1. I would estimate that this implementation review will need 9-12 months and possibly more.
As far as the IRD, aren't these just proposals? Isn't there PDP and IRT work that needs to be completed? The Board resolution that you mention (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10-en#1.e) seems to call out that the IRD work should be looked at in other WHOIS policy and specifically mentions the IRD work be used as an input into the RDS PDP that is currently ongoing.
As much as I like the charge to consolidate the WHOIS efforts I think that incorporating either or both of these two (T/T, IRD) work products into the Thick/CL&D would create an unnecessary delay on the current Thick/CL&D schedule. To me, the more logical consolidation is wrapping these two items (T/T, IRD) into the currently ongoing RDS PDP.
Thanks Roger
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of gtheo Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 6:39 AM To: Fabien Betremieux <fabien.betremieux@icann.org> Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Proposal for Merging CL&D and Translation & Transliteration Implementation
It might be something we want to try and combine some of these projects. Currently, there are too many ongoing WHOIS projects, finished and unfinished projects might indeed create overlap and overhead.
That being said, the T/T recommendations might not be everyone's cup of tea and there might be a risk we get stuck, would that delay the WHOIS migration? How do we handle such scenarios?
Furthermore do we currently have enough coverage member wise to handle this?
Thank you,
Theo Geurts
Fabien Betremieux schreef op 2016-04-21 10:46 PM:
Dear IRT Members,
As you may be aware, the ICANN board has directed staff to develop an implementation plan for the GNSO Recommendations on the Translation and Transliteration (T/T) of Contact Information (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28 -en#1.b [1]). More recently, the ICANN Board further directed staff to incorporate the recommendations of the Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) Working Group Final Report's into the T/T implementation plan where appropriate (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10 -en#1.e)
Considering our overarching goal to minimize impact on affected parties and to bundle related implementation where possible (per the GDD's policy change calendar at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar -13may15-en.pdf), we are considering merging the implementation of the T/T and IRD recommendations into the Consistent Labeling and Display (CL&D) work stream of the Thick Whois Implementation.
We would like to gather your thoughts on this proposal while we are similarly engaging with the T/T PDP Working Group chairs, and before we request consideration of this proposal by the GNSO Council.
We've identified a number of synergies between CL&D, RDAP, T/T and IRD that we believe will lower the marginal costs of implementation for both affected parties and ICANN:
* T/T Implementation will primarily affect RDDS output * T/T Implementation will require new extensions to EPP (language tag and T/T flag) as may be the case from CL&D (depending on the final implementation proposal) * T/T Implementation is recommended to be coordinated with the roll-out of RDAP (which is already synchronized with implementation of CL&D) * The data model for the T/T implementation is relatively consistent with the RDAP model and a "harmonization exercise" between the two was recommended in the IRD Report * Instead of creating and managing a specific IRT for the T/T implementation, we could leverage the expertise we have gathered already in the Thick Whois IRT * Ultimately, contracted parties would be tasked with implementing a single package of consensus policies rather than several discrete one
While we don't expect that such a merger would impact the transition from thin to thick of .COM, .NET and .JOBS, we have estimated that it would add at least 6 months to the timeline of the CL&D implementation. Ultimately, we believe that this is a more time- and resource-efficient option than recruiting a separate IRT for T/T and carrying out a separate implementation.
Before we request that the GNSO Chairs include this proposal as an item on their Consent Agenda for their meeting on 12 May, we would like to gather your thoughts.
We would appreciate if you could share your thinking in relation to the above proposal by next Thursday 28 April COB in your time zone.
Thank you for your consideration
Best Regards
-- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN
Links: ------ [1] https://features.icann.org/gnso-council-recommendations-translation-an d-transliteration-contact-information _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
participants (5)
-
Fabien Betremieux -
Francisco Arias -
gtheo -
Jennifer Gore Standiford -
Roger D Carney