RE: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Update: Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group
- To: "Steve Sheng" <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx>, <ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Update: Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group
- From: "Scott Austin" <saustin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:07:45 -0700
This substantive change appears appropriate and I would support its
adoption and inclusion in an amendment to our Final Report.
Scott R. Austin
vCard <http://www.gordonrees.com/vcards/saustin.vcf> | My Bio
200 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 4300
Miami, FL 33131
Main Phone: (305) 668-4433
Mobile: (216) 870-7954
Direct Fax: (877) 644-6207
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
[mailto:owner-ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Sheng
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 5:57 PM
Subject: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Update: Final Report of the Internationalized
Registration Data Working Group
Dear members of IRD-WG,
Greetings. When the IRD-WG Final report was approved by the group in
March. It was sent to GNSO and to SSAC for review and approval. As a
result, the SSAC provided a few comments, for your review and approval.
Most of these comments are to correct technical and other errors in
the document. The only substantive change is that the SSAC proposed an
Recommendation 4: ICANN should take appropriate steps to require gTLD
registries and registrars andpersuade ccTLD registries and registrars to
support the following standards:
Domain Names - both A-label and U-label; nameserver Names- A-label, and
Telephone/fax- ITU-T E.123; Email- IETF EAI WG RFCs; Registration
Status- Exact EPP status where applicable; Dates - ISO 8601-2004.
The rationale for this recommendation is that SSAC members asked: is
there a reason why standards agreed to in Section 4.2 are not part of
the final recommendations for action now? For example, Nameserver,
Phone/fax, Dates, Registration Status are fields where it appears the WG
had consensus. By proposing recommendation 4, it made possible for
possible actions where the IRD-WG had consensus, without having to wait
for the translation and transliteration issue to resolve.
Attached please find the report (REDLINE, clean version).
We appreciate the IRD-WG members could review these changes and discuss
whether to approve them by May 9, 2012. If the IRD-WG feel there is a
need for a teleconference call, staff is happy to organize it.
California * New York * Texas * Illinois * Nevada * Arizona * Colorado *
Oregon * New Jersey * Florida * Georgia * Connecticut * Missouri * Washington,
DC * Pennsylvania
This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE
LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only for the use of the intended recipients
identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication,
you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, dissemination,
distribution, downloading, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this
communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply email, delete the
communication and destroy all copies.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE
To ensure compliance with requirements by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S.
tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing
or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
GORDON & REES LLP