[gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options

[Dillon, Chris]

Dear Volker,

Thank you for your comments.

In a future hypothetical situation where there was a DNRD in which contact information was stored in many scripts and the information was not transformed into ASCII/English, syntactic validation would be more difficult than the current situation, as many scripts would be involved. If transformed contact information were to be validated, the situation would be even more difficult because of the lack of (or in some cases the availability of several) transliteration systems. I don’t think operational or identity validation would be affected.

(Further information: 2013 RAA. WHOIS Accuracy Program specification p.1 and https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/8+Verification+and+Validation )

Regards,

Chris.
--
Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon>

From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net]
Sent: 28 November 2014 14:58
To: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana; Dillon, Chris; zhangzuan at conac.cn
Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org; Chaichana Mitrpant; Werachai Prayoonpruk; Kriangkrai Charernroy; Ariya Nunnual; Thiphonphan Uthaithat
Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options

Jumping in here, just to say that under the 2013 RAA the validation of contact info is already mandatory for registrars, requiring them to validate all required fields are present and that all data conforms to the right format. So I am not sure where you are leading with this issue that I see as completely out of scope for this WG.

As an aside, validation is a completely useless exercise and waste of time and money as any criminal will just need to reach for the next phone book for a list of perfectly accurate verifyable contact details. As a registrar, I feel comfortable stating that this is now the norm for abusive registrations and there is no way to prevent this with any amount of validation.

Best,

Volker
Am 28.11.2014 05:05, schrieb Pitinan Kooarmornpatana:
Dear all,

Hope this is not too late to cast my vote.

My quick answer is  "Yes - we should have one option"
that option is "Mandatory  (..to have the trustable contact info)"
However, in my humble opinion, it is not mandatory to "transform the contact info" but Mandatory to "validate the contact info"

As much as I bear in mind that the validate-or-not is out of the scope of our WG’s scope, but I found it's very hard making decision of this two functions separately.
Kindly let me try to explain.

-----------------------------
I think we do agree that:
-----------------------------
1. ICANN principle of non-discrimination and reach-out will always allow registrants to input the contact-info in local language – which is good,

2. the validated contact info is preferable,

3. there will surely be cost associated to the one who do the validation. But, the validation is much cheaper or even only-possible when using contact info in local-script, and using local validator (like Thailand Post validating any Address in Thailand),

4. once the contact-info in local script is validated, then it is not too troublesome to 'transform' into any language, either using tool or human-translator for quick understanding purpose or the first clue to contact the entity. And when you need to act any legal action to the entity you will need the legal document in local script or legally-notarized-translated version anyway.

5. it is quite promising that ICANN approach of improving whois information will include the validating too.

6. Lastly, internet is all connected, any critical rule or policy should apply to all (mandatory) across the globe to avoid the loophole of the internet governance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From points above, the answer of transforming-or-not depends on how we do validation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario1: The contact info must be validated by local validator
                --> then there is no need to transform

Scenario2: The contact info could be validated by non-local validator
                --> then it must be transformed in the standardized way so the non-local validator can perform

Scenario3: There is no need to validate contact information
                --> then there is no need to do anything… it’s trash in – trash out

---------------
In Summary
---------------
I believe that it will likely to be scenario1 – trustable data, not so costly

That’s why I would say,
Yes, there should be one option,
If is mandatory to validate the contact info, There is no need to transform the script.

-------------


Thank you and Very Best Regards,


Pitinan Kooarmornpatana
Director of Information Infrastructure Office

Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA)
T: 02-123-1234, F: 02-123-1200
+(66) 81 375 3433
pitinan at etda.or.th


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg/attachments/20141201/18e15718/attachment.html>