[Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Proposal for Merging CL&D and Translation & Transliteration Implementation

[Fabien Betremieux]

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20160421/2a7ca9bf/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4608 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20160421/2a7ca9bf/smime.p7s>