From terri.agnew at icann.org Tue Nov 4 20:17:40 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 20:17:40 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] REMINDER: PLEASE RSVP Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session In-Reply-To: <80abdd8517e640d9b2bec0478a16829f@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <07d2b61afd724a58a8cce51c4cd75594@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <80abdd8517e640d9b2bec0478a16829f@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <78702eb298cb4f399373eeef48f10edd@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Reminder: Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session These ongoing monthly sessions are for new GNSO WG participants to come together and discuss any questions they may have about GNSO Working Groups, procedures and/or processes. We know there is a lot of information to digest when you join a GNSO Working Group and these monthly meetings are an opportunity for newcomers and more experienced participants to meet in an informal setting without the pressure of "real work" that needs be done. The agenda is flexible. The presenters will be ready with a standard set of materials if people would like to discuss them. Feel free to submit questions, either in advance or at the beginning of the meeting, if there is a topic that you would like to explore in more depth . Providing useful answers to a wide range of questions is part of the reason why these meetings are Thursday 6 November at 20.00 UTC Thursday 4 December at 12.00 UTC To convert to your local time zone, please see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html If you are interested to join the next meeting on 06 November or any of the future meetings, please let the GNSO Secretariat know ( gnso-secs at icann.org) and we will send you the call details. If there are any specific questions you already have, or any overviews or introductions you think would be helpful (e.g. GNSO Policy Development Process or GNSO Working Group guidelines), please let us know in advance and we will prepare materials accordingly. Feel free to share this invitation with others that you think may be interested. We look forward to welcoming you at the next meeting! Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5417 bytes Desc: not available URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Tue Nov 4 21:16:06 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 21:16:06 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report Message-ID: <4fdadcfce95740f29fa6dca50cd4336c@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> Dear colleagues, Please find attached two versions of the latest draft of the initial report for discussion during Thursday's meeting: * The PDF is for easy reading. * The .docx includes recent changes. Looking forward to Thursday, Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Initial Report V3.doc Type: application/msword Size: 717312 bytes Desc: Draft Initial Report V3.doc URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Initial Report V3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 840248 bytes Desc: Draft Initial Report V3.pdf URL: From pdernbach at winklerpartners.com Thu Nov 6 10:46:52 2014 From: pdernbach at winklerpartners.com (Peter Dernbach) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 18:46:52 +0800 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report In-Reply-To: <4fdadcfce95740f29fa6dca50cd4336c@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> References: <4fdadcfce95740f29fa6dca50cd4336c@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Dear Chris and all, Apologies, but I am unable to make this evening's call. Best regards, Peter Peter J.Dernbach ??? Partner ????(???????) *T* 886 (0)2 2311 2345 # 222 *F* 886 (0)2 2311 2688 www.winklerpartners.com pdernbach at winklerpartners.com ------------------------------ NOTICE: This email and any attachments contain private, confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or distribute the contents and are requested to delete them and to notify the sender. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Dillon, Chris wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > > > Please find attached two versions of the latest draft of the initial > report for discussion during Thursday?s meeting: > > ? The PDF is for easy reading. > > ? The .docx includes recent changes. > > > > Looking forward to Thursday, > > > > Regards, > > > > Chris. > > -- > > Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, > UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) > ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Thu Nov 6 11:53:27 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 11:53:27 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report In-Reply-To: References: <4fdadcfce95740f29fa6dca50cd4336c@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: <1aa76ca12ce44be28d2fe9360ea0c058@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear Peter, Thank you ever so much for this. Your apology has been noted. Kind regards Nathalie From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Peter Dernbach Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 11:47 AM To: Dillon, Chris Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report Dear Chris and all, Apologies, but I am unable to make this evening's call. Best regards, Peter Peter J.Dernbach ??? Partner ????(???????) T 886 (0)2 2311 2345 # 222 F 886 (0)2 2311 2688 www.winklerpartners.com pdernbach at winklerpartners.com _____ NOTICE: This email and any attachments contain private, confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or distribute the contents and are requested to delete them and to notify the sender. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Dillon, Chris wrote: Dear colleagues, Please find attached two versions of the latest draft of the initial report for discussion during Thursday?s meeting: ? The PDF is for easy reading. ? The .docx includes recent changes. Looking forward to Thursday, Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Thu Nov 6 12:22:35 2014 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 13:22:35 +0100 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report In-Reply-To: References: <4fdadcfce95740f29fa6dca50cd4336c@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: <6BDD394F-1217-43C0-86B5-F0264235F7DF@egyptig.org> Hi all, Same here. I?m afraid I won?t make it today either. There?s another call scheduled at the same time that I need to be on. I?ll listen to the recording as soon as it?s available, and catch up. Apologies about the late notice. Thanks. Amr On Nov 6, 2014, at 11:46 AM, Peter Dernbach wrote: > Dear Chris and all, > > Apologies, but I am unable to make this evening's call. > > Best regards, > Peter > > > > > Peter J.Dernbach > ??? > > Partner > ????(???????) > T 886 (0)2 2311 2345 # 222 > F 886 (0)2 2311 2688 www.winklerpartners.com > pdernbach at winklerpartners.com > NOTICE: This email and any attachments contain private, confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. > If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or distribute the contents and are requested to delete them and to notify the sender. > > ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Dillon, Chris wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > > > Please find attached two versions of the latest draft of the initial report for discussion during Thursday?s meeting: > > ? The PDF is for easy reading. > > ? The .docx includes recent changes. > > > > Looking forward to Thursday, > > > > Regards, > > > > Chris. > > -- > > Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lindsay.Hamilton-Reid at fasthosts.com Thu Nov 6 12:29:38 2014 From: Lindsay.Hamilton-Reid at fasthosts.com (Lindsay Hamilton-Reid) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:29:38 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report In-Reply-To: <6BDD394F-1217-43C0-86B5-F0264235F7DF@egyptig.org> References: <4fdadcfce95740f29fa6dca50cd4336c@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> ,<6BDD394F-1217-43C0-86B5-F0264235F7DF@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Hi all Apologies from me too, I won't make the call either. Many thanks Lindsay Sent from Samsung Mobile on O2 -------- Original message -------- From: Amr Elsadr Date:06/11/2014 12:20 (GMT+00:00) To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report Hi all, Same here. I'm afraid I won't make it today either. There's another call scheduled at the same time that I need to be on. I'll listen to the recording as soon as it's available, and catch up. Apologies about the late notice. Thanks. Amr On Nov 6, 2014, at 11:46 AM, Peter Dernbach > wrote: Dear Chris and all, Apologies, but I am unable to make this evening's call. Best regards, Peter [http://www.winklerpartners.com/Winkler-logo.gif] Peter J.Dernbach ??? Partner ????(???????) T 886 (0)2 2311 2345 # 222 F 886 (0)2 2311 2688 www.winklerpartners.com pdernbach at winklerpartners.com ________________________________ NOTICE: This email and any attachments contain private, confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or distribute the contents and are requested to delete them and to notify the sender. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Dillon, Chris > wrote: Dear colleagues, Please find attached two versions of the latest draft of the initial report for discussion during Thursday's meeting: * The PDF is for easy reading. * The .docx includes recent changes. Looking forward to Thursday, Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Thu Nov 6 13:07:52 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 13:07:52 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report In-Reply-To: References: <4fdadcfce95740f29fa6dca50cd4336c@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> ,<6BDD394F-1217-43C0-86B5-F0264235F7DF@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Dear Lindsay, I??ll make sure you??re in the apologies. 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 From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lindsay Hamilton-Reid Sent: 06 November 2014 12:30 To: Amr Elsadr; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report Hi all Apologies from me too, I won't make the call either. Many thanks Lindsay Sent from Samsung Mobile on O2 -------- Original message -------- From: Amr Elsadr Date:06/11/2014 12:20 (GMT+00:00) To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report Hi all, Same here. I??m afraid I won??t make it today either. There??s another call scheduled at the same time that I need to be on. I??ll listen to the recording as soon as it??s available, and catch up. Apologies about the late notice. Thanks. Amr On Nov 6, 2014, at 11:46 AM, Peter Dernbach > wrote: Dear Chris and all, Apologies, but I am unable to make this evening's call. Best regards, Peter [http://www.winklerpartners.com/Winkler-logo.gif] Peter J.Dernbach ?T???? Partner ????????(??????????????) T 886 (0)2 2311 2345 # 222 F 886 (0)2 2311 2688 www.winklerpartners.com pdernbach at winklerpartners.com ________________________________ NOTICE: This email and any attachments contain private, confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or distribute the contents and are requested to delete them and to notify the sender. ???????]?????????????????????C?????????????e???o???Y?????H?????????????????????????K?????????????????????????????????????u?????????K???h???????????K???????????? On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Dillon, Chris > wrote: Dear colleagues, Please find attached two versions of the latest draft of the initial report for discussion during Thursday??s meeting: * The PDF is for easy reading. * The .docx includes recent changes. Looking forward to Thursday, Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ekenyanito at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 13:13:02 2014 From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 16:13:02 +0300 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report In-Reply-To: References: <4fdadcfce95740f29fa6dca50cd4336c@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> <6BDD394F-1217-43C0-86B5-F0264235F7DF@egyptig.org> Message-ID: What time in UTC is the call? -- Best Regards, ??Ephraim Percy Kenyanito Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito tel: (+254)-786-19-19-30 / (+254)-751-804-120 @ekenyanito Skype: ekenyanito PGP: E6BA8DC1 "Sent from Mobile Office on my Portable Office. Please pardon my brevity." On 6 Nov 2014 16:09, "Dillon, Chris" wrote: > Dear Lindsay, > > > > I?ll make sure you?re in the apologies. > > > > 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 > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lindsay > Hamilton-Reid > *Sent:* 06 November 2014 12:30 > *To:* Amr Elsadr; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report > > > > Hi all > > > > Apologies from me too, I won't make the call either. > > > > Many thanks > > > > Lindsay > > > > > > Sent from Samsung Mobile on O2 > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Amr Elsadr > Date:06/11/2014 12:20 (GMT+00:00) > To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report > > Hi all, > > > > Same here. I?m afraid I won?t make it today either. There?s another call > scheduled at the same time that I need to be on. I?ll listen to the > recording as soon as it?s available, and catch up. > > > > Apologies about the late notice. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr > > > > On Nov 6, 2014, at 11:46 AM, Peter Dernbach > wrote: > > > > Dear Chris and all, > > Apologies, but I am unable to make this evening's call. > > Best regards, > Peter > > > > > > > Peter J.Dernbach > ??? > > > > Partner > ????(???????) > > > > *T* 886 (0)2 2311 2345 # 222 > *F* 886 (0)2 2311 2688 > > > > www.winklerpartners.com > pdernbach at winklerpartners.com > ------------------------------ > > NOTICE: This email and any attachments contain private, confidential and > privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. > If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or distribute > the contents and are requested to delete them and to notify the sender. > > > ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Dillon, Chris wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > > Please find attached two versions of the latest draft of the initial > report for discussion during Thursday?s meeting: > > ? The PDF is for easy reading. > > ? The .docx includes recent changes. > > > > Looking forward to Thursday, > > > > Regards, > > > > Chris. > > -- > > Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, > UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) > ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Thu Nov 6 12:41:45 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:41:45 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report In-Reply-To: <6BDD394F-1217-43C0-86B5-F0264235F7DF@egyptig.org> References: <4fdadcfce95740f29fa6dca50cd4336c@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> <6BDD394F-1217-43C0-86B5-F0264235F7DF@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <41d94b28bf96481aa056b4149bb120bd@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> Dear Amr, No problem. Thank you for your contributions last week. 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 From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: 06 November 2014 12:23 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report Hi all, Same here. I?m afraid I won?t make it today either. There?s another call scheduled at the same time that I need to be on. I?ll listen to the recording as soon as it?s available, and catch up. Apologies about the late notice. Thanks. Amr On Nov 6, 2014, at 11:46 AM, Peter Dernbach > wrote: Dear Chris and all, Apologies, but I am unable to make this evening's call. Best regards, Peter [http://www.winklerpartners.com/Winkler-logo.gif] Peter J.Dernbach ??? Partner ????(???????) T 886 (0)2 2311 2345 # 222 F 886 (0)2 2311 2688 www.winklerpartners.com pdernbach at winklerpartners.com ________________________________ NOTICE: This email and any attachments contain private, confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or distribute the contents and are requested to delete them and to notify the sender. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Dillon, Chris > wrote: Dear colleagues, Please find attached two versions of the latest draft of the initial report for discussion during Thursday?s meeting: ? The PDF is for easy reading. ? The .docx includes recent changes. Looking forward to Thursday, Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ekenyanito at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 13:18:37 2014 From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 16:18:37 +0300 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report In-Reply-To: References: <4fdadcfce95740f29fa6dca50cd4336c@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> <6BDD394F-1217-43C0-86B5-F0264235F7DF@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Sorry won't make it at that time. Please include my apologies. -- Best Regards, ??Ephraim Percy Kenyanito Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito tel: (+254)-786-19-19-30 / (+254)-751-804-120 @ekenyanito Skype: ekenyanito PGP: E6BA8DC1 "Sent from Mobile Office on my Portable Office. Please pardon my brevity." On 6 Nov 2014 16:14, "Dillon, Chris" wrote: > Dear Ephraim, > > > > 14:00, in other words in 45 mins time. > > > > 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 > > > > *From:* Ephraim Percy Kenyanito [mailto:ekenyanito at gmail.com] > *Sent:* 06 November 2014 13:13 > *To:* Dillon, Chris > *Cc:* Lindsay Hamilton-Reid; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report > > > > What time in UTC is the call? > > -- > > Best Regards, > > ??Ephraim Percy Kenyanito > Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito > tel: (+254)-786-19-19-30 / (+254)-751-804-120 > @ekenyanito > Skype: ekenyanito > PGP: E6BA8DC1 > > "Sent from Mobile Office on my Portable Office. Please pardon my brevity." > > On 6 Nov 2014 16:09, "Dillon, Chris" wrote: > > Dear Lindsay, > > > > I?ll make sure you?re in the apologies. > > > > 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 > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lindsay > Hamilton-Reid > *Sent:* 06 November 2014 12:30 > *To:* Amr Elsadr; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report > > > > Hi all > > > > Apologies from me too, I won't make the call either. > > > > Many thanks > > > > Lindsay > > > > > > Sent from Samsung Mobile on O2 > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Amr Elsadr > Date:06/11/2014 12:20 (GMT+00:00) > To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report > > Hi all, > > > > Same here. I?m afraid I won?t make it today either. There?s another call > scheduled at the same time that I need to be on. I?ll listen to the > recording as soon as it?s available, and catch up. > > > > Apologies about the late notice. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr > > > > On Nov 6, 2014, at 11:46 AM, Peter Dernbach > wrote: > > > > Dear Chris and all, > > Apologies, but I am unable to make this evening's call. > > Best regards, > Peter > > > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > Peter J.Dernbach > ??? > > > > Partner > ????(???????) > > > > *T* 886 (0)2 2311 2345 # 222 > *F* 886 (0)2 2311 2688 > > > > www.winklerpartners.com > pdernbach at winklerpartners.com > ------------------------------ > > NOTICE: This email and any attachments contain private, confidential and > privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. > If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or distribute > the contents and are requested to delete them and to notify the sender. > > > ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Dillon, Chris wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > > Please find attached two versions of the latest draft of the initial > report for discussion during Thursday?s meeting: > > ? The PDF is for easy reading. > > ? The .docx includes recent changes. > > > > Looking forward to Thursday, > > > > Regards, > > > > Chris. > > -- > > Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, > UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) > ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 332 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 354 bytes Desc: not available URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Thu Nov 6 13:20:09 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 13:20:09 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report In-Reply-To: References: <4fdadcfce95740f29fa6dca50cd4336c@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> <6BDD394F-1217-43C0-86B5-F0264235F7DF@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <8467c9aeef5248b3a641baf5af4cd614@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> Dear Ephraim, Thank you for your email. Will do. 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 From: Ephraim Percy Kenyanito [mailto:ekenyanito at gmail.com] Sent: 06 November 2014 13:19 To: Dillon, Chris Cc: Lindsay Hamilton-Reid; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report Sorry won't make it at that time. Please include my apologies. -- Best Regards, ??Ephraim Percy Kenyanito Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito tel: (+254)-786-19-19-30 / (+254)-751-804-120 @ekenyanito Skype: ekenyanito PGP: E6BA8DC1 "Sent from Mobile Office on my Portable Office. Please pardon my brevity." On 6 Nov 2014 16:14, "Dillon, Chris" > wrote: Dear Ephraim, 14:00, in other words in 45 mins time. 