RE: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] RE: REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised Draft PDP WG Charter

[vinay kumar singh <vinaysingh85@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Chris,

Greetings of the day!!!

As discussed in the previous meeting regarding the "Legal Issues"- raised by 
Rudi, the conclusion we arrived was, we may get legal advice from lCANN legal 
team. But I think we need to discuss in elaborate the mechanism that could be 
worked on to address the legal issues by PDP team. 

For further details regarding the legal implications that would arise during 
the Translation and Transliteration process :
Refer paragraph 4 on page number 16 of the document:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf

Regards,
Vinay Kumar Singh
Student: LL.B. with Honors in Intellectual Property

Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

India

Mobile: +91 8509 227 666
Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] RE: REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised Draft 
PDP WG Charter
From: rudi.vansnick@xxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 10:36:18 +0200
CC: julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
To: c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx

Dear Chris,
As you said the document drafted by Julie is great and is not easy to improve. 
All is covered as far as I understand the principles of the duty of the draft 
team. It is up to the WG to elaborate responses to the given questions and 
issues. I would let the WG decide if they want to extend the 5 present models. 
It would require some investigation for us to define a sixth model, that 
perhaps was already discussed previously and was not withhold.
Interesting sample question ... a lot to discuss but isn't that the duty of the 
WG ? We are only the charter drafting team ... 
Till later today.

Rudi Vansnick
Chair NPOC Policy Committee - ICANN  - www.npoc.org
Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 - Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16
rudi.vansnick@xxxxxxx




Op 22-aug.-2013, om 09:12 heeft "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx> het 
volgende geschreven:Dear colleagues, Julie’s drafting is difficult to 
improve.However, I wonder if it would be good to have a line explicitly 
indicating that the PDP WG will be free to modify the five alternatives in 
Section II, effectively creating a sixth one which is recommended/preferred. 
Beyond that my mind is starting to think about translation/transliteration 
principles for the representation of contact details (rather than notes for so 
many languages), but that is probably best left to the PDP WG. An example of a 
principle might be the answer to the question “What happens if there is more 
than one Romanization (transliteration) for a language in common use?”. Looking 
forward to speaking later, 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] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: 21 August 2013 20:05
To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised Draft PDP WG 
Charter
Importance: High Dear members of the Charter Drafting Team, This is a reminder 
that per our actions from our meeting that week, attached you will find a 
revised draft charter for your review and for discussion at our next meeting on 
Thursday, 22 August  1500 UTC (08:00 PDT, 11:00 EDT, 16:00 London, 17:00 CEST). 
 The changes are reflected as redlines.  This also is posted on wiki at: 
https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/22+August+2013.  Please let me 
know if you have any questions. Best regards,Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy 
Director