<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Dear IRT Members,</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">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 (<a href="https://features.icann.org/gnso-council-recommendations-translation-and-transliteration-contact-information">https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#1.b</a>). 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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10-en#1.e">https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10-en#1.e</a>) </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">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: <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf</a>), 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. </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">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.</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><br></div><div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">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:</font></div><ul><li style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><div>T/T Implementation will primarily affect RDDS output</div></font></li><li style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">T/T Implementation will require new extensions to EPP (language tag and T/T flag) as may be the case </font>from CL&D (depending on the final implementation proposal)</li><li style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">T/T Implementation is recommended to be coordinated with the roll-out of RDAP (which is </font>already synchronized with implementation of CL&D)</li><li style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">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</font></li><li style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">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</li><li><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">Ultimately, contracted parties would be tasked with implementing a single package of consensus policies rather than several discrete one</font></li></ul><div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><br></font></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">While we don’t expect that such a merger would impact </font>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.</div><div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><br></font></div><div>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. </div></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">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.</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Thank you for your consideration</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Best Regards</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><div><div>-- </div><div>Fabien Betremieux</div><div>Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager</div><div>Global Domains Division, ICANN</div></div></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><div></div></div></div></body></html>