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 From: Ephraim Percy Kenyanito [mailto:ekenyanito at gmail.com] Sent: 06 November 2014 13:13 To: Dillon, Chris Cc: Lindsay Hamilton-Reid; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report What time in UTC is the call? -- Best Regards, ??Ephraim Percy Kenyanito Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito tel: (+254)-786-19-19-30 / (+254)-751-804-120 @ekenyanito Skype: ekenyanito PGP: E6BA8DC1 "Sent from Mobile Office on my Portable Office. Please pardon my brevity." On 6 Nov 2014 16:09, "Dillon, Chris" > wrote: Dear Lindsay, I?ll make sure you?re in the apologies. 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 From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lindsay Hamilton-Reid Sent: 06 November 2014 12:30 To: Amr Elsadr; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report Hi all Apologies from me too, I won't make the call either. Many thanks Lindsay Sent from Samsung Mobile on O2 -------- Original message -------- From: Amr Elsadr Date:06/11/2014 12:20 (GMT+00:00) To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report Hi all, Same here. I?m afraid I won?t make it today either. There?s another call scheduled at the same time that I need to be on. I?ll listen to the recording as soon as it?s available, and catch up. Apologies about the late notice. Thanks. Amr On Nov 6, 2014, at 11:46 AM, Peter Dernbach > wrote: Dear Chris and all, Apologies, but I am unable to make this evening's call. Best regards, Peter [Image removed by sender.] Peter J.Dernbach ??? Partner ????(???????) T 886 (0)2 2311 2345 # 222 F 886 (0)2 2311 2688 www.winklerpartners.com pdernbach at winklerpartners.com ________________________________ NOTICE: This email and any attachments contain private, confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or distribute the contents and are requested to delete them and to notify the sender. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Dillon, Chris > wrote: Dear colleagues, Please find attached two versions of the latest draft of the initial report for discussion during Thursday?s meeting: ? The PDF is for easy reading. ? The .docx includes recent changes. Looking forward to Thursday, Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 354 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 332 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Thu Nov 6 13:14:22 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 13:14:22 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report In-Reply-To: References: <4fdadcfce95740f29fa6dca50cd4336c@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> <6BDD394F-1217-43C0-86B5-F0264235F7DF@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Dear Ephraim, 14:00, in other words in 45 mins time. 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 From: Ephraim Percy Kenyanito [mailto:ekenyanito at gmail.com] Sent: 06 November 2014 13:13 To: Dillon, Chris Cc: Lindsay Hamilton-Reid; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report What time in UTC is the call? -- Best Regards, ??Ephraim Percy Kenyanito Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito tel: (+254)-786-19-19-30 / (+254)-751-804-120 @ekenyanito Skype: ekenyanito PGP: E6BA8DC1 "Sent from Mobile Office on my Portable Office. Please pardon my brevity." On 6 Nov 2014 16:09, "Dillon, Chris" > wrote: Dear Lindsay, I?ll make sure you?re in the apologies. 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 From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lindsay Hamilton-Reid Sent: 06 November 2014 12:30 To: Amr Elsadr; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report Hi all Apologies from me too, I won't make the call either. Many thanks Lindsay Sent from Samsung Mobile on O2 -------- Original message -------- From: Amr Elsadr Date:06/11/2014 12:20 (GMT+00:00) To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report Hi all, Same here. I?m afraid I won?t make it today either. There?s another call scheduled at the same time that I need to be on. I?ll listen to the recording as soon as it?s available, and catch up. Apologies about the late notice. Thanks. Amr On Nov 6, 2014, at 11:46 AM, Peter Dernbach > wrote: Dear Chris and all, Apologies, but I am unable to make this evening's call. Best regards, Peter [Image removed by sender.] Peter J.Dernbach ??? Partner ????(???????) T 886 (0)2 2311 2345 # 222 F 886 (0)2 2311 2688 www.winklerpartners.com pdernbach at winklerpartners.com ________________________________ NOTICE: This email and any attachments contain private, confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or distribute the contents and are requested to delete them and to notify the sender. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Dillon, Chris > wrote: Dear colleagues, Please find attached two versions of the latest draft of the initial report for discussion during Thursday?s meeting: ? The PDF is for easy reading. ? The .docx includes recent changes. Looking forward to Thursday, Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 354 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 332 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Thu Nov 6 13:59:53 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 13:59:53 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report In-Reply-To: <703B24C6-0F92-4160-96F3-81FF60573ED3@emilytaylor.eu> References: <4fdadcfce95740f29fa6dca50cd4336c@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> <6BDD394F-1217-43C0-86B5-F0264235F7DF@egyptig.org> <703B24C6-0F92-4160-96F3-81FF60573ED3@emilytaylor.eu> Message-ID: <2e354b7d9b60412083556c30a6ce132a@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> Dear Emily, I?ll note your apology. 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 From: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu] Sent: 06 November 2014 13:55 To: Dillon, Chris Cc: Ephraim Percy Kenyanito; Lindsay Hamilton-Reid; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report Apologies. In transit to Italy on business and unable to make today's call Sent from my iPhone On 6 Nov 2014, at 14:14, Dillon, Chris > wrote: Dear Ephraim, 14:00, in other words in 45 mins time. 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 From: Ephraim Percy Kenyanito [mailto:ekenyanito at gmail.com] Sent: 06 November 2014 13:13 To: Dillon, Chris Cc: Lindsay Hamilton-Reid; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report What time in UTC is the call? -- Best Regards, ??Ephraim Percy Kenyanito Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito tel: (+254)-786-19-19-30 / (+254)-751-804-120 @ekenyanito Skype: ekenyanito PGP: E6BA8DC1 "Sent from Mobile Office on my Portable Office. Please pardon my brevity." On 6 Nov 2014 16:09, "Dillon, Chris" > wrote: Dear Lindsay, I?ll make sure you?re in the apologies. 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 From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lindsay Hamilton-Reid Sent: 06 November 2014 12:30 To: Amr Elsadr; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report Hi all Apologies from me too, I won't make the call either. Many thanks Lindsay Sent from Samsung Mobile on O2 -------- Original message -------- From: Amr Elsadr Date:06/11/2014 12:20 (GMT+00:00) To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report Hi all, Same here. I?m afraid I won?t make it today either. There?s another call scheduled at the same time that I need to be on. I?ll listen to the recording as soon as it?s available, and catch up. Apologies about the late notice. Thanks. Amr On Nov 6, 2014, at 11:46 AM, Peter Dernbach > wrote: Dear Chris and all, Apologies, but I am unable to make this evening's call. Best regards, Peter Peter J.Dernbach ??? Partner ????(???????) T 886 (0)2 2311 2345 # 222 F 886 (0)2 2311 2688 www.winklerpartners.com pdernbach at winklerpartners.com ________________________________ NOTICE: This email and any attachments contain private, confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or distribute the contents and are requested to delete them and to notify the sender. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Dillon, Chris > wrote: Dear colleagues, Please find attached two versions of the latest draft of the initial report for discussion during Thursday?s meeting: ? The PDF is for easy reading. ? The .docx includes recent changes. Looking forward to Thursday, Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Thu Nov 6 17:34:11 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 17:34:11 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] MP3 Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG meeting - 06 November 2014 Message-ID: Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group call held on Thursday 06 November at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-transliteration-contact-20141106-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Jim Galvin - RySG Jennifer Chung ? RySG Chris Dillon ? NCSG Wen Zhai ? NTAG Justine Chew ? Individual Peter Green ? NCUC Mae Suchayapim Siriwat ? GAC Wanawit Ahkuputra - GAC Pitinan Kooarmornpatana ? GAC Apologies: Petter Rindforth ? IPC Amr Elsadr ? NCUC Ephraim Percy Kenyanito ? NCUC Peter Dernbach ? IPC Lindsay Hamilton-Reid ? RrSG Rudi Vansnick ? NPOC Emily Taylor ? RrSG ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Lars Hoffmann Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Wiki page: http://tinyurl.com/mpwxstx Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew GNSO Secretariat Adobe Chat Transcript for Thursday 06 November 2014: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, Welcome to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG call on the 6th November 2014 Wen Zhai:Where's everybody? Sorry i'm late. Terri Agnew:Hi Wen, call will start in 23 minutes Chris Dillon:Hello, everyone. Chris Dillon:Many apologies today. Jennifer Chung:Hi everyone Julie Hedlund:@Chris: I have made you a presenter so you can move the document. Chris Dillon:Thank you. Justine Chew:+1 Jim Jim Galvin:You could combine them by saying the following Jim Galvin:"The Group prioritized discussing ... Jim Galvin:use that to start the first sentence Jim Galvin:delete the second sentence Justine Chew:Yes, simplify to just state some background to support creation of straw man proposal Jim Galvin:replace "spent considerable time" Justine Chew:typographical error in last para on page 10 Justine Chew:"ares" should be "are" - 3rd line from bottom Pitinan Kooarmornpatana:yes i'm thinking each language , could use different standards Pitinan Kooarmornpatana:but the langueage owner must have the way to declair Pitinan Kooarmornpatana:+1 Jim Galvin:On the question of defining "accurate transformation", I suggest a footnote to define it. Jim Galvin:Then we could have sub-bullets under the main bullet. Justine Chew:@Chris, could we just go back to page 12 please? Second bullet from the bottom, starting with "It would be more efficient .... Justine Chew:I don't quite follow the second sentence in context of the first sentence Justine Chew:Also it is unclear that the word "This" refers to allowing information data to be in local script, because the concept of transformation is also introduced in the first sentence. Jim Galvin:In general agree that examples are a good thing. But this one is isolated and thus I feel i'm missing something because why is it there? Justine Chew:Okay, thanks Chris. Pitinan Kooarmornpatana:ok, thanks all Chris Dillon:Thank you. Jennifer Chung:Thank you Chris, thanks all. Julie Hedlund: Thank you everyone -- have a great day! Pitinan Kooarmornpatana:have a great day :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5417 bytes Desc: not available URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Thu Nov 6 10:56:49 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 10:56:49 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report In-Reply-To: References: <4fdadcfce95740f29fa6dca50cd4336c@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Dear Peter, Thank you for your email. I?ll make sure you?re in the apologies. 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 From: Peter Dernbach [mailto:pdernbach at winklerpartners.com] Sent: 06 November 2014 10:47 To: Dillon, Chris Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft of initial report Dear Chris and all, Apologies, but I am unable to make this evening's call. Best regards, Peter [http://www.winklerpartners.com/Winkler-logo.gif] Peter J.Dernbach ??? Partner ????(???????) T 886 (0)2 2311 2345 # 222 F 886 (0)2 2311 2688 www.winklerpartners.com pdernbach at winklerpartners.com ________________________________ NOTICE: This email and any attachments contain private, confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or distribute the contents and are requested to delete them and to notify the sender. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Dillon, Chris > wrote: Dear colleagues, Please find attached two versions of the latest draft of the initial report for discussion during Thursday?s meeting: ? The PDF is for easy reading. ? The .docx includes recent changes. Looking forward to Thursday, Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Fri Nov 7 12:34:48 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 12:34:48 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] soft DEADLINE Message-ID: Dear all, In order to move our effort forward as smoothly as possible, we suggest that in preparation for next week?s call to gather as many comments as possible on the latest version of the draft initial report (attached). Please provide your feedback by Wednesday 12 November 23:59 UTC ? if you don?t provide feedback we will assume that you are content with the report as it stands. If you need more time, please let us know. If you do provide feedback, please do so in track changes and send it back to the list or to lars.hoffmann at icann.org ? so that we can collect all comments and discuss a collated version on next week?s call. If you have missed yesterday?s call, you can listen to the MP3 or read the Transcript as Chris gave some very useful background information/explanations to the latest draft. Please note that there is clean version attached, a red-line one should be in your inbox (sent by Chris earlier this week). Looking forward to hearing back from you ? have a great weekend and best wishes, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Initial Report V3.doc Type: application/msword Size: 703488 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5080 bytes Desc: not available URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Tue Nov 11 09:26:11 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 09:26:11 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Wednesday 12 November 23:59 UTC soft deadline for comments Message-ID: <06d13aaa9119410f9c035d70ab566e61@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> Dear colleagues, Just a reminder about tomorrow's deadline for comments. 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 From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann Sent: 07 November 2014 12:35 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] soft DEADLINE Importance: High Dear all, In order to move our effort forward as smoothly as possible, we suggest that in preparation for next week's call to gather as many comments as possible on the latest version of the draft initial report (attached). Please provide your feedback by Wednesday 12 November 23:59 UTC - if you don't provide feedback we will assume that you are content with the report as it stands. If you need more time, please let us know. If you do provide feedback, please do so in track changes and send it back to the list or to lars.hoffmann at icann.org - so that we can collect all comments and discuss a collated version on next week's call. If you have missed yesterday's call, you can listen to the MP3 or read the Transcript as Chris gave some very useful background information/explanations to the latest draft. Please note that there is clean version attached, a red-line one should be in your inbox (sent by Chris earlier this week). Looking forward to hearing back from you - have a great weekend and best wishes, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Initial Report V3.doc Type: application/msword Size: 703488 bytes Desc: Draft Initial Report V3.doc URL: From emily.taylor at netistrar.com Tue Nov 11 11:19:58 2014 From: emily.taylor at netistrar.com (Emily Taylor) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:19:58 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Wednesday 12 November 23:59 UTC soft deadline for comments In-Reply-To: <06d13aaa9119410f9c035d70ab566e61@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> References: <06d13aaa9119410f9c035d70ab566e61@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Dear Chris Thank you for this timely reminder. Over the past few days, I have been gathering input from colleagues in the Registrar Stakeholder group. There was a rich discussion on the list, with many participants. These are less comments on the paper itself than contributions to the general discussion of the issues. Here is a synthesis of the comments. I hope that they will be useful in cross-checking against the *"arguments opposing mandatory transformation" on pages 11-12:* 1. *Costs*: This proposal essentially externalises translation costs from LEA/IP to Registrars, and none of the commentators were convinced that the costs for contracted parties are justified by benefits to others. Those requesting the data can pay for the translation. 2. *Scale*: Why translate/transliterate all WHOIS data, rather than simply those names that are of interest on-the-fly? Status quo is several orders of magnitude more efficient 3. *Accuracy and responsibility*: If the premise of WHOIS data is that it is provided (and declared accurate) by the Registrant, then who accepts responsibility if Registrars are required to alter that data? How would the proposals impact whois data accuracy complaints and whois verification requirements? 4: *Data integrity*: The whois should be displaying what the client entered. Our trying to interpret that only leads to more data errors, and less accurate data. If we change what the client enters it will only lead to errors: a. Will there be rules on how transliterate non-ascii characters so that it can be done programmatically? Is there some standard system to be used, or are we all just counting on Google Translate? b. If human judgment is required, who is responsible for doing it? c. If the registrant is responsible, what if they do not know what it should be? d. What if a third-party disagrees with the accuracy of a transliteration? e. Is the registrant?s consent required before a transliteration is published in the whois? f. Can a registrant withhold consent? g. What if a registrant wants to change an ?approved? transliteration? h. Is a whois verification required every time one of these transliterated fields are updated? i. Where does the requirement for data transformation end? Could Chinese LEA require a contracted party to translate/transliterate existing English contact details into Mandarin? Or, what if the original registration was in a third language/script (Russian Cyrillic), would that skip English and go directly to Chinese? 5. *Compliance: "who will and how will this be policed??* If ICANN are making cutbacks in their budget, how are they going to afford the human resources to check every Whois transliteration is correct? It doesn?t make much operational sense, and will likely end up with the registrant paying higher fees for something that they never asked for. 6. *Internationalisation:* The concept starts to erode the ?my language, my Internet? / IDN principle of ICANN, by compelling the use of English/Latin/ASCII by people and locations not using those language/script combinations. One commentator put it as "Sadly, it is North American thinking I suspect. 'We must translate everything into English'. 