[gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft Initial Report attached

Thu Oct 2 11:15:10 UTC 2014

Dear Justine,

Thank you for your points. If you are unable to make the call, I shall put them for you.

Regards,

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

From: Justine Chew [mailto:justine.chew at gmail.com]
Sent: 02 October 2014 11:53
To: Dillon, Chris
Cc: Lars Hoffmann; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft Initial Report attached

Hi Chris,

Just in case I have to skip the call later, I thought I'd better put in my preliminary thoughts to Draft Initial Report Version1.doc circulated by Lars 2 days ago.

I will leave debate as to the merits of the posing draft recommendations both for and against mandatory transformation to the larger group but I do note the presence of divergence in the WG in respect of opinions for and against the same.

At this point I am limiting my queries/comments/suggestions to the 2 sets of Draft Recommendations on pages 14 and 15 of the Draft Initial Report Version 1. There are:-

Draft Recommendations Alternative #1 (i.e For)
1. Is the WG withholding an extension of the 2nd and 3rd bullet points to specify that English is the preferred Latin script? This is a query with reference to the remark made by the IRD-WG "If translation were desired, then the "must be present" language would be English" (found at the end of para 1 of page 21 of the Draft Initial Report Version 1.

Draft Recommendations Alternative #2 (i.e. Against)
2. While I note that the first main Charter question is worded as "Whether it is desirable to .....", I find the wording of the first bullet point recommendation a little disconcerting. My position is that transformation is desirable but should not be mandatory. Hence, I would ask if there is any leeway to reword the 1st bullet point recommendation to state that while making transformation of contact is desirable it should not be mandatory? However, if the WG is constrained to answer in strict form to the wording of the Charter question, then so be it.

3. In the 4th bullet point recommendation, I would venture to recommend that registrar and registry assure that the data fields are not only consistent but also accurate.

4. In the last bullet point recommendation, I think the last word "accuracy" should be replaced with "accessibility". Accuracy of data stems from the original registration process (in whatever language/script) which I presume is established when a registrar or registry checks and verifies the identity of the registrant during the registration process. So in choosing to perform transformation of contact information, Registrars are in fact allowing for maximum accessibility. A middle ground would be "to allow for maximum accessibility and accuracy".

That's it for now, thanks.

Best,

Justine Chew
-----

On 2 October 2014 09:40, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan at etda.or.th<mailto:pitinan at etda.or.th>> wrote:
Hi all,

Thank you every one for the report and thanks Lar for the good suggestion.
Looking forward to discussing the initial report in the next call.

Best regards,

Pitinan

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 2, 2014, at 5:19 AM, "Petter Rindforth" <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>> wrote:
Lars,

Very good suggestion, that seems the best way to deal with this without losing more time.

Best,
Petter ("the bad guy")

--
Petter Rindforth, LL M

Fenix Legal KB
Stureplan 4c, 4tr
114 35 Stockholm
Sweden
Fax: +46(0)8-4631010<tel:%2B46%280%298-4631010>
Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>
www.fenixlegal.eu<http://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<http://www.fenixlegal.eu>
Thank you

1 oktober 2014, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> skrev:
Hi,

Sounds good to me. I would recommend that, to avoid confusion, the standard decision-making thresholds detailed in the GNSO working group guidelines be used.

Thanks.

Amr

On Sep 30, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann at icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann at icann.org>> wrote:

Dear all,

If I may chip in one more time. If there remains doubt about whether or not to make a consensus call for the Initial Report (and this does not have to be decided until after LA), one option could be to take a feel of the room and see who would support which set of recommendations. Based on that the Group could then add to the Initial Report that a small/large majority supports this recommendation and a small/large minority supports this other set. Maybe something else to discuss on Thursday’s call.

Very best,
Lars

From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at netistrar.com<mailto:emily.taylor at netistrar.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 30 September 2014 19:42
To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
Cc: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann at icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann at icann.org>>, "petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>" <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>>, "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk<mailto:c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk>>, "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft Initial Report attached

Hi there

I'd like to echo Amr's thanks to Chris, Lars and the team.  I would also welcome some level of information about the consensus level at this stage.  It would be helpful to those commenting (as Amr has pointed out).  I think it would also help us as a working group to try to articulate and understand the range of opinions within the group.

