[council] Response to Board Request re: IRD Working Group Report

[Amr Elsadr]

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Response to ICANN Board - IRD Final Report - 5 DEC 2016 + edits AE.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 1004928 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20161215/e55166e0/ResponsetoICANNBoard-IRDFinalReport-5DEC2016editsAE.docx>
-------------- next part --------------

> On Dec 13, 2016, at 6:35 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks Amr.  I agree.
> 
> Best,
> Keith
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at 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 at 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
>