7: *Competition:* If a contracted party does not want to support a language that should be their prerogative. They can turn away business if they decide that they won?t be able to service that customer appropriately. --------------- *General comments* Taking into account the above input, I have the following observations to make on the draft paper. First, thank you Chris and the ICANN team for your work in the unenviable task of fairly summarising the arguments on both sides. I appreciate that it is an important step in the process to try and understand the arguments on both sides. A general point: I have no sense from the paper, or from the discussions in the group, of the scale of the problem we are addressing here. Do we have any stats for the following: (1) a breakdown of WHOIS data by country of registrant - and can we infer what language WHOIS data is likely to be in? The nearest I can get to is this map from OII which shows the predominance of Latin script / English language countries in the current domain market ( http://geography.oii.ox.ac.uk/?page=geography-of-top-level-domain-names) . However, if you look at growth potential, clearly that is not the case. And IDN registrations by country show a different pattern (see page 17 at http://www.eurid.eu/files/publ/IDNWorldReport2014_Interactive.pdf) (2) an estimate of what is likely to be the language of WHOIS data if multiple languages were enabled in these fields. For example, we could perhaps draw some inferences from the IDN registrations in ASCII TLDs. Approximately 1% of .com and .net registrations are IDNs, and the majority of those are Latin script. This may not be representative in that the Latin script ending for .com is more likely to be attractive to Latin script IDNs than, say, right to left scripts or pictograms. There are currently just shy of 900,000 Russian ccTLD IDNs. Of these over 800,000 has a registrant based in Russia, and uptake in other countries is low (even former Soviet Union). See http://statdom.ru/tld/%D1%80%D1%84/report/summary/. There are approximately 12,000 IDNs in Arabic script ccTLDs. Uptake of IDN new gTLDs has been fairly limited. I don't think that anyone is claiming that the IDN market has even nearly fulfilled its market potential, but can we have some statement of the scale of the problem? (3) Do we have a sense of how many WHOIS look-ups are performed by law enforcement and IP interests, what percentage that represents of all WHOIS look ups, and how many prove to be problematic in terms of language of contact? On the other hand, what problems are currently created by not having the ability to record contact details in the script of the domain name (eg for IDNs)? (4) There have been a number of studies on different aspects of WHOIS data in the last couple of years - do any of these help to guide us? *Specific comments* Page 11 - as you say there is disagreement on "ease" of search. If you're English mother tongue, then it might be "easier" to understand the output of a search, but any string is searchable, and you can interpret the search results whatever their script/language. I find the first bullet point unconvincing - it's like saying "why doesn't everyone just learn English? It's such a mess having all these languages" On the second bullet point, p11 - I appreciate that a counter argument is stated to the "transformation will to some extent facilitate communication" argument. The communication argument is a difficult one. On one level - as demonstrated within this working group and many others - we default to English in order to communicate with one another across different languages. However, this is also (to some extent) a factor that deters input from those who are not confident in English as a second language - who may be able to give valuable insights into the debate. I believe that this is captured in "to some extent" but would welcome more acknowledgement that this cuts both ways. The third bullet point does not explain why it is also necessary to transliterate/translate *all* data for this benefit to be felt. We need some consideration of proportionality here. Fourth bullet - define "least translatable" - for whom? Is this truly posed as a barrier to law enforcement and others? To balance the "cyberflight" argument in the fourth bullet point, could we also point out that in general people tend to register and host locally. This is perhaps a surprising phenomenon given the strength of some registrars internationally. For example, on page 5 at http://www.eurid.eu/files/publ/IDNWorldReport2014_Interactive.pdf) we have an analysis of country of hosting for gTLD IDNs plus .eu IDNs. This was done based on the IP ranges associated with the domain names. You can see that countries and regions with strong international registrars (eg North America, UK) don't really show any "winner" script. In contrast, Chinese script, Cyrillic, Han (plus Katakana, Hiragana), Thai, Hangul, Arabic script domains tend to be hosted in countries where associated languages are spoken. Could I also add that you can see within large IDN namespaces which offer multiple scripts (eg .com and .net) that registrations cluster strongly around popular scripts. There are very small numbers indeed outside of them. I can produce some more analysis on that point if people like. I hope these inputs are helpful to the working group in its deliberations, and I look forward to joining the discussions. Best wishes, Emily On 11 November 2014 09:26, Dillon, Chris wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > > > Just a reminder about tomorrow?s deadline for comments. > > > > 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 > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lars Hoffmann > *Sent:* 07 November 2014 12:35 > *To:* gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org > *Subject:* [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] soft DEADLINE > *Importance:* High > > > > Dear all, > > In order to move our effort forward as smoothly as possible, we suggest > that in preparation for next week?s call to gather as many comments as > possible on the latest version of the draft initial report (attached). > > > > Please provide your feedback by Wednesday 12 November 23:59 UTC ? *if you > don?t provide feedback we will assume that you are content with the report > as it stands. *If you need more time, please let us know. > > > > If you do provide feedback, please do so in *track changes* and send it > back to the list or to lars.hoffmann at icann.org ? so that we can collect > all comments and discuss a * collated version* on next week?s call. > > > > If you have missed yesterday?s call, you can listen to the MP3 > or > read the Transcript > as > Chris gave some very useful background information/explanations to the > latest draft. Please note that there is clean version attached, a red-line > one should be in your inbox (sent by Chris earlier this week). > > > > Looking forward to hearing back from you ? have a great weekend and best > wishes, > > Lars > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Emily Taylor *MA(Cantab), MBA* Director *Netistrar Ltd *- Domain Names at Trade Prices W: http://www.netistrar.com | M: 07540 049322 | T: 01283 617808 Repton House, Bretby Business Park, Bretby, Derbyshire, DE15 0YZ Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Tue Nov 11 11:57:29 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:57:29 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Wednesday 12 November 23:59 UTC soft deadline for comments In-Reply-To: References: <06d13aaa9119410f9c035d70ab566e61@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Dear Emily, I would like to thank you on behalf of the Group for this large amount of work both in summarizing colleagues? comments and providing your own. I hope both that it will make the non-mandatory arguments stronger and stimulate more discussion of the mandatory arguments on this list and in the meetings. With all best wishes, 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 From: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily.taylor at netistrar.com] Sent: 11 November 2014 11:20 To: Dillon, Chris Cc: Lars Hoffmann; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Wednesday 12 November 23:59 UTC soft deadline for comments Dear Chris Thank you for this timely reminder. Over the past few days, I have been gathering input from colleagues in the Registrar Stakeholder group. There was a rich discussion on the list, with many participants. These are less comments on the paper itself than contributions to the general discussion of the issues. Here is a synthesis of the comments. I hope that they will be useful in cross-checking against the "arguments opposing mandatory transformation" on pages 11-12: 1. Costs: This proposal essentially externalises translation costs from LEA/IP to Registrars, and none of the commentators were convinced that the costs for contracted parties are justified by benefits to others. Those requesting the data can pay for the translation. 2. Scale: Why translate/transliterate all WHOIS data, rather than simply those names that are of interest on-the-fly? Status quo is several orders of magnitude more efficient 3. Accuracy and responsibility: If the premise of WHOIS data is that it is provided (and declared accurate) by the Registrant, then who accepts responsibility if Registrars are required to alter that data? How would the proposals impact whois data accuracy complaints and whois verification requirements? 4: Data integrity: The whois should be displaying what the client entered. Our trying to interpret that only leads to more data errors, and less accurate data. If we change what the client enters it will only lead to errors: a. Will there be rules on how transliterate non-ascii characters so that it can be done programmatically? Is there some standard system to be used, or are we all just counting on Google Translate? b. If human judgment is required, who is responsible for doing it? c. If the registrant is responsible, what if they do not know what it should be? d. What if a third-party disagrees with the accuracy of a transliteration? e. Is the registrant?s consent required before a transliteration is published in the whois? f. Can a registrant withhold consent? g. What if a registrant wants to change an ?approved? transliteration? h. Is a whois verification required every time one of these transliterated fields are updated? i. Where does the requirement for data transformation end? Could Chinese LEA require a contracted party to translate/transliterate existing English contact details into Mandarin? Or, what if the original registration was in a third language/script (Russian Cyrillic), would that skip English and go directly to Chinese? 5. Compliance: "who will and how will this be policed?? If ICANN are making cutbacks in their budget, how are they going to afford the human resources to check every Whois transliteration is correct? It doesn?t make much operational sense, and will likely end up with the registrant paying higher fees for something that they never asked for. 6. Internationalisation: The concept starts to erode the ?my language, my Internet? / IDN principle of ICANN, by compelling the use of English/Latin/ASCII by people and locations not using those language/script combinations. One commentator put it as "Sadly, it is North American thinking I suspect. 'We must translate everything into English'. 7: Competition: If a contracted party does not want to support a language that should be their prerogative. They can turn away business if they decide that they won?t be able to service that customer appropriately. --------------- General comments Taking into account the above input, I have the following observations to make on the draft paper. First, thank you Chris and the ICANN team for your work in the unenviable task of fairly summarising the arguments on both sides. I appreciate that it is an important step in the process to try and understand the arguments on both sides. A general point: I have no sense from the paper, or from the discussions in the group, of the scale of the problem we are addressing here. Do we have any stats for the following: (1) a breakdown of WHOIS data by country of registrant - and can we infer what language WHOIS data is likely to be in? The nearest I can get to is this map from OII which shows the predominance of Latin script / English language countries in the current domain market (http://geography.oii.ox.ac.uk/?page=geography-of-top-level-domain-names) . However, if you look at growth potential, clearly that is not the case. And IDN registrations by country show a different pattern (see page 17 at http://www.eurid.eu/files/publ/IDNWorldReport2014_Interactive.pdf) (2) an estimate of what is likely to be the language of WHOIS data if multiple languages were enabled in these fields. For example, we could perhaps draw some inferences from the IDN registrations in ASCII TLDs. Approximately 1% of .com and .net registrations are IDNs, and the majority of those are Latin script. This may not be representative in that the Latin script ending for .com is more likely to be attractive to Latin script IDNs than, say, right to left scripts or pictograms. There are currently just shy of 900,000 Russian ccTLD IDNs. Of these over 800,000 has a registrant based in Russia, and uptake in other countries is low (even former Soviet Union). See http://statdom.ru/tld/%D1%80%D1%84/report/summary/. There are approximately 12,000 IDNs in Arabic script ccTLDs. Uptake of IDN new gTLDs has been fairly limited. I don't think that anyone is claiming that the IDN market has even nearly fulfilled its market potential, but can we have some statement of the scale of the problem? (3) Do we have a sense of how many WHOIS look-ups are performed by law enforcement and IP interests, what percentage that represents of all WHOIS look ups, and how many prove to be problematic in terms of language of contact? On the other hand, what problems are currently created by not having the ability to record contact details in the script of the domain name (eg for IDNs)? (4) There have been a number of studies on different aspects of WHOIS data in the last couple of years - do any of these help to guide us? Specific comments Page 11 - as you say there is disagreement on "ease" of search. If you're English mother tongue, then it might be "easier" to understand the output of a search, but any string is searchable, and you can interpret the search results whatever their script/language. I find the first bullet point unconvincing - it's like saying "why doesn't everyone just learn English? It's such a mess having all these languages" On the second bullet point, p11 - I appreciate that a counter argument is stated to the "transformation will to some extent facilitate communication" argument. The communication argument is a difficult one. On one level - as demonstrated within this working group and many others - we default to English in order to communicate with one another across different languages. However, this is also (to some extent) a factor that deters input from those who are not confident in English as a second language - who may be able to give valuable insights into the debate. I believe that this is captured in "to some extent" but would welcome more acknowledgement that this cuts both ways. The third bullet point does not explain why it is also necessary to transliterate/translate *all* data for this benefit to be felt. We need some consideration of proportionality here. Fourth bullet - define "least translatable" - for whom? Is this truly posed as a barrier to law enforcement and others? To balance the "cyberflight" argument in the fourth bullet point, could we also point out that in general people tend to register and host locally. This is perhaps a surprising phenomenon given the strength of some registrars internationally. For example, on page 5 at http://www.eurid.eu/files/publ/IDNWorldReport2014_Interactive.pdf) we have an analysis of country of hosting for gTLD IDNs plus .eu IDNs. This was done based on the IP ranges associated with the domain names. You can see that countries and regions with strong international registrars (eg North America, UK) don't really show any "winner" script. In contrast, Chinese script, Cyrillic, Han (plus Katakana, Hiragana), Thai, Hangul, Arabic script domains tend to be hosted in countries where associated languages are spoken. Could I also add that you can see within large IDN namespaces which offer multiple scripts (eg .com and .net) that registrations cluster strongly around popular scripts. There are very small numbers indeed outside of them. I can produce some more analysis on that point if people like. I hope these inputs are helpful to the working group in its deliberations, and I look forward to joining the discussions. Best wishes, Emily -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emily.taylor at netistrar.com Tue Nov 11 15:56:43 2014 From: emily.taylor at netistrar.com (Emily Taylor) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 15:56:43 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Re: Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group Thursday 30 October 2014 / some further comments/questions, etc In-Reply-To: <1414675208091.118518.5616@webmail7> References: <1414673625436.118518.5262@webmail7> <1414675208091.118518.5616@webmail7> Message-ID: Dear Petter Thank you for your message, and apologies for the delay in responding to your points. I wanted to address the claim that because contracted parties had not made noises about ICANN?s advisory they must be okay with it. I?ve attached a letter that I'm informed was provided by the RySG to ICANN staff as a result of the RySG being provided an early version of the advisor for comment. I understand that none of these comments were taken into account by ICANN when they published the advisory and despite being asked why, I don?t believe any answer was forthcoming. In short, there have been expressions of concern over the recent advisory, and my understanding from discussions on the RrSG list is that many have concerns over transliteration and translation of WHOIS data. Kind regards Emily On 30 October 2014 13:20, Petter Rindforth wrote: > > Dear All, > > Just a last minute summary of > *Some further comments/questions/inputs/suggestions:* > > (collected from the IP point of view) > > > Note that ICANN issued an advisory last month clarifying technical > aspects of provisions of the 2013 RAA and new gTLD Registry Agreement > regarding uniform requirements for presenting Whois data. > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-agreement-spec4-raa-rdds-2014-09-12-en > . Significantly , it states that ?*Registries and Registrars are > encouraged to only use US-ASCII encoding and character repertoire for > WHOIS port 43 output*.? The purpose is to facilitate parsing of Whois > data by automated tools such as ICANN?s centralized Whois data portal, > http://whois.icann.org/ . Similar arguments would apply to facilitating > machine translation. > > > > Thus the status quo is (or will be, by February 2015) that contracted > parties are at least ?encouraged? to transliterate into ASCII if Whois data > is submitted in some other script. > > Has anyone heard any howls of outrage from registries and registrars over > this? > > The advisory also states? All domain name labels in the values of any of > the fields described in section 1.4.2 of the 2013 RAA, and sections 1.5, > 1.6, and 1.7 of Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement (e.g., Domain > Name, Name Server, email) MUST be shown in ASCII-compatible form (A-Label). > > > > For example, a name server with an IDN label should be shown as: > > *Name Server: ns1.xn--caf-dma.example.?* > > > > The referenced fields include virtually all the registrant data we are > concerned with. See the listing in section 1.4.2 of Specification 3 of the > 2013 RAA, > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en . > > I?m not certain whether this ASCII requirement applies only to the labels > (e.g., ?Name Server?) or to the content following the label --- the example > given suggests the latter?which further solidifies the idea that contracted > parties are already required to transliterate Whois data into ASCII. But I > could be misreading this requirement. > > > > ??? > > > > ? "I think it would be useful to suggest the requirement that all > Whois text be machine-readable text. I?m not sure if that?s already a > recommendation of the EWG report, but as one can imagine, the Whois systems > that substitute graphics for the e-mail (which, for all we know, could > spread to other fields) would stymie attempts at automated translation by > users of Whois. > > > > ? Does anyone have any ideas for avoiding flight by bad actors to > the least translatable languages? One idea would be to require: > > > > ? Whois info to be in either the language of the registrar or > registrant (i.e. can?t pick some random language just to make it hard to > translate), *and* > > > > ? translation or transliteration is required if it?s not in a) > Latin characters, b) one of the six U.N. languages, or c) possibly some > larger but reasonable set of well-known and widely translatable languages > (say, 20 or so)." > > -- > Petter Rindforth, LL M > > Fenix Legal KB > Stureplan 4c, 4tr > 114 35 Stockholm > Sweden > Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 > Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 > E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu > www.fenixlegal.eu > > > NOTICE > This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals > to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client > privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this > message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy > or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it > immediately and notify us by return e-mail. > Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu > Thank you > > -- Emily Taylor *MA(Cantab), MBA* Director *Netistrar Ltd *- Domain Names at Trade Prices W: http://www.netistrar.com | M: 07540 049322 | T: 01283 617808 Repton House, Bretby Business Park, Bretby, Derbyshire, DE15 0YZ Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RySG-Whois-implementation- Feedback to ICANN-Final-1Aug2014.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 155080 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dtantanaka at verisign.com Tue Nov 11 22:25:53 2014 From: dtantanaka at verisign.com (Tan Tanaka, Dennis) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 22:25:53 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Wednesday 12 November 23:59 UTC soft deadline for comments In-Reply-To: References: <06d13aaa9119410f9c035d70ab566e61@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Dear all, Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback to the draft final report. I want to echo all the points Emily has collected. (Emily, thank you!). My colleagues discussed the draft report and came to similar conclusions/questions so I don?t want to duplicate the report. We do have one addition. One page 14, second bullet, there is a recommendation to have language tags to allow easy identification of what the different data entries represent. Here are the questions/comments that came up: - EPP already supports the use of the localized form of the contact data as well as the internationalized (ASCII) form of the contact data. What does the data need to be tagged with the language? What benefit is there? The EPP RFC does not support passing anything other than the two forms of contact data, meaning no ability to pass language or script tag information, which adds yet another non-essential complexity. - If there is a compelling reason to tag all data elements, it should be clearly articulated. Sincerely, Dennis Tan Tanaka From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 6:20 AM To: Dillon, Chris Cc: Lars Hoffmann; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Wednesday 12 November 23:59 UTC soft deadline for comments Dear Chris Thank you for this timely reminder. Over the past few days, I have been gathering input from colleagues in the Registrar Stakeholder group. There was a rich discussion on the list, with many participants. These are less comments on the paper itself than contributions to the general discussion of the issues. Here is a synthesis of the comments. I hope that they will be useful in cross-checking against the "arguments opposing mandatory transformation" on pages 11-12: 1. Costs: This proposal essentially externalises translation costs from LEA/IP to Registrars, and none of the commentators were convinced that the costs for contracted parties are justified by benefits to others. Those requesting the data can pay for the translation. 