Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Draft matrix

["YAO Jiankang" <yaojk@xxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Jay about his first point.

models 1 and 2 are possible to be used. model 3 are not reasonable.

model 3 may use translation service of many languages provided by Registrar.
The service fee for translation in many countries are very expensive, sometimes 
higer than the price of the domain name.
Of course, the registrar is unwilling to cover this cost.

about the reason of not pushing the problem to registries,
my understanding is that the whois data or domain data collected from registrar 
will directly go into the central database of the registry.
In logic or practical, it is not reasonable to modify or update the data 
directly by registry.
pushing the problem to the registry is kind of enforcement that registry has to 
modify or update the domain data directly.



Jiankang Yao
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jay Daley 
  To: Steve Sheng 
  Cc: Ird 
  Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 6:40 AM
  Subject: Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Draft matrix 


  Hi Steve


  Work pressures have prevented me from joining any calls recently so apologies 
if these comments seem to backtrack at all.


  1. Models


  I am happy with models 1 and 2 as they both seem sensible possibilities.  


  Model 3 however seems unfeasable - I cannot imagine a situation where model 3 
will be the *only* model allowed, which means it effectively describes 'added 
value'.  Our focus (as with all policy groups) should be on baseline behaviour 
as there is an infinite spectrum of added value that we cannot predict.  I 
consequently won't be commenting on model 3.


  It is interesting to note there are no models that push the problem to 
registries.  Is this a deliberate omission?  I would be happy if it is but I 
think the reasoning needs to be recorded.