[gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Re: FOR REVIEW: Draft PDP WG Charter

["Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Julie,

Thank you for clearing that up.

It does sound as if the decisions of the other WG could affect this one, if it 
provides additional motivation for groups to provide non-Roman script data.

Regards,

Chris.
==
Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Dept of Information Studies, UCL, 
Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) 
ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon

From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, 14 August 2013 14:39
To: Chris Dillon <c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: 
"gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: FOR REVIEW: Draft PDP WG Charter

Dear Chris,

Thank you for your helpful reply.  To your first question, the need for 
inclusion of non-ASCII contact data is to enable those people who use non-ASCII 
scripts to be able to access those data.  For example, if I use the Arabic 
script, I may still wish to be able to contact the domain name registration 
owner.  If that contact information is only in ASCII script, it may not be 
accessible to me.  If, however, it can appear in a non-ASCII script, then I 
will be able to see and use the information.  The issue in the PDP how should 
this be accomplished and who should bear the burden.  Also, should one simply 
transliterate the information, or should one also translate it?  The IRD-WG 
didn't address security implications concerning the provision of non-ASCII 
data, but the Charter DT could decide whether that is in the scope of the work 
for the PDP-WG.  It may be, however, that the issue of security of 
internationalized registration data in general will be covered under another WG.

In particular, there is a WG that is starting up that is tasked with 
determining the requirements for internationalized registration data (IRD) and 
producing a data model for IRD.  It relates to the task in the Board's Action 
Plan relating to its 08 November 2012 resolution that directed staff to: 1) 
task a working group to determine the appropriate internationalized domain name 
registration data requirements, evaluating any relevant recommendations from 
the SSAC or GNSO; 2) produce a data model that includes (any) requirements for 
the translation or transliteration of the registration data, taking into 
account the results of any PDP initiated by the GNSO on translation/ 
transliteration, and the standardized replacement protocol under development in 
the IETF’s Webbased Extensible Internet Registration Data Working Group; 3) 
evaluate available solutions (including solutions being implemented by ccTLDs). 
 Thus, the results of the PDP on translation and transliteration of contact 
information will be considered by this WG.

To your second question, the 5th model was suggested not by the IRD-WG but in a 
comment received in the public form on the preliminary report when it was 
published.  Thus, it was not part one of the models discussed in the original 
report.

I hope that this is helpful.

Best regards,

Julie

From: <Dillon>, Chris <c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 5:33 AM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft PDP WG Charter

Dear Julie,

It’s really great to have this draft so soon and it includes a really good 
summary of the documents and the procedures now necessary.

I’m not sure whether the following should be in the document, but I am 
interested in what is driving the need for inclusion of non-ASCII data, 
probably security considerations. I feel these are relevant, as they may help 
to motivate whoever ends up providing the additional data required for a new 
format. For example, there was/is a proposal for a traffic light system in 
which websites providing certain information could be considered more secure 
(greener) than those that didn’t (redder).

I was interested to see all five models listed on p.4, but am curious about why 
one of the models was originally relegated to a note on the last page of ‘The 
final issue report: translation and transliteration of contact information’, 
whereas the other four models were fully developed in the report.

Regards,

Chris.
--
Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Dept of Information Studies, UCL, 
Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) 
ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon

From: 
owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
 [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: 14 August 2013 00:04
To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] FOR REVIEW: Draft PDP WG Charter
Importance: High

Dear members of the Charter Drafting Team,

Per our actions below from our first meeting, attached you will find a draft 
charter for your review and for discussion at our next meeting on Thursday, 15 
August  1500 UTC (08:00 PDT, 11:00 EDT, 16:00 London, 17:00 CEST).  A meeting 
notification with teleconference information has been sent separately.

Actions:

1.  Selecting Chair/Co-Chairs:  During today's meeting Chris Dillon and Rudi 
Vansnick volunteered to be co-chairs.  Please let us know if others would like 
to volunteer and/or support Chris and Rudi.

2.  Draft Charter: Staff will provide a draft charter for review by COB 
Tuesday, 13 August.  It will be posted in the wiki and in the Adobe Connect 
room for discussion at the meeting on 15 August. (DONE — attached)

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards,
Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director