2. Scale: Why translate/transliterate all WHOIS data, rather than simply those names that are of interest on-the-fly? Status quo is several orders of magnitude more efficient 3. Accuracy and responsibility: If the premise of WHOIS data is that it is provided (and declared accurate) by the Registrant, then who accepts responsibility if Registrars are required to alter that data? How would the proposals impact whois data accuracy complaints and whois verification requirements? 4: Data integrity: The whois should be displaying what the client entered. Our trying to interpret that only leads to more data errors, and less accurate data. If we change what the client enters it will only lead to errors: a. Will there be rules on how transliterate non-ascii characters so that it can be done programmatically? Is there some standard system to be used, or are we all just counting on Google Translate? b. If human judgment is required, who is responsible for doing it? c. If the registrant is responsible, what if they do not know what it should be? d. What if a third-party disagrees with the accuracy of a transliteration? e. Is the registrant?s consent required before a transliteration is published in the whois? f. Can a registrant withhold consent? g. What if a registrant wants to change an ?approved? transliteration? h. Is a whois verification required every time one of these transliterated fields are updated? i. Where does the requirement for data transformation end? Could Chinese LEA require a contracted party to translate/transliterate existing English contact details into Mandarin? Or, what if the original registration was in a third language/script (Russian Cyrillic), would that skip English and go directly to Chinese? 5. Compliance: "who will and how will this be policed?? If ICANN are making cutbacks in their budget, how are they going to afford the human resources to check every Whois transliteration is correct? It doesn?t make much operational sense, and will likely end up with the registrant paying higher fees for something that they never asked for. 6. Internationalisation: The concept starts to erode the ?my language, my Internet? / IDN principle of ICANN, by compelling the use of English/Latin/ASCII by people and locations not using those language/script combinations. One commentator put it as "Sadly, it is North American thinking I suspect. 'We must translate everything into English'. 7: Competition: If a contracted party does not want to support a language that should be their prerogative. They can turn away business if they decide that they won?t be able to service that customer appropriately. --------------- General comments Taking into account the above input, I have the following observations to make on the draft paper. First, thank you Chris and the ICANN team for your work in the unenviable task of fairly summarising the arguments on both sides. I appreciate that it is an important step in the process to try and understand the arguments on both sides. A general point: I have no sense from the paper, or from the discussions in the group, of the scale of the problem we are addressing here. Do we have any stats for the following: (1) a breakdown of WHOIS data by country of registrant - and can we infer what language WHOIS data is likely to be in? The nearest I can get to is this map from OII which shows the predominance of Latin script / English language countries in the current domain market (http://geography.oii.ox.ac.uk/?page=geography-of-top-level-domain-names) . However, if you look at growth potential, clearly that is not the case. And IDN registrations by country show a different pattern (see page 17 at http://www.eurid.eu/files/publ/IDNWorldReport2014_Interactive.pdf) (2) an estimate of what is likely to be the language of WHOIS data if multiple languages were enabled in these fields. For example, we could perhaps draw some inferences from the IDN registrations in ASCII TLDs. Approximately 1% of .com and .net registrations are IDNs, and the majority of those are Latin script. This may not be representative in that the Latin script ending for .com is more likely to be attractive to Latin script IDNs than, say, right to left scripts or pictograms. There are currently just shy of 900,000 Russian ccTLD IDNs. Of these over 800,000 has a registrant based in Russia, and uptake in other countries is low (even former Soviet Union). See http://statdom.ru/tld/%D1%80%D1%84/report/summary/. There are approximately 12,000 IDNs in Arabic script ccTLDs. Uptake of IDN new gTLDs has been fairly limited. I don't think that anyone is claiming that the IDN market has even nearly fulfilled its market potential, but can we have some statement of the scale of the problem? (3) Do we have a sense of how many WHOIS look-ups are performed by law enforcement and IP interests, what percentage that represents of all WHOIS look ups, and how many prove to be problematic in terms of language of contact? On the other hand, what problems are currently created by not having the ability to record contact details in the script of the domain name (eg for IDNs)? (4) There have been a number of studies on different aspects of WHOIS data in the last couple of years - do any of these help to guide us? Specific comments Page 11 - as you say there is disagreement on "ease" of search. If you're English mother tongue, then it might be "easier" to understand the output of a search, but any string is searchable, and you can interpret the search results whatever their script/language. I find the first bullet point unconvincing - it's like saying "why doesn't everyone just learn English? It's such a mess having all these languages" On the second bullet point, p11 - I appreciate that a counter argument is stated to the "transformation will to some extent facilitate communication" argument. The communication argument is a difficult one. On one level - as demonstrated within this working group and many others - we default to English in order to communicate with one another across different languages. However, this is also (to some extent) a factor that deters input from those who are not confident in English as a second language - who may be able to give valuable insights into the debate. I believe that this is captured in "to some extent" but would welcome more acknowledgement that this cuts both ways. The third bullet point does not explain why it is also necessary to transliterate/translate *all* data for this benefit to be felt. We need some consideration of proportionality here. Fourth bullet - define "least translatable" - for whom? Is this truly posed as a barrier to law enforcement and others? To balance the "cyberflight" argument in the fourth bullet point, could we also point out that in general people tend to register and host locally. This is perhaps a surprising phenomenon given the strength of some registrars internationally. For example, on page 5 at http://www.eurid.eu/files/publ/IDNWorldReport2014_Interactive.pdf) we have an analysis of country of hosting for gTLD IDNs plus .eu IDNs. This was done based on the IP ranges associated with the domain names. You can see that countries and regions with strong international registrars (eg North America, UK) don't really show any "winner" script. In contrast, Chinese script, Cyrillic, Han (plus Katakana, Hiragana), Thai, Hangul, Arabic script domains tend to be hosted in countries where associated languages are spoken. Could I also add that you can see within large IDN namespaces which offer multiple scripts (eg .com and .net) that registrations cluster strongly around popular scripts. There are very small numbers indeed outside of them. I can produce some more analysis on that point if people like. I hope these inputs are helpful to the working group in its deliberations, and I look forward to joining the discussions. Best wishes, Emily On 11 November 2014 09:26, Dillon, Chris > wrote: Dear colleagues, Just a reminder about tomorrow?s deadline for comments. 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 From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann Sent: 07 November 2014 12:35 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] soft DEADLINE Importance: High Dear all, In order to move our effort forward as smoothly as possible, we suggest that in preparation for next week?s call to gather as many comments as possible on the latest version of the draft initial report (attached). Please provide your feedback by Wednesday 12 November 23:59 UTC ? if you don?t provide feedback we will assume that you are content with the report as it stands. If you need more time, please let us know. If you do provide feedback, please do so in track changes and send it back to the list or to lars.hoffmann at icann.org ? so that we can collect all comments and discuss a collated version on next week?s call. If you have missed yesterday?s call, you can listen to the MP3 or read the Transcript as Chris gave some very useful background information/explanations to the latest draft. Please note that there is clean version attached, a red-line one should be in your inbox (sent by Chris earlier this week). Looking forward to hearing back from you ? have a great weekend and best wishes, Lars -- Emily Taylor MA(Cantab), MBA Director Netistrar Ltd - Domain Names at Trade Prices W: http://www.netistrar.com | M: 07540 049322 | T: 01283 617808 [http://www.netistrar.com/wp-content/themes/carfax-child/assets/img/Netistrar_Domain_Name_Registrar.gif] Repton House, Bretby Business Park, Bretby, Derbyshire, DE15 0YZ Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emily.taylor at netistrar.com Wed Nov 12 09:48:34 2014 From: emily.taylor at netistrar.com (Emily Taylor) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:48:34 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Wednesday 12 November 23:59 UTC soft deadline for comments Message-ID: Dear Chris I received one more input from the RrSG list on the draft document, as follows: One page 14, second bullet, there is a recommendation to have language tags to allow easy identification of what the different data entries represent. Here are the questions/comments that came up: - EPP already supports the use of the localised form of the contact data as well as the internationalised (ASCII) form of the contact data. Why does the data need to be tagged with the language? What benefit is there? The EPP RFC does not support passing anything other than the two forms of contact data, meaning no ability to pass language or script tag information, which adds non-essential complexity. - If there is a compelling reason to tag all data elements, it should be clearly articulated. -- Emily Taylor *MA(Cantab), MBA* Director *Netistrar Ltd *- Domain Names at Trade Prices W: http://www.netistrar.com | M: 07540 049322 | T: 01283 617808 Repton House, Bretby Business Park, Bretby, Derbyshire, DE15 0YZ Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Wed Nov 12 10:42:13 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:42:13 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Wednesday 12 November 23:59 UTC soft deadline for comments In-Reply-To: References: <06d13aaa9119410f9c035d70ab566e61@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: <2dcf8d7869c14eb092e0735d1ab46abe@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> Dear Dennis, Thank you for your comment. We?ll discuss it during our call tomorrow. 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 From: Tan Tanaka, Dennis [mailto:dtantanaka at verisign.com] Sent: 11 November 2014 22:26 To: Emily Taylor; Dillon, Chris Cc: Lars Hoffmann; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Wednesday 12 November 23:59 UTC soft deadline for comments Dear all, Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback to the draft final report. I want to echo all the points Emily has collected. (Emily, thank you!). My colleagues discussed the draft report and came to similar conclusions/questions so I don?t want to duplicate the report. We do have one addition. One page 14, second bullet, there is a recommendation to have language tags to allow easy identification of what the different data entries represent. Here are the questions/comments that came up: - EPP already supports the use of the localized form of the contact data as well as the internationalized (ASCII) form of the contact data. What does the data need to be tagged with the language? What benefit is there? The EPP RFC does not support passing anything other than the two forms of contact data, meaning no ability to pass language or script tag information, which adds yet another non-essential complexity. - If there is a compelling reason to tag all data elements, it should be clearly articulated. Sincerely, Dennis Tan Tanaka From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 6:20 AM To: Dillon, Chris Cc: Lars Hoffmann; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Wednesday 12 November 23:59 UTC soft deadline for comments Dear Chris Thank you for this timely reminder. Over the past few days, I have been gathering input from colleagues in the Registrar Stakeholder group. There was a rich discussion on the list, with many participants. These are less comments on the paper itself than contributions to the general discussion of the issues. Here is a synthesis of the comments. I hope that they will be useful in cross-checking against the "arguments opposing mandatory transformation" on pages 11-12: 1. Costs: This proposal essentially externalises translation costs from LEA/IP to Registrars, and none of the commentators were convinced that the costs for contracted parties are justified by benefits to others. Those requesting the data can pay for the translation. 2. Scale: Why translate/transliterate all WHOIS data, rather than simply those names that are of interest on-the-fly? Status quo is several orders of magnitude more efficient 3. Accuracy and responsibility: If the premise of WHOIS data is that it is provided (and declared accurate) by the Registrant, then who accepts responsibility if Registrars are required to alter that data? How would the proposals impact whois data accuracy complaints and whois verification requirements? 4: Data integrity: The whois should be displaying what the client entered. Our trying to interpret that only leads to more data errors, and less accurate data. If we change what the client enters it will only lead to errors: a. Will there be rules on how transliterate non-ascii characters so that it can be done programmatically? Is there some standard system to be used, or are we all just counting on Google Translate? b. If human judgment is required, who is responsible for doing it? c. If the registrant is responsible, what if they do not know what it should be? d. What if a third-party disagrees with the accuracy of a transliteration? e. Is the registrant?s consent required before a transliteration is published in the whois? f. Can a registrant withhold consent? g. What if a registrant wants to change an ?approved? transliteration? h. Is a whois verification required every time one of these transliterated fields are updated? i. Where does the requirement for data transformation end? Could Chinese LEA require a contracted party to translate/transliterate existing English contact details into Mandarin? Or, what if the original registration was in a third language/script (Russian Cyrillic), would that skip English and go directly to Chinese? 5. Compliance: "who will and how will this be policed?? If ICANN are making cutbacks in their budget, how are they going to afford the human resources to check every Whois transliteration is correct? It doesn?t make much operational sense, and will likely end up with the registrant paying higher fees for something that they never asked for. 6. Internationalisation: The concept starts to erode the ?my language, my Internet? / IDN principle of ICANN, by compelling the use of English/Latin/ASCII by people and locations not using those language/script combinations. One commentator put it as "Sadly, it is North American thinking I suspect. 'We must translate everything into English'. 7: Competition: If a contracted party does not want to support a language that should be their prerogative. They can turn away business if they decide that they won?t be able to service that customer appropriately. --------------- General comments Taking into account the above input, I have the following observations to make on the draft paper. First, thank you Chris and the ICANN team for your work in the unenviable task of fairly summarising the arguments on both sides. I appreciate that it is an important step in the process to try and understand the arguments on both sides. A general point: I have no sense from the paper, or from the discussions in the group, of the scale of the problem we are addressing here. Do we have any stats for the following: (1) a breakdown of WHOIS data by country of registrant - and can we infer what language WHOIS data is likely to be in? The nearest I can get to is this map from OII which shows the predominance of Latin script / English language countries in the current domain market (http://geography.oii.ox.ac.uk/?page=geography-of-top-level-domain-names) . However, if you look at growth potential, clearly that is not the case. And IDN registrations by country show a different pattern (see page 17 at http://www.eurid.eu/files/publ/IDNWorldReport2014_Interactive.pdf) (2) an estimate of what is likely to be the language of WHOIS data if multiple languages were enabled in these fields. For example, we could perhaps draw some inferences from the IDN registrations in ASCII TLDs. Approximately 1% of .com and .net registrations are IDNs, and the majority of those are Latin script. This may not be representative in that the Latin script ending for .com is more likely to be attractive to Latin script IDNs than, say, right to left scripts or pictograms. There are currently just shy of 900,000 Russian ccTLD IDNs. Of these over 800,000 has a registrant based in Russia, and uptake in other countries is low (even former Soviet Union). See http://statdom.ru/tld/%D1%80%D1%84/report/summary/. There are approximately 12,000 IDNs in Arabic script ccTLDs. Uptake of IDN new gTLDs has been fairly limited. I don't think that anyone is claiming that the IDN market has even nearly fulfilled its market potential, but can we have some statement of the scale of the problem? (3) Do we have a sense of how many WHOIS look-ups are performed by law enforcement and IP interests, what percentage that represents of all WHOIS look ups, and how many prove to be problematic in terms of language of contact? On the other hand, what problems are currently created by not having the ability to record contact details in the script of the domain name (eg for IDNs)? (4) There have been a number of studies on different aspects of WHOIS data in the last couple of years - do any of these help to guide us? Specific comments Page 11 - as you say there is disagreement on "ease" of search. If you're English mother tongue, then it might be "easier" to understand the output of a search, but any string is searchable, and you can interpret the search results whatever their script/language. I find the first bullet point unconvincing - it's like saying "why doesn't everyone just learn English? It's such a mess having all these languages" On the second bullet point, p11 - I appreciate that a counter argument is stated to the "transformation will to some extent facilitate communication" argument. The communication argument is a difficult one. On one level - as demonstrated within this working group and many others - we default to English in order to communicate with one another across different languages. However, this is also (to some extent) a factor that deters input from those who are not confident in English as a second language - who may be able to give valuable insights into the debate. I believe that this is captured in "to some extent" but would welcome more acknowledgement that this cuts both ways. The third bullet point does not explain why it is also necessary to transliterate/translate *all* data for this benefit to be felt. We need some consideration of proportionality here. Fourth bullet - define "least translatable" - for whom? Is this truly posed as a barrier to law enforcement and others? To balance the "cyberflight" argument in the fourth bullet point, could we also point out that in general people tend to register and host locally. This is perhaps a surprising phenomenon given the strength of some registrars internationally. For example, on page 5 at http://www.eurid.eu/files/publ/IDNWorldReport2014_Interactive.pdf) we have an analysis of country of hosting for gTLD IDNs plus .eu IDNs. This was done based on the IP ranges associated with the domain names. You can see that countries and regions with strong international registrars (eg North America, UK) don't really show any "winner" script. In contrast, Chinese script, Cyrillic, Han (plus Katakana, Hiragana), Thai, Hangul, Arabic script domains tend to be hosted in countries where associated languages are spoken. Could I also add that you can see within large IDN namespaces which offer multiple scripts (eg .com and .net) that registrations cluster strongly around popular scripts. There are very small numbers indeed outside of them. I can produce some more analysis on that point if people like. I hope these inputs are helpful to the working group in its deliberations, and I look forward to joining the discussions. Best wishes, Emily On 11 November 2014 09:26, Dillon, Chris > wrote: Dear colleagues, Just a reminder about tomorrow?s deadline for comments. 