Best

Emily

On 30 September 2014 17:52, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
Hi,

Thanks for the work on the document, Lars, Chris and everyone involved in bringing it together. I still feel that a consensus level should be determined on each set of alternative recommendations, and included in the draft report. Part of reporting a working group’s progress at this stage should be reporting to the public where the WG participants stand. So again, I ask that we determine these consensus levels and replace the findings with the observation made on page 14 under “Current state of discussion”. Although this section is not technically inaccurate, it is only because a consensus call on the sets of recommendations hasn’t been requested by the WG chairs. That could be remedied.

Some more comments in line below:

On Sep 30, 2014, at 5:58 PM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann at icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann at icann.org>> wrote:

Hi Amr, Emily, all

Thank your for your thoughts! And before I respond, please let me point out that I have attached a first version of the Draft Initial Report.

Just a quick note clarifying my ‘roadmap’ from my original email and also addressing the important points that have been raised.

Please note that this is a draft Initial Report. As such it is not yet ready to go for public comment and it is not intended to go out before (nor during) ICANN 51. The document is produced now so that WG members have a substantial draft to present and discuss in LA. The Group will continue discussing the draft on Thursday's call and in LA during its face-to-face meeting. Potentially, further feedback from the community might come forward and feed into further amendments following LA. Only then would it the Initial Report be put out for public comment.

Thanks. That sounds great.

Because the Group is faced with a binary question, the idea was to provide clearly to the community both sides of the argument that have been discussed (for an against mandatory transformation) and also provide the two logical recommendations that flow from these different sides of the arguments:  mandatory transformation; no mandatory transformation. This would be done to help encourage community feedback during the public comment period that follows the finalized Initial Report post ICANN51.

Presenting the pros and cons of policy findings in a WG report does not preclude defining a current consensus level. This was done, for example, with the initial and final reports of the “thick” WHOIS PDP WG (http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/thick-whois).

Also, the PDP Manual does not prescribe a mandatory formal consensus level call be conducted for an Initial Report - though it is of course an option. This is to allow for differences among WGs depending on each group’s deliberations to date, such that the WG and its co–Chairs could decide not to determine consensus level at this stage, including on the basis that community feedback is important for informing the Final Report and the formal Consensus Call that will need to be done. In this way, relevant input from the public comment period will be assessed and fed into the Final Report that will only contain one set of recommendations, to be determined after the formal Consensus Call takes place. At that point, Minority Statement(s), if needed, can still be produced and attached to the Final Report. You may be interested to know that this approach was also recently followed for the IRTP-D and IGO-INGO PDP WGs.

True. A consensus level at this stage is not required and only a tentative one, which may change following the public comment period. Still, it is informative and helpful to the community on where the WG members stand as a result of the work that has been done. Like I said, this was included in both reports of the “thick” WHOIS PDP WG referred to above.

In any case, the Draft Initial Report is an amalgamation of Chris’ straw man and Petter’s modified version and so maybe a decision on which way to move forward could be taken on Thursday when everybody had the chance to read though the document? I would be able to amend the document very quickly after Thursday’s call - based on the way forwarded decided by the WG membership.

Thanks again to the drafters, and thanks to you, Lars, for your willingness to accommodate our shifting requests. :)

Amr

--
Emily Taylor

MA(Cantab), MBA
Director

Netistrar Limited
661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DD11 0DL | T: +44 1865 582811<tel:%2B44%201865%20582811> | M: +44 7540 049322<tel:%2B44%207540%20049322>
E: emily.taylor at netistrar.com<mailto:emily.taylor at netistrar.com> | W: www.netistrar.com<http://www.netistrar.com/>

Error! Filename not specified.

Registered office: Netistrar Limited, 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DE11 0DL UK. Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg/attachments/20141002/c7494756/attachment.html>