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

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

Dear Rudy,

I agree we should let the WG decide if they want to run with one of the models, 
or another one. I'm just wondering whether we should add a sentence to make it 
clear that they are not tied to the five models.

I also agree that questions like my sample one is their work.

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 Rudi Vansnick
Sent: 22 August 2013 09:36
To: Dillon, Chris
Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] RE: REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised Draft 
PDP WG Charter

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<http://www.npoc.org/>

Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 - Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16
rudi.vansnick@xxxxxxx<mailto:rudi.vansnick@xxxxxxx>


Op 22-aug.-2013, om 09:12 heeft "Dillon, Chris" 
<c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<http://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<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>]
 On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: 21 August 2013 20:05
To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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