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 From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann Sent: 07 November 2014 12:35 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] soft DEADLINE Importance: High Dear all, In order to move our effort forward as smoothly as possible, we suggest that in preparation for next week?s call to gather as many comments as possible on the latest version of the draft initial report (attached). Please provide your feedback by Wednesday 12 November 23:59 UTC ? if you don?t provide feedback we will assume that you are content with the report as it stands. If you need more time, please let us know. If you do provide feedback, please do so in track changes and send it back to the list or to lars.hoffmann at icann.org ? so that we can collect all comments and discuss a collated version on next week?s call. If you have missed yesterday?s call, you can listen to the MP3 or read the Transcript as Chris gave some very useful background information/explanations to the latest draft. Please note that there is clean version attached, a red-line one should be in your inbox (sent by Chris earlier this week). Looking forward to hearing back from you ? have a great weekend and best wishes, Lars -- Emily Taylor MA(Cantab), MBA Director Netistrar Ltd - Domain Names at Trade Prices W: http://www.netistrar.com | M: 07540 049322 | T: 01283 617808 [Image removed by sender.] Repton House, Bretby Business Park, Bretby, Derbyshire, DE15 0YZ Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 463 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Wed Nov 12 14:37:49 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 14:37:49 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft Agenda Message-ID: Dear all, For tomorrow?s call, please find below the suggested draft agenda. Also, please note that I have attached an amended version of the work plan that takes into consideration ICANN52 in Singapore. Many thanks and see you tomorrow on the call. Best wishes, Lars Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group Thursday, 13 November 2014; 14:00 UTC Draft Agenda 1. Welcome 2. Roll Call 3. Statements of Interest 4. Discussion of Comments on Mailing List 5. AOB -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: T&T_Amended_DraftWorkPlan_2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 92672 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5080 bytes Desc: not available URL: From petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu Wed Nov 12 23:40:46 2014 From: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu (Petter Rindforth) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 23:40:46 GMT Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Re: Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group Thursday 30 October 2014 / some further comments/questions, etc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1415835646273.87017.158@webmail6> Thanks, Emily. I'll have a meeting within 20 min from now to further discuss this topic (at INTA). Best,Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 11 november 2014, Emily Taylor skrev: > Dear Petter > Thank you for your message, and apologies for the delay in responding to your points. > > I wanted to address the claim that because contracted parties had not made noises about ICANN?s advisory they must be okay with it.I?ve attached a letter that I'm informed was provided by the RySG to ICANN staff as a result of the RySG being provided an early version of the advisor for comment. I understand that none of these comments were taken into account by ICANN when they published the advisory and despite being asked why, I don?t believe any answer was forthcoming. > > In short, there have been expressions of concern over the recent advisory, and my understanding from discussions on the RrSG list is that many have concerns over transliteration and translation of WHOIS data. > > Kind regards > > Emily > On 30 October 2014 13:20, Petter Rindforth <> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > Just a last minute summary of > > > > > > Some further comments/questions/inputs/suggestions: > > > > > > (collected from the IP point of view) > > > > > > Note thatICANN issued an advisory last month clarifying technical aspects of provisions of the 2013 RAA and new gTLD Registry Agreement regarding uniform requirements for presenting Whois data..Significantly , it states that ?Registries and Registrars are encouraged to only use US-ASCII encoding and character repertoire for WHOIS port 43 output.? The purpose is to facilitate parsing of Whois data by automated tools such as ICANN?s centralized Whois data portal,. Similar arguments would apply to facilitating machine translation. > > > > > > Thus the status quo is (or will be, by February 2015) that contracted parties are at least ?encouraged? to transliterate into ASCII if Whois data is submitted in some other script. > > > Has anyone heard any howls of outrage from registries and registrars over this? > > > The advisory also states?All domain name labels in the values of any of the fields described in section 1.4.2 of the 2013 RAA, and sections 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7 of Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement (e.g., Domain Name, Name Server, email) MUST be shown in ASCII-compatible form (A-Label). > > > > > > For example, a name server with an IDN label should be shown as: > > > Name Server: ns1.xn--caf-dma.example.? > > > > > > The referenced fields include virtually all the registrant data we are concerned with. See the listing in section 1.4.2 of Specification 3 of the 2013 RAA,. > > > I?m not certain whether this ASCII requirement applies only to the labels (e.g., ?Name Server?) or to the content following the label --- the example given suggests the latter?which further solidifies the idea that contracted parties are already required to transliterate Whois data into ASCII. But I could be misreading this requirement. > > > > > > ??? > > > > > > ? "I think it would be useful to suggest the requirement that all Whois text be machine-readable text. I?m not sure if that?s already a recommendation of the EWG report, but as one can imagine, the Whois systems that substitute graphics for the e-mail (which, for all we know, could spread to other fields) would stymie attempts at automated translation by users of Whois. > > > > > > ? Does anyone have any ideas for avoiding flight by bad actors to the least translatable languages? One idea would be to require: > > > > > > ?Whois info to be in either the language of the registrar or registrant (i.e. can?t pick some random language just to make it hard to translate),and > > > > > > ?translation or transliteration is required if it?s not in a) Latin characters, b) one of the six U.N. languages, or c) possibly some larger but reasonable set of well-known and widely translatable languages (say, 20 or so)." > > > -- > > > Petter Rindforth, LL M > > > > > > Fenix Legal KB > > > Stureplan 4c, 4tr > > > 114 35 Stockholm > > > Sweden > > > Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 > > > Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 > > > E-mail: > > > > > > > > > > > > NOTICE > > > This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. > > > Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, > > > Thank you > > > > > > > -- > > Emily Taylor > MA(Cantab), MBA > DirectorNetistrar Ltd- Domain Names at Trade Prices > W: http://www.netistrar.com | M:07540 049322 | T:01283?617808 Repton House, Bretby Business Park, Bretby, Derbyshire, DE15 0YZ > Registered in England and Wales No.?08735583. VAT No.?190062332 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dtantanaka at verisign.com Thu Nov 13 13:50:58 2014 From: dtantanaka at verisign.com (Tan Tanaka, Dennis) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:50:58 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Re: Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group Thursday 30 October 2014 / some further comments/questions, etc In-Reply-To: <1415835646273.87017.158@webmail6> References: <1415835646273.87017.158@webmail6> Message-ID: In regards this statement ?Registries and Registrars are encouraged to only use US-ASCII encoding and character repertoire for WHOIS port 43 output.?. The paragraph from ICANN advisory notes on Sep 12 states: As described in RFC 3912, the WHOIS protocol (port-43) has not been internationalized. While a substitute protocol is being developed in the IETF, Registries and Registrars are encouraged to only use US-ASCII encoding and character repertoire for WHOIS (port-43) output. If the RegistryOperator/Registrar uses characters outside of the US-ASCII repertoire, the output MUST be encoded in UTF-8 to maximize the chances of interoperability. Although iCANN encourages use of US-ASCII it does not exclude the use of other characters sets as long as they are encoded in UTF-8. From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Petter Rindforth Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 6:41 PM To: Emily Taylor Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Re: Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group Thursday 30 October 2014 / some further comments/questions, etc Thanks, Emily. I'll have a meeting within 20 min from now to further discuss this topic (at INTA). Best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 11 november 2014, Emily Taylor > skrev: Dear Petter Thank you for your message, and apologies for the delay in responding to your points. I wanted to address the claim that because contracted parties had not made noises about ICANN?s advisory they must be okay with it. I?ve attached a letter that I'm informed was provided by the RySG to ICANN staff as a result of the RySG being provided an early version of the advisor for comment. I understand that none of these comments were taken into account by ICANN when they published the advisory and despite being asked why, I don?t believe any answer was forthcoming. In short, there have been expressions of concern over the recent advisory, and my understanding from discussions on the RrSG list is that many have concerns over transliteration and translation of WHOIS data. Kind regards Emily On 30 October 2014 13:20, Petter Rindforth > wrote: Dear All, Just a last minute summary of Some further comments/questions/inputs/suggestions: (collected from the IP point of view) Note that ICANN issued an advisory last month clarifying technical aspects of provisions of the 2013 RAA and new gTLD Registry Agreement regarding uniform requirements for presenting Whois data. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-agreement-spec4-raa-rdds-2014-09-12-en . Significantly , it states that ?Registries and Registrars are encouraged to only use US-ASCII encoding and character repertoire for WHOIS port 43 output.? The purpose is to facilitate parsing of Whois data by automated tools such as ICANN?s centralized Whois data portal, http://whois.icann.org/ . Similar arguments would apply to facilitating machine translation. Thus the status quo is (or will be, by February 2015) that contracted parties are at least ?encouraged? to transliterate into ASCII if Whois data is submitted in some other script. Has anyone heard any howls of outrage from registries and registrars over this? The advisory also states? All domain name labels in the values of any of the fields described in section 1.4.2 of the 2013 RAA, and sections 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7 of Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement (e.g., Domain Name, Name Server, email) MUST be shown in ASCII-compatible form (A-Label). For example, a name server with an IDN label should be shown as: Name Server: ns1.xn--caf-dma.example.? The referenced fields include virtually all the registrant data we are concerned with. See the listing in section 1.4.2 of Specification 3 of the 2013 RAA, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en . I?m not certain whether this ASCII requirement applies only to the labels (e.g., ?Name Server?) or to the content following the label --- the example given suggests the latter?which further solidifies the idea that contracted parties are already required to transliterate Whois data into ASCII. But I could be misreading this requirement. ??? ? "I think it would be useful to suggest the requirement that all Whois text be machine-readable text. I?m not sure if that?s already a recommendation of the EWG report, but as one can imagine, the Whois systems that substitute graphics for the e-mail (which, for all we know, could spread to other fields) would stymie attempts at automated translation by users of Whois. ? Does anyone have any ideas for avoiding flight by bad actors to the least translatable languages? One idea would be to require: ? Whois info to be in either the language of the registrar or registrant (i.e. can?t pick some random language just to make it hard to translate), and ? translation or transliteration is required if it?s not in a) Latin characters, b) one of the six U.N. languages, or c) possibly some larger but reasonable set of well-known and widely translatable languages (say, 20 or so)." -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you -- Emily Taylor MA(Cantab), MBA Director Netistrar Ltd - Domain Names at Trade Prices W: http://www.netistrar.com | M: 07540 049322 | T: 01283 617808 Repton House, Bretby Business Park, Bretby, Derbyshire, DE15 0YZ Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Thu Nov 13 17:33:07 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:33:07 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] MP3 Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG meeting - 13 November 2014 Message-ID: <6250e54c0fbe48ada3da70667a74194a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group call held on Thursday 13 November at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-transliteration-contact-20141113-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Jennifer Chung ? RySG Chris Dillon ? NCSG Mae Suchayapim Siriwat ? GAC Pitinan Kooarmornpatana ? GAC Petter Rindforth ? IPC Amr Elsadr ? NCUC Rudi Vansnick ? NPOC Emily Taylor ? RrSG Ubolthip Sethakaset ? Individual Wanawit Ahkuputra ? GAC Peter Green (Zhang Zuan)-NCUC Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ? ISPCP Apologies: Jim Galvin - RySG ICANN staff: Amy Bivins Lars Hoffmann Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Wiki page: http://tinyurl.com/mpwxstx Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew GNSO Secretariat Adobe Chat Transcript for Thursday 13 November 2014: Lars Hoffmann: Dear all, Welcome to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG call on 13 November 2014 pitinan kooarmornpatana:hello all Chris Dillon:Hello Pitinan Amr Elsadr:Hi all. Hope you're all well. Chris Dillon:Hello Amr Amr Elsadr:Apologies for not being able to provide input to the draft report via email. Been a full week. Chris Dillon:There has been a lot of input recently and t think there will be much more today. Terri Agnew:Mae Suchayapim Siriwat has joined Amr Elsadr:That's very clever. :) Lars Hoffmann:the document is synched so that we are all on the same page. let me know if youhave trouble reading. Lars Hoffmann:*pun intended Amr Elsadr:BTW..., not that it's really that important, but I'm not listed as a WG member in the report. Terri Agnew:Wanawit Ahkuputra has joined Petter Rindforth:It will be necessary to split the costs Rudi Vansnick:@amr +1 Amr Elsadr:@Emily: Thanks for making my point more eloquently than I did. Amr Elsadr::) Emily Taylor:Thanks Chris Amr Elsadr:I'm not sure I understand the question. Amr Elsadr:Emily's point should be added to the first bullet on page 12. Terri Agnew:Peter Green has joined Peter Green (CONAC):Hi, sorry I am late Terri Agnew:Wolf Ulrich Knoben has joined Amr Elsadr:My name is transliterated from Arabic to Latin script in different ways. Just saying. :) Amr Elsadr:In my case after the r. Amr Elsadr:Amr and Amro. Emily Taylor:I was thinking similar - like the name Sayeed, Said, Sayid, Zayid etc Amr Elsadr:Yes Emily. Also Sayed. :) Emily Taylor::) Amr Elsadr:That could also create confusion. Said and Saeed are different names that may not be distinguishable by non-Arabic speakers. Petter Rindforth:That's correct Rudi Vansnick:this was a very fruitful meeting Emily Taylor:I support Amr's suggestion of some further research into the extent of the issue - I believe this addresses the points I was trying to make at the beginning of my personal comments on the draft Amr Elsadr:Aaaah!! Petter just shot me down!! :D Petter Rindforth:;-) Emily Taylor:Really appreciate you going through the RrSG's comments in such detail. I hope that they have been helpful in unpacking some of the issues. Pitinan Kooarmornpatana 2:Thanks chris :) Pitinan Kooarmornpatana 2:Thanks Emily Emily Taylor:thanks chris Rudi Vansnick:bye Jennifer Chung:Thanks Chris, thanks all. Chris Dillon:Goodbye everyone Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5417 bytes Desc: not available URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Thu Nov 20 10:20:57 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:20:57 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Today's meeting Message-ID: <0d6e6c58c15b4fd1820fe505dfa97d95@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> Dear colleagues, Please find a draft agenda for today's meeting at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/20+November+2014 We will be continuing through the comments tabled at the last meeting and there is a new version of the draft initial report attached to this email which includes comments from ICANN Legal. The .docx contains substantial modifications from last week and the week before and the new comments (formatting and uncontroversial word-level changes have been removed to improve readability). The PDF is a clean version. Finally, at the end of the meeting, whether or not we have got through all the comments, there will be a straw poll on whether we should get rid of the options. Let me stress that this doesn't affect the arguments for mandatory transformation, which will remain in the document whichever way we go. Please note that next week is the last scheduled meeting before the release of the initial report. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Initial Report V5.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 425736 bytes Desc: Draft Initial Report V5.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Initial Report V5.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 848749 bytes Desc: Draft Initial Report V5.pdf URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Thu Nov 20 18:42:58 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:42:58 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] MP3 Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG meeting - 20 November 2014 Message-ID: <1b1ec83928c7456f8543036f93a18edb@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group call held on Thursday 20 November at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-transliteration-contact-20141120-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Jennifer Chung ? RySG Chris Dillon ? NCSG Rudi Vansnick ? NPOC Ubolthip Sethakaset ? Individual Peter Green (Zhang Zuan)-NCUC Jim Galvin - RySG Justine Chew ? Individual Apologies: Petter Rindforth ? IPC Amr Elsadr ? NCUC Emily Taylor ? RrSG Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ? ISPCP ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Lars Hoffmann Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Wiki page: http://tinyurl.com/mpwxstx Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew GNSO Secretariat Adobe Chat Transcript for Thursday 20 November 2014: Terri Agnew:Dear all, Welcome to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG call on 20 November 2014 Chris Dillon:Hello everyone Chris Dillon:https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/20+November+2014 Chris Dillon:https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/Comments+on+Initial+report+on+the+Translation+and+Transliteration+of+Contact+Information+Policy+Development+Process Rudi Vansnick:are there standards of transformation we could lean on ? Peter Green ?CONAC?:@Rudi, it is really difficult to have such standards Chris Dillon:Pinyin is certainly complex. Peter Green ?CONAC?:Yes, Pinyin is an example, but generally, language diversity and accuracy is the main challenge to have such standards Justine Chew:No I don't think it's just you Jim. Rudi Vansnick:i would suggest not limiting to 1 (one) Justine Chew:I don't see how the existing content can continue in the current form if we were to proceed with non-mandatory approach. Chris Dillon:The arguments stay in the document. Justine Chew:So you're saying let's present arguments for both approaches and based on these conclude that only 1 set of recommendations be put forth? Chris Dillon:Yes. Jennifer Chung:Thanks for the clarification Chris and Jim Rudi Vansnick:the minus could be abstention ! Julie Hedlund:My apologies everyone, but I have to drop off the call to go to another meeting. Julie Hedlund:Have a great day! Chris Dillon:Bye Rudi Vansnick:thanks Chris for the great work (also to Lars) Jennifer Chung:I will have to send in my apologies for next Thursday because of Thanksgiving Rudi Vansnick:start now with a blank one Justine Chew:I see the position Chris is faced with because we still need to refer to existing provided comments. Jennifer Chung:Thanks all, bye. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5417 bytes Desc: not available URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Tue Nov 25 09:31:51 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:31:51 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Message-ID: Dear colleagues, During Thursday's call, we had a straw poll: Are you in favor of having only one option in the initial report? As you know, in the versions of the draft initial report until now there have been two options (recommendations for and against mandatory transformation), but if it is possible to have only one, the report will likely have a stronger effect. Whatever the result of the report, the arguments for and against will remain in it; this poll only concerns the options. Please send your vote to the list if you did not vote on Thursday. The options are: Yes, No and Abstain. Please vote by 14:00 UTC on Thursday 27 November. (Note that there is no meeting on that day; the next one is 4 December.) In summary - This is not a consensus call on the options. - This is to decide whether the initial report should have one set of recommendations or two sets of recommendations. - If a majority believes it should be only one set, the WG, at a later stage (probably during our next meeting, on 4 December) will decide which set it will be. - Please bear in mind that this is the initial report and following public comments on it we will be able to modify/amend/change/reverse our draft recommendations. Incidentally, I shall email soon asking for your comments on version 5 of the report and including the rest of mine. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Tue Nov 25 12:08:31 2014 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:08:31 +0100 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <30478AA7-3F03-4AC0-821D-91439E192890@egyptig.org> Hi Chris, I apologize about missing last week?s call, but thank you very much for bringing this discussion to the list. I would like to note that from a GNSO process perspective, having two conflicting sets of recommendations (even in the preliminary report) in response to the charter questions of this PDP will be extremely problematic. gTLD policy recommendation development in the GNSO is supposed to take place in GNSO working groups, where achieving consensus is the goal. Here, we are in the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process. To have these two sets of recommendations would (at least to me) seem like an indication that this PDP working group has failed in carrying out its mandate, and is attempting to shift the decision of a single set of recommendations elsewhere; probably the GNSO council. The GNSO council is not meant to make these decisions. In my humble opinion, I believe we should spend the time we have left to us trying to reach a compromise that would achieve full consensus among the working group members. If that proves impossible, we should try to provide recommendations with a consensus level consistent with one of the decision-making designations provided in section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (Annex 1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures found here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13nov14-en.pdf). I still hope that the working group members can reach full consensus. This would mean that compromises would need to be made. We really should focus on achieving this over the next few weeks. Thanks again. Amr On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Dillon, Chris wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > During Thursday's call, we had a straw poll: > Are you in favor of having only one option in the initial report? > As you know, in the versions of the draft initial report until now there have been two options (recommendations for and against mandatory transformation), but if it is possible to have only one, the report will likely have a stronger effect. Whatever the result of the report, the arguments for and against will remain in it; this poll only concerns the options. > Please send your vote to the list if you did not vote on Thursday. The options are:Yes, No and Abstain. > Please vote by 14:00 UTC on Thursday 27 November. (Note that there is no meeting on that day; the next one is 4 December.) > > In summary > - This is not a consensus call on the options. > - This is to decide whether the initial report should have one set of recommendations or two sets of recommendations. > - If a majority believes it should be only one set, the WG, at a later stage (probably during our next meeting, on 4 December) will decide which set it will be. > - Please bear in mind that this is the initial report and following public comments on it we will be able to modify/amend/change/reverse our draft recommendations. > > Incidentally, I shall email soon asking for your comments on version 5 of the report and including the rest of mine. > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Tue Nov 25 12:16:11 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:16:11 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Justine, Yes; just to confirm - we did take note of last Thursday?s vote (also in the transcript) and you don?t need to vote again. 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 From: Justine Chew [mailto:justine.chew at gmail.com] Sent: 25 November 2014 11:22 To: Dillon, Chris Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Dear Chris, I trust you took note of the votes cast by WG members who were on last Thursday's call (just to confirm that I do not need to vote again)? Many thanks, Justine Chew ----- On 25 November 2014 at 17:31, Dillon, Chris > wrote: Dear colleagues, During Thursday's call, we had a straw poll: Are you in favor of having only one option in the initial report? As you know, in the versions of the draft initial report until now there have been two options (recommendations for and against mandatory transformation), but if it is possible to have only one, the report will likely have a stronger effect. Whatever the result of the report, the arguments for and against will remain in it; this poll only concerns the options. Please send your vote to the list if you did not vote on Thursday. The options are: Yes, No and Abstain. Please vote by 14:00 UTC on Thursday 27 November. (Note that there is no meeting on that day; the next one is 4 December.) In summary - This is not a consensus call on the options. - This is to decide whether the initial report should have one set of recommendations or two sets of recommendations. - If a majority believes it should be only one set, the WG, at a later stage (probably during our next meeting, on 4 December) will decide which set it will be. - Please bear in mind that this is the initial report and following public comments on it we will be able to modify/amend/change/reverse our draft recommendations. Incidentally, I shall email soon asking for your comments on version 5 of the report and including the rest of mine. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Tue Nov 25 12:56:57 2014 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:56:57 +0100 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options In-Reply-To: References: <30478AA7-3F03-4AC0-821D-91439E192890@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <0E759A71-1DAD-4952-859F-F4F1C864988D@egyptig.org> Hi again, A point of clarification on my part regarding the consensus levels in the GNSO operating procedures; they are not necessary for the initial report. I meant to indicate that they are required as part of the final report, but after re-reading my note, see that this was presented by me rather poorly. (Thanks for the heads up Marika) To try to be clearer on the other point of multiple recommendations in the initial report; if the desire is that this report reflect the lack of consensus currently in the working group on the charter questions we are being asked to tackle, I think this could be done more effectively than by presenting two conflicting recommendations as options, which suggests (to me) that the WG is lost in making a determination. As I believe we are closer to one set of recommendations than the other (although this is rather subjective speculation on my part), I think this should be reflected in the initial report one way or the other. Like I said before, I do hope we can focus on an attempt to reach full consensus over the next few weeks. On another unrelated topic, I noticed that I am not listed as a working group member in the report. May I ask to be added? :) Thanks again. Amr On Nov 25, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Dillon, Chris wrote: > Dear Amr, > > Many thanks for your thoughtful comments. > > We will be sticking close to the GNSO Operating Procedures. I am not as familiar with them as many colleagues on the calls, you included, but I will listen to advice as we apply them. > > With kind 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 > > From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr > Sent: 25 November 2014 12:09 > To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options > Importance: High > > Hi Chris, > > I apologize about missing last week?s call, but thank you very much for bringing this discussion to the list. I would like to note that from a GNSO process perspective, having two conflicting sets of recommendations (even in the preliminary report) in response to the charter questions of this PDP will be extremely problematic. gTLD policy recommendation development in the GNSO is supposed to take place in GNSO working groups, where achieving consensus is the goal. Here, we are in the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process. To have these two sets of recommendations would (at least to me) seem like an indication that this PDP working group has failed in carrying out its mandate, and is attempting to shift the decision of a single set of recommendations elsewhere; probably the GNSO council. The GNSO council is not meant to make these decisions. > > In my humble opinion, I believe we should spend the time we have left to us trying to reach a compromise that would achieve full consensus among the working group members. If that proves impossible, we should try to provide recommendations with a consensus level consistent with one of the decision-making designations provided in section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (Annex 1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures found here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13nov14-en.pdf). > > I still hope that the working group members can reach full consensus. This would mean that compromises would need to be made. We really should focus on achieving this over the next few weeks. > > Thanks again. > > Amr > > On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Dillon, Chris wrote: > > > Dear colleagues, > > During Thursday's call, we had a straw poll: > Are you in favor of having only one option in the initial report? > As you know, in the versions of the draft initial report until now there have been two options (recommendations for and against mandatory transformation), but if it is possible to have only one, the report will likely have a stronger effect. Whatever the result of the report, the arguments for and against will remain in it; this poll only concerns the options. > Please send your vote to the list if you did not vote on Thursday. The options are:Yes, No and Abstain. > Please vote by 14:00 UTC on Thursday 27 November. (Note that there is no meeting on that day; the next one is 4 December.) > > In summary > - This is not a consensus call on the options. > - This is to decide whether the initial report should have one set of recommendations or two sets of recommendations. > - If a majority believes it should be only one set, the WG, at a later stage (probably during our next meeting, on 4 December) will decide which set it will be. > - Please bear in mind that this is the initial report and following public comments on it we will be able to modify/amend/change/reverse our draft recommendations. > > Incidentally, I shall email soon asking for your comments on version 5 of the report and including the rest of mine. > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Tue Nov 25 12:22:09 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:22:09 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options In-Reply-To: <30478AA7-3F03-4AC0-821D-91439E192890@egyptig.org> References: <30478AA7-3F03-4AC0-821D-91439E192890@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Dear Amr, Many thanks for your thoughtful comments. We will be sticking close to the GNSO Operating Procedures. I am not as familiar with them as many colleagues on the calls, you included, but I will listen to advice as we apply them. With kind 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 From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: 25 November 2014 12:09 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Importance: High Hi Chris, I apologize about missing last week's call, but thank you very much for bringing this discussion to the list. I would like to note that from a GNSO process perspective, having two conflicting sets of recommendations (even in the preliminary report) in response to the charter questions of this PDP will be extremely problematic. gTLD policy recommendation development in the GNSO is supposed to take place in GNSO working groups, where achieving consensus is the goal. Here, we are in the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process. To have these two sets of recommendations would (at least to me) seem like an indication that this PDP working group has failed in carrying out its mandate, and is attempting to shift the decision of a single set of recommendations elsewhere; probably the GNSO council. The GNSO council is not meant to make these decisions. In my humble opinion, I believe we should spend the time we have left to us trying to reach a compromise that would achieve full consensus among the working group members. If that proves impossible, we should try to provide recommendations with a consensus level consistent with one of the decision-making designations provided in section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (Annex 1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures found here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13nov14-en.pdf). I still hope that the working group members can reach full consensus. This would mean that compromises would need to be made. We really should focus on achieving this over the next few weeks. Thanks again. Amr On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Dillon, Chris > wrote: Dear colleagues, During Thursday's call, we had a straw poll: Are you in favor of having only one option in the initial report? As you know, in the versions of the draft initial report until now there have been two options (recommendations for and against mandatory transformation), but if it is possible to have only one, the report will likely have a stronger effect. Whatever the result of the report, the arguments for and against will remain in it; this poll only concerns the options. Please send your vote to the list if you did not vote on Thursday. The options are:Yes, No and Abstain. Please vote by 14:00 UTC on Thursday 27 November. (Note that there is no meeting on that day; the next one is 4 December.) In summary - This is not a consensus call on the options. - This is to decide whether the initial report should have one set of recommendations or two sets of recommendations. - If a majority believes it should be only one set, the WG, at a later stage (probably during our next meeting, on 4 December) will decide which set it will be. - Please bear in mind that this is the initial report and following public comments on it we will be able to modify/amend/change/reverse our draft recommendations. Incidentally, I shall email soon asking for your comments on version 5 of the report and including the rest of mine. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Tue Nov 25 14:26:10 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:26:10 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options In-Reply-To: <0E759A71-1DAD-4952-859F-F4F1C864988D@egyptig.org> References: <30478AA7-3F03-4AC0-821D-91439E192890@egyptig.org> <0E759A71-1DAD-4952-859F-F4F1C864988D@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Dear Amr, I just realised I forget to write that I'll put your name in the report. Sorry it was omitted. 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 From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: 25 November 2014 12:57 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Hi again, A point of clarification on my part regarding the consensus levels in the GNSO operating procedures; they are not necessary for the initial report. I meant to indicate that they are required as part of the final report, but after re-reading my note, see that this was presented by me rather poorly. (Thanks for the heads up Marika) To try to be clearer on the other point of multiple recommendations in the initial report; if the desire is that this report reflect the lack of consensus currently in the working group on the charter questions we are being asked to tackle, I think this could be done more effectively than by presenting two conflicting recommendations as options, which suggests (to me) that the WG is lost in making a determination. As I believe we are closer to one set of recommendations than the other (although this is rather subjective speculation on my part), I think this should be reflected in the initial report one way or the other. Like I said before, I do hope we can focus on an attempt to reach full consensus over the next few weeks. On another unrelated topic, I noticed that I am not listed as a working group member in the report. May I ask to be added? :) Thanks again. Amr On Nov 25, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Dillon, Chris > wrote: Dear Amr, Many thanks for your thoughtful comments. We will be sticking close to the GNSO Operating Procedures. I am not as familiar with them as many colleagues on the calls, you included, but I will listen to advice as we apply them. With kind 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 From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: 25 November 2014 12:09 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Importance: High Hi Chris, I apologize about missing last week's call, but thank you very much for bringing this discussion to the list. I would like to note that from a GNSO process perspective, having two conflicting sets of recommendations (even in the preliminary report) in response to the charter questions of this PDP will be extremely problematic. gTLD policy recommendation development in the GNSO is supposed to take place in GNSO working groups, where achieving consensus is the goal. Here, we are in the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process. To have these two sets of recommendations would (at least to me) seem like an indication that this PDP working group has failed in carrying out its mandate, and is attempting to shift the decision of a single set of recommendations elsewhere; probably the GNSO council. The GNSO council is not meant to make these decisions. In my humble opinion, I believe we should spend the time we have left to us trying to reach a compromise that would achieve full consensus among the working group members. If that proves impossible, we should try to provide recommendations with a consensus level consistent with one of the decision-making designations provided in section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (Annex 1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures found here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13nov14-en.pdf). I still hope that the working group members can reach full consensus. This would mean that compromises would need to be made. We really should focus on achieving this over the next few weeks. Thanks again. Amr On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Dillon, Chris > wrote: Dear colleagues, During Thursday's call, we had a straw poll: Are you in favor of having only one option in the initial report? As you know, in the versions of the draft initial report until now there have been two options (recommendations for and against mandatory transformation), but if it is possible to have only one, the report will likely have a stronger effect. Whatever the result of the report, the arguments for and against will remain in it; this poll only concerns the options. Please send your vote to the list if you did not vote on Thursday. The options are:Yes, No and Abstain. Please vote by 14:00 UTC on Thursday 27 November. (Note that there is no meeting on that day; the next one is 4 December.) In summary - This is not a consensus call on the options. - This is to decide whether the initial report should have one set of recommendations or two sets of recommendations. - If a majority believes it should be only one set, the WG, at a later stage (probably during our next meeting, on 4 December) will decide which set it will be. - Please bear in mind that this is the initial report and following public comments on it we will be able to modify/amend/change/reverse our draft recommendations. Incidentally, I shall email soon asking for your comments on version 5 of the report and including the rest of mine. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justine.chew at gmail.com Tue Nov 25 15:23:04 2014 From: justine.chew at gmail.com (Justine Chew) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 23:23:04 +0800 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options In-Reply-To: References: <30478AA7-3F03-4AC0-821D-91439E192890@egyptig.org> <0E759A71-1DAD-4952-859F-F4F1C864988D@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Dear Amr, Many thanks for clarifying your earlier email. I too have concerns with a report (albeit an initial one) which contains two sets of conflicting recommendations, and would be happy if the WG could reach full consensus on our recommendations. However, given the way the discussions have taken place in weeks past, this might prove a difficult goal if more time were unavailable to us. I would be pleased to be proven wrong though! Hence, as Chris has stated in his email, the approach proposed for taking the strawman draft forward is to set out the arguments both for and against mandatory transformation but to conclude with one set of recommendations either for or against, which was the approach the WG members present at last week's call were asked to vote on. As Chris has also said, it has yet to be decided which set of recommendations will prevail for the purposes of the initial report. I imagine presentation of opposing arguments would have to be reworked somewhat within a later draft in order for the consensus or majority view (as the case may be) to be properly reflected. Dear Chris, Thank you for confirming the correctness of my understanding in respect of the vote being taken, and I am pleased to say that I haven't changed my mind on my vote. Just another query - will you be circulating another version 5 or are we meant to keep looking at the version 5 from last week's call? Thanks and regards, Justine Chew ----- On 25 November 2014 at 22:26, Dillon, Chris wrote: > Dear Amr, > > > > I just realised I forget to write that I?ll put your name in the report. > > > > Sorry it was omitted. > > > > 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 > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Amr Elsadr > *Sent:* 25 November 2014 12:57 > > *To:* gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options > > > > Hi again, > > > > A point of clarification on my part regarding the consensus levels in the > GNSO operating procedures; they are not necessary for the initial report. I > meant to indicate that they are required as part of the final report, but > after re-reading my note, see that this was presented by me rather poorly. > (Thanks for the heads up Marika) > > > > To try to be clearer on the other point of multiple recommendations in the > initial report; if the desire is that this report reflect the lack of > consensus currently in the working group on the charter questions we are > being asked to tackle, I think this could be done more effectively than by > presenting two conflicting recommendations as options, which suggests (to > me) that the WG is lost in making a determination. As I believe we are > closer to one set of recommendations than the other (although this is > rather subjective speculation on my part), I think this should be reflected > in the initial report one way or the other. > > > > Like I said before, I do hope we can focus on an attempt to reach full > consensus over the next few weeks. > > > > On another unrelated topic, I noticed that I am not listed as a working > group member in the report. May I ask to be added? :) > > > > Thanks again. > > > > Amr > > > > On Nov 25, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Dillon, Chris wrote: > > > > Dear Amr, > > > > Many thanks for your thoughtful comments. > > > > We will be sticking close to the GNSO Operating Procedures. I am not as > familiar with them as many colleagues on the calls, you included, but I > will listen to advice as we apply them. > > > > With kind 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 > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [ > mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Amr Elsadr > *Sent:* 25 November 2014 12:09 > *To:* gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options > *Importance:* High > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > I apologize about missing last week?s call, but thank you very much for > bringing this discussion to the list. I would like to note that from a GNSO > process perspective, having two conflicting sets of recommendations (even > in the preliminary report) in response to the charter questions of this PDP > will be extremely problematic. gTLD policy recommendation development in > the GNSO is supposed to take place in GNSO working groups, where achieving > consensus is the goal. Here, we are in the bottom of the bottom-up policy > development process. To have these two sets of recommendations would (at > least to me) seem like an indication that this PDP working group has failed > in carrying out its mandate, and is attempting to shift the decision of a > single set of recommendations elsewhere; probably the GNSO council. The > GNSO council is not meant to make these decisions. > > > > In my humble opinion, I believe we should spend the time we have left to > us trying to reach a compromise that would achieve full consensus among the > working group members. If that proves impossible, we should try to provide > recommendations with a consensus level consistent with one of the > decision-making designations provided in section 3.6 of the GNSO Working > Group Guidelines (Annex 1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures found here: > http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13nov14-en.pdf). > > > > I still hope that the working group members can reach full consensus. This > would mean that compromises would need to be made. We really should focus > on achieving this over the next few weeks. > > > > Thanks again. > > > > Amr > > > > On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Dillon, Chris wrote: > > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > During Thursday's call, we had a straw poll: > > *Are you in favor of having only one option in the initial report?* > > As you know, in the versions of the draft initial report until now there > have been two options (recommendations for and against mandatory > transformation), but if it is possible to have only one, the report will > likely have a stronger effect. Whatever the result of the report, the > arguments for and against will remain in it; this poll only concerns the > options. > > Please send your vote to the list if you did not vote on Thursday. The > options are:*Yes, No *and *Abstain*. > > *Please vote by 14:00 UTC on Thursday 27 November*. (Note that there is > no meeting on that day; the next one is 4 December.) > > > > In summary > > - This is not a consensus call on the options. > > - This is to decide whether the initial report should have one set of > recommendations or two sets of recommendations. > > - If a majority believes it should be only one set, the WG, at a later > stage (probably during our next meeting, on 4 December) will decide which > set it will be. > > - Please bear in mind that this is the initial report and following public > comments on it we will be able to modify/amend/change/reverse our draft > recommendations. > > > > Incidentally, I shall email soon asking for your comments on version 5 of > the report and including the rest of mine. > > > > 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Tue Nov 25 16:10:12 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 16:10:12 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options In-Reply-To: References: <30478AA7-3F03-4AC0-821D-91439E192890@egyptig.org> <0E759A71-1DAD-4952-859F-F4F1C864988D@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Dear Justine, Thank you for your email. Sometime after 14:00 UTC on Thursday there will be a new version. It will not be version 5; possibly version 6. That will include updates to arguments attempting to reflect our recent discussions. The number of sets of options will reflect the straw poll. 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 From: Justine Chew [mailto:justine.chew at gmail.com] Sent: 25 November 2014 15:23 To: Dillon, Chris Cc: Amr Elsadr; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Dear Amr, Many thanks for clarifying your earlier email. I too have concerns with a report (albeit an initial one) which contains two sets of conflicting recommendations, and would be happy if the WG could reach full consensus on our recommendations. However, given the way the discussions have taken place in weeks past, this might prove a difficult goal if more time were unavailable to us. I would be pleased to be proven wrong though! Hence, as Chris has stated in his email, the approach proposed for taking the strawman draft forward is to set out the arguments both for and against mandatory transformation but to conclude with one set of recommendations either for or against, which was the approach the WG members present at last week's call were asked to vote on. As Chris has also said, it has yet to be decided which set of recommendations will prevail for the purposes of the initial report. I imagine presentation of opposing arguments would have to be reworked somewhat within a later draft in order for the consensus or majority view (as the case may be) to be properly reflected. Dear Chris, Thank you for confirming the correctness of my understanding in respect of the vote being taken, and I am pleased to say that I haven't changed my mind on my vote. Just another query - will you be circulating another version 5 or are we meant to keep looking at the version 5 from last week's call? Thanks and regards, Justine Chew ----- On 25 November 2014 at 22:26, Dillon, Chris > wrote: Dear Amr, I just realised I forget to write that I?ll put your name in the report. Sorry it was omitted. 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 From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: 25 November 2014 12:57 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Hi again, A point of clarification on my part regarding the consensus levels in the GNSO operating procedures; they are not necessary for the initial report. I meant to indicate that they are required as part of the final report, but after re-reading my note, see that this was presented by me rather poorly. (Thanks for the heads up Marika) To try to be clearer on the other point of multiple recommendations in the initial report; if the desire is that this report reflect the lack of consensus currently in the working group on the charter questions we are being asked to tackle, I think this could be done more effectively than by presenting two conflicting recommendations as options, which suggests (to me) that the WG is lost in making a determination. As I believe we are closer to one set of recommendations than the other (although this is rather subjective speculation on my part), I think this should be reflected in the initial report one way or the other. Like I said before, I do hope we can focus on an attempt to reach full consensus over the next few weeks. On another unrelated topic, I noticed that I am not listed as a working group member in the report. May I ask to be added? :) Thanks again. Amr On Nov 25, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Dillon, Chris > wrote: Dear Amr, Many thanks for your thoughtful comments. We will be sticking close to the GNSO Operating Procedures. I am not as familiar with them as many colleagues on the calls, you included, but I will listen to advice as we apply them. With kind 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 From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: 25 November 2014 12:09 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Importance: High Hi Chris, I apologize about missing last week?s call, but thank you very much for bringing this discussion to the list. I would like to note that from a GNSO process perspective, having two conflicting sets of recommendations (even in the preliminary report) in response to the charter questions of this PDP will be extremely problematic. gTLD policy recommendation development in the GNSO is supposed to take place in GNSO working groups, where achieving consensus is the goal. Here, we are in the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process. To have these two sets of recommendations would (at least to me) seem like an indication that this PDP working group has failed in carrying out its mandate, and is attempting to shift the decision of a single set of recommendations elsewhere; probably the GNSO council. The GNSO council is not meant to make these decisions. In my humble opinion, I believe we should spend the time we have left to us trying to reach a compromise that would achieve full consensus among the working group members. If that proves impossible, we should try to provide recommendations with a consensus level consistent with one of the decision-making designations provided in section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (Annex 1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures found here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13nov14-en.pdf). I still hope that the working group members can reach full consensus. This would mean that compromises would need to be made. We really should focus on achieving this over the next few weeks. Thanks again. Amr On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Dillon, Chris > wrote: Dear colleagues, During Thursday's call, we had a straw poll: Are you in favor of having only one option in the initial report? As you know, in the versions of the draft initial report until now there have been two options (recommendations for and against mandatory transformation), but if it is possible to have only one, the report will likely have a stronger effect. Whatever the result of the report, the arguments for and against will remain in it; this poll only concerns the options. Please send your vote to the list if you did not vote on Thursday. The options are:Yes, No and Abstain. Please vote by 14:00 UTC on Thursday 27 November. (Note that there is no meeting on that day; the next one is 4 December.) In summary - This is not a consensus call on the options. - This is to decide whether the initial report should have one set of recommendations or two sets of recommendations. - If a majority believes it should be only one set, the WG, at a later stage (probably during our next meeting, on 4 December) will decide which set it will be. - Please bear in mind that this is the initial report and following public comments on it we will be able to modify/amend/change/reverse our draft recommendations. Incidentally, I shall email soon asking for your comments on version 5 of the report and including the rest of mine. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Wed Nov 26 11:50:39 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 11:50:39 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Virtual continuation of Thursday 20's T&T meeting Message-ID: Dear colleagues, As I mentioned in my last meeting I would like to continue Thursday's call virtually, encouraging you to comment on version 5 of the Draft initial report (attached). Here are the comments I would have made if we had had more time: p.12 Mike asks us [MZ14 and MZ31] whether "increase in users that are not familiar with the Latin script" should be replaced with "increase in users whose languages are not based on the Latin script". Both aspects are true, but the latter wording hints at the former and so is a good replacement. As a statement the latter version would also be less Anglocentric. In MZ15, Mike suggests that some statements about law enforcement are actually broader. That seems true and I can at least add "for example". However, does anyone have concrete examples of organizations apart from law enforcement for which transformation to a Latin script would be useful? p.13 In ER16 and ER17 Erika highlights an apparent contradiction. The bullet point at the top of p.12 says that transformation would need to take place at a later stage (than entry by registered name holders) and that this would be detrimental to accuracy and consistency. The bullet point above the ccTLD graphic argues that only the data fields should be transformed by the registrar or registry. I will make clear the distinction between transformation (of data - how we have been using the term "transformation" on its own) and transformation of field names. Moreover, accuracy (at least senses 1 and 2 in the footnote) and consistency are likely to be worse the greater number of players involved i.e. if registrants were to do the transformation. CD18 Is anyone aware of reasons why the ccTLD approach exemplified wouldn't work with gTLDs? I reckon MZ21 is addressed by "not justified by benefits to others", the last line of p.12. MZ22 suggests the text "if no consensus is reached the status quo will be maintained". The key thing here is whether we're talking about the current Whois status quo where the system cannot accept non-Latin script data (answer "no" as this does not encourage the development of the Internet in wide areas of the world not using the Latin script), or a new DNRD with no Latin script (answer "no" as such a system would be very expensive, as it would need to be replaced soon) or a new DNRD with non-Latin script functionality (answer: possibly "yes" as the status quo would not involve transformation, except possibly of field names). ER23 picks up how we would handle a situation where we move from no clear consensus to a greater level of consensus. The short answer is to use the GNSO procedure. ER27 Automated transformation cannot occur if data are not marked as being in a language. ER29 "it" refers to "contact information data" and so should be "them". India-based companies are an interesting case, as in many cases there will be three or more possible languages - Hindi, English and a local language. If the language is not stipulated, there will be consistency issues in the event of transformation. Lars suggests the language the registrar operates in, but again there could be several and bad actors could deliberately apply in different languages to different registrars. As usual I welcome your views on any of these issues, or issues not in this list. I shall circulated a new version of the draft initial report shortly before our meeting on Thurs. 4 December. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Initial Report V5.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 848749 bytes Desc: Draft Initial Report V5.pdf URL: From petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu Wed Nov 26 21:17:59 2014 From: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu (Petter Rindforth) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:17:59 GMT Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1417036679521.68722.14728@webmail7> Dear All, As I presume that I cannot convince all of you to vote in favour of mandatory translation/transliteration, my vote is: No All the best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 25 november 2014, Dillon, Chris skrev: > > Dear colleagues, > > During Thursday's call, we had a straw poll: > Are you in favor of having only one option in the initial report? > > As you know, in the versions of the draft initial report until now there have been two options (recommendations for and against mandatory transformation), but if it is possible to have only one, the report will likely have a stronger effect. Whatever the result of the report, the arguments for and against will remain in it; this poll only concerns the options. > > Please send your vote to the list if you did not vote on Thursday. The options are: Yes, NoandAbstain. > Please vote by 14:00 UTC on Thursday 27 November. (Note that there is no meeting on that day; the next one is 4 December.) > > In summary > - This is not a consensus call on the options. > - This is to decide whether the initial report should have one set of recommendations or two sets of recommendations. > - If a majority believes it should be only one set, the WG, at a later stage (probably during our next meeting, on 4 December) will decide which set it will be. > - Please bear in mind that this is the initial report and following public comments on it we will be able to modify/amend/change/reverse our draft recommendations. > > Incidentally, I shall email soon asking for your comments on version 5 of the report and including the rest of mine. > > Regards, > > Chris. > -- > Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Wed Nov 26 21:42:42 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:42:42 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options In-Reply-To: <1417036679521.68722.14728@webmail7> References: <1417036679521.68722.14728@webmail7> Message-ID: Dear Petter, Thank you for voting. Your vote is noted. 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 From: Petter Rindforth > Reply-To: Petter Rindforth > Date: Wednesday, 26 November 2014 21:17 To: Chris Dillon > Cc: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Dear All, As I presume that I cannot convince all of you to vote in favour of mandatory translation/transliteration, my vote is: No All the best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 25 november 2014, Dillon, Chris > skrev: Dear colleagues, During Thursday's call, we had a straw poll: Are you in favor of having only one option in the initial report? As you know, in the versions of the draft initial report until now there have been two options (recommendations for and against mandatory transformation), but if it is possible to have only one, the report will likely have a stronger effect. Whatever the result of the report, the arguments for and against will remain in it; this poll only concerns the options. Please send your vote to the list if you did not vote on Thursday. The options are: Yes, No and Abstain. Please vote by 14:00 UTC on Thursday 27 November. (Note that there is no meeting on that day; the next one is 4 December.) In summary - This is not a consensus call on the options. - This is to decide whether the initial report should have one set of recommendations or two sets of recommendations. - If a majority believes it should be only one set, the WG, at a later stage (probably during our next meeting, on 4 December) will decide which set it will be. - Please bear in mind that this is the initial report and following public comments on it we will be able to modify/amend/change/reverse our draft recommendations. Incidentally, I shall email soon asking for your comments on version 5 of the report and including the rest of mine. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pdernbach at winklerpartners.com Wed Nov 26 22:29:36 2014 From: pdernbach at winklerpartners.com (Peter Dernbach) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 06:29:36 +0800 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Chris and All, Apologies that I have not been able to attend the most recent conference calls due to other pressing work commitments. I am new to ICANN Working Groups, so am not as familiar with the process as many of you are. My procedural question is this: how important is the date for delivering our Initial Report? It seems clear to me that our working group has not yet reached a consensus position. I also believe that issuing an initial report with multiple opinions may not be as helpful to the community in the policy making process. Is there another option of providing an update saying that the Working Group has not yet come to a consensus on the content of its initial report, so the initial report will be delayed while we continue to work on reaching consensus? The question at hand is "am I in favor of having only one opinion in the initial report?" In theory, I am, but if we need to issue an initial report at this stage, I do not think we should include only one opinion as I do not think that reflects the current state of the Working Group. Best regards, Peter Peter J.Dernbach ??? Partner ????(???????) *T* 886 (0)2 2311 2345 # 222 *F* 886 (0)2 2311 2688 www.winklerpartners.com pdernbach at winklerpartners.com ------------------------------ NOTICE: This email and any attachments contain private, confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or distribute the contents and are requested to delete them and to notify the sender. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Dillon, Chris wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > > > During Thursday's call, we had a straw poll: > > *Are you in favor of having only one option in the initial report?* > > As you know, in the versions of the draft initial report until now there > have been two options (recommendations for and against mandatory > transformation), but if it is possible to have only one, the report will > likely have a stronger effect. Whatever the result of the report, the > arguments for and against will remain in it; this poll only concerns the > options. > > Please send your vote to the list if you did not vote on Thursday. The > options are: *Yes, No *and* Abstain*. > > *Please vote by 14:00 UTC on Thursday 27 November*. (Note that there is > no meeting on that day; the next one is 4 December.) > > > > In summary > > - This is not a consensus call on the options. > > - This is to decide whether the initial report should have one set of > recommendations or two sets of recommendations. > > - If a majority believes it should be only one set, the WG, at a later > stage (probably during our next meeting, on 4 December) will decide which > set it will be. > > - Please bear in mind that this is the initial report and following public > comments on it we will be able to modify/amend/change/reverse our draft > recommendations. > > > > Incidentally, I shall email soon asking for your comments on version 5 of > the report and including the rest of mine. > > > > 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Thu Nov 27 09:16:29 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:16:29 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Peter, Thank you for your vote. I believe we do agree that we need to get the initial report out according to the work plan, although we are running about a week behind it. In which case, I take your vote as a ?no?. I will pick up the issues you raise during our next meetings. 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 From: Peter Dernbach [mailto:pdernbach at winklerpartners.com] Sent: 26 November 2014 22:30 To: Dillon, Chris Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Dear Chris and All, Apologies that I have not been able to attend the most recent conference calls due to other pressing work commitments. I am new to ICANN Working Groups, so am not as familiar with the process as many of you are. My procedural question is this: how important is the date for delivering our Initial Report? It seems clear to me that our working group has not yet reached a consensus position. I also believe that issuing an initial report with multiple opinions may not be as helpful to the community in the policy making process. Is there another option of providing an update saying that the Working Group has not yet come to a consensus on the content of its initial report, so the initial report will be delayed while we continue to work on reaching consensus? The question at hand is "am I in favor of having only one opinion in the initial report?" In theory, I am, but if we need to issue an initial report at this stage, I do not think we should include only one opinion as I do not think that reflects the current state of the Working Group. Best regards, Peter [http://www.winklerpartners.com/Winkler-logo.gif] Peter J.Dernbach ??? Partner ????(???????) T 886 (0)2 2311 2345 # 222 F 886 (0)2 2311 2688 www.winklerpartners.com pdernbach at winklerpartners.com ________________________________ NOTICE: This email and any attachments contain private, confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or distribute the contents and are requested to delete them and to notify the sender. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Dillon, Chris > wrote: Dear colleagues, During Thursday's call, we had a straw poll: Are you in favor of having only one option in the initial report? As you know, in the versions of the draft initial report until now there have been two options (recommendations for and against mandatory transformation), but if it is possible to have only one, the report will likely have a stronger effect. Whatever the result of the report, the arguments for and against will remain in it; this poll only concerns the options. Please send your vote to the list if you did not vote on Thursday. The options are: Yes, No and Abstain. Please vote by 14:00 UTC on Thursday 27 November. (Note that there is no meeting on that day; the next one is 4 December.) In summary - This is not a consensus call on the options. - This is to decide whether the initial report should have one set of recommendations or two sets of recommendations. - If a majority believes it should be only one set, the WG, at a later stage (probably during our next meeting, on 4 December) will decide which set it will be. - Please bear in mind that this is the initial report and following public comments on it we will be able to modify/amend/change/reverse our draft recommendations. Incidentally, I shall email soon asking for your comments on version 5 of the report and including the rest of mine. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zhangzuan at conac.cn Thu Nov 27 14:32:22 2014 From: zhangzuan at conac.cn (=?UTF-8?B?5byg6ZK7?=) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 22:32:22 +0800 (GMT+08:00) Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <669cb75f.1acf.149f1aac970.Coremail.zhangzuan@conac.cn> Hi Chris, Soryy for belated response. I vote for "No". It may be better for the public to see the two sides of the ?coin?. Best Regards Peter Green -----????----- ???:"Dillon, Chris" ????:2014-11-25 17:31:51 (???) ???: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org" ??: ??: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Dear colleagues, During Thursday's call, we had a straw poll: Are you in favor of having only one option in the initial report? As you know, in the versions of the draft initial report until now there have been two options (recommendations for and against mandatory transformation), but if it is possible to have only one, the report will likely have a stronger effect. Whatever the result of the report, the arguments for and against will remain in it; this poll only concerns the options. Please send your vote to the list if you did not vote on Thursday. The options are: Yes, No and Abstain. Please vote by 14:00 UTC on Thursday 27 November. (Note that there is no meeting on that day; the next one is 4 December.) In summary - This is not a consensus call on the options. - This is to decide whether the initial report should have one set of recommendations or two sets of recommendations. - If a majority believes it should be only one set, the WG, at a later stage (probably during our next meeting, on 4 December) will decide which set it will be. - Please bear in mind that this is the initial report and following public comments on it we will be able to modify/amend/change/reverse our draft recommendations. Incidentally, I shall email soon asking for your comments on version 5 of the report and including the rest of mine. 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 -- ??????????????????????????? ??? ?? ? ??010-5203 5153 Email?zhangzuan at conac.cn ? ??http://www.conac.cn ? ?????????????????31??????412? ? ??100028 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Thu Nov 27 14:44:03 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:44:03 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options In-Reply-To: <669cb75f.1acf.149f1aac970.Coremail.zhangzuan@conac.cn> References: <669cb75f.1acf.149f1aac970.Coremail.zhangzuan@conac.cn> Message-ID: Dear Peter, Thank you for your vote. It is noted. Technically, I?ve received it after the deadline, but I think there is no point in worrying about half an hour. 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 From: ?? [mailto:zhangzuan at conac.cn] Sent: 27 November 2014 14:32 To: Dillon, Chris Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Importance: High Hi Chris, Soryy for belated response. I vote for "No". It may be better for the public to see the two sides of the ?coin?. Best Regards Peter Green -----????----- ???:"Dillon, Chris" > ????:2014-11-25 17:31:51 (???) ???: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org" > ??: ??: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Dear colleagues, During Thursday's call, we had a straw poll: Are you in favor of having only one option in the initial report? As you know, in the versions of the draft initial report until now there have been two options (recommendations for and against mandatory transformation), but if it is possible to have only one, the report will likely have a stronger effect. Whatever the result of the report, the arguments for and against will remain in it; this poll only concerns the options. Please send your vote to the list if you did not vote on Thursday. The options are: Yes, No and Abstain. Please vote by 14:00 UTC on Thursday 27 November. (Note that there is no meeting on that day; the next one is 4 December.) In summary - This is not a consensus call on the options. - This is to decide whether the initial report should have one set of recommendations or two sets of recommendations. - If a majority believes it should be only one set, the WG, at a later stage (probably during our next meeting, on 4 December) will decide which set it will be. - Please bear in mind that this is the initial report and following public comments on it we will be able to modify/amend/change/reverse our draft recommendations. Incidentally, I shall email soon asking for your comments on version 5 of the report and including the rest of mine. 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 -- ??????????????????????????? ??? ?? ? ??010-5203 5153 Email?zhangzuan at conac.cn ? ??http://www.conac.cn ? ?????????????????31??????412? ? ??100028 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pitinan at etda.or.th Fri Nov 28 04:05:11 2014 From: pitinan at etda.or.th (Pitinan Kooarmornpatana) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 04:05:11 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options In-Reply-To: References: <669cb75f.1acf.149f1aac970.Coremail.zhangzuan@conac.cn> Message-ID: 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 From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Dillon, Chris Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 9:44 PM To: ?? Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Dear Peter, Thank you for your vote. It is noted. Technically, I?ve received it after the deadline, but I think there is no point in worrying about half an hour. 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 From: ?? [mailto:zhangzuan at conac.cn] Sent: 27 November 2014 14:32 To: Dillon, Chris Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Importance: High Hi Chris, Soryy for belated response. I vote for "No". It may be better for the public to see the two sides of the ?coin?. Best Regards Peter Green -----????----- ???:"Dillon, Chris" > ????:2014-11-25 17:31:51 (???) ???: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org " > ??: ??: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Dear colleagues, During Thursday's call, we had a straw poll: Are you in favor of having only one option in the initial report? As you know, in the versions of the draft initial report until now there have been two options (recommendations for and against mandatory transformation), but if it is possible to have only one, the report will likely have a stronger effect. Whatever the result of the report, the arguments for and against will remain in it; this poll only concerns the options. Please send your vote to the list if you did not vote on Thursday. The options are: Yes, No and Abstain. Please vote by 14:00 UTC on Thursday 27 November. (Note that there is no meeting on that day; the next one is 4 December.) In summary - This is not a consensus call on the options. - This is to decide whether the initial report should have one set of recommendations or two sets of recommendations. - If a majority believes it should be only one set, the WG, at a later stage (probably during our next meeting, on 4 December) will decide which set it will be. - Please bear in mind that this is the initial report and following public comments on it we will be able to modify/amend/change/reverse our draft recommendations. Incidentally, I shall email soon asking for your comments on version 5 of the report and including the rest of mine. 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 -- ??????????????????????????? ??? ?? ? ??010-5203 5153 Email?zhangzuan at conac.cn ? ??http://www.conac.cn ? ?????????????????31??????412? ? ??100028 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4372 bytes Desc: not available URL: From c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk Fri Nov 28 08:30:01 2014 From: c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk (Dillon, Chris) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:30:01 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options In-Reply-To: References: <669cb75f.1acf.149f1aac970.Coremail.zhangzuan@conac.cn> Message-ID: Dear Pitinan, Thank you for your vote. I think we can accept it, although it is after the deadline. Please note that the option (mandatory or non-mandatory) will be decided separately. Thank you very much for your comments, which I will pick up during a meeting in the near future. 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 From: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana > Date: Friday, 28 November 2014 04:05 To: Chris Dillon >, "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 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 From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Dillon, Chris Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 9:44 PM To: ?? Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Dear Peter, Thank you for your vote. It is noted. Technically, I?ve received it after the deadline, but I think there is no point in worrying about half an hour. 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 From: ?? [mailto:zhangzuan at conac.cn] Sent: 27 November 2014 14:32 To: Dillon, Chris Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Importance: High Hi Chris, Soryy for belated response. I vote for "No". It may be better for the public to see the two sides of the ?coin?. Best Regards Peter Green -----????----- ???:"Dillon, Chris" > ????:2014-11-25 17:31:51 (???) ???: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org" > ??: ??: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Dear colleagues, During Thursday's call, we had a straw poll: Are you in favor of having only one option in the initial report? As you know, in the versions of the draft initial report until now there have been two options (recommendations for and against mandatory transformation), but if it is possible to have only one, the report will likely have a stronger effect. Whatever the result of the report, the arguments for and against will remain in it; this poll only concerns the options. Please send your vote to the list if you did not vote on Thursday. The options are: Yes, No and Abstain. Please vote by 14:00 UTC on Thursday 27 November. (Note that there is no meeting on that day; the next one is 4 December.) In summary - This is not a consensus call on the options. - This is to decide whether the initial report should have one set of recommendations or two sets of recommendations. - If a majority believes it should be only one set, the WG, at a later stage (probably during our next meeting, on 4 December) will decide which set it will be. - Please bear in mind that this is the initial report and following public comments on it we will be able to modify/amend/change/reverse our draft recommendations. Incidentally, I shall email soon asking for your comments on version 5 of the report and including the rest of mine. 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 -- ??????????????????????????? ??? ?? ? ??010-5203 5153 Email?zhangzuan at conac.cn ? ??http://www.conac.cn ? ?????????????????31??????412? ? ??100028 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Fri Nov 28 10:33:13 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 10:33:13 +0000 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Policy staff Retreat 1 - 5 December 2014 Message-ID: Dear all, Policy staff will be on a their annual training retreat from the 1st to the 5th December 2014. Whilst minimum coverage of conference calls will be provided, please expect delays regarding email response time. If you do have an urgent request, please mark URGENT in the email title, so we can treat it as a matter of priority. We thank you for your understanding. Kind regards Nathalie GNSO Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From vgreimann at key-Systems.net Fri Nov 28 14:57:53 2014 From: vgreimann at key-Systems.net (Volker Greimann) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:57:53 +0100 Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options In-Reply-To: References: <669cb75f.1acf.149f1aac970.Coremail.zhangzuan@conac.cn> Message-ID: <54788D71.7040101@key-systems.net> 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* > > *From:*owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] *On Behalf Of > *Dillon, Chris > *Sent:* Thursday, November 27, 2014 9:44 PM > *To:* ?? > *Cc:* gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options > > Dear Peter, > > Thank you for your vote. It is noted. > > Technically, I?ve received it after the deadline, but I think there is > no point in worrying about half an hour. > > 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 > > > *From:*??[mailto:zhangzuan at conac.cn] > *Sent:* 27 November 2014 14:32 > *To:* Dillon, Chris > *Cc:* gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org > > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options > *Importance:* High > > Hi Chris, > > > Soryy for belated response. > > I vote for "No". It may be better for the public to see the two sides > of the ?coin?. > > Best Regards > > Peter Green > > -----????----- > *???:*"Dillon, Chris" > > *????:*2014-11-25 17:31:51 (???) > *???:* "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org > " > > > *??:* > *??:* [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options > > Dear colleagues, > > During Thursday's call, we had a straw poll: > > *Are you in favor of having only one option in the initial report?* > > As you know, in the versions of the draft initial report until now > there have been two options (recommendations for and against > mandatory transformation), but if it is possible to have only one, > the report will likely have a stronger effect. Whatever the result > of the report, the arguments for and against will remain in it; > this poll only concerns the options. > > Please send your vote to the list if you did not vote on Thursday. > The options are: *Yes, No *and*Abstain*. > > *Please vote by 14:00 UTC on Thursday 27 November*. (Note that > there is no meeting on that day; the next one is 4 December.) > > In summary > > - This is not a consensus call on the options. > > - This is to decide whether the initial report should have one set > of recommendations or two sets of recommendations. > > - If a majority believes it should be only one set, the WG, at a > later stage (probably during our next meeting, on 4 December) will > decide which set it will be. > > - Please bear in mind that this is the initial report and > following public comments on it we will be able to > modify/amend/change/reverse our draft recommendations. > > Incidentally, I shall email soon asking for your comments on > version 5 of the report and including the rest of mine. > > 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 > > > > -- > > ??????????????????????????? > > ????? > ???010-5203 5153 > Email?zhangzuan at conac.cn > ???http://www.conac.cn > ??????????????????31??????412? > ???100028 > -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verf?gung. Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f?r den angegebenen Empf?nger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver?ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empf?nger ist unzul?ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f?r Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: