[gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Responses to the complete overview table

[Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick@xxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

During the call of May 5 we have been working on the overview table put 
together by staff (Lars & Julie : many thanks) and ended up at nbr 9. Chris 
Dillon has put the responses and recommended actions together, which you can 
find below.
 
Record 1
WG Response: It may be necessary to confirm that the second use of “English” 
refers to a transliteration to the Latin alphabet.
Recommended Action: Confirm we have understood correctly
Answer: Y
 
Record 2
WG Response: A future IRDS will contain contact information in non-ASCII 
scripts.
Recommended Action: How do they see this being implemented in each member state?
Answer: N/A
 
Record 3
WG Response: The option using scripts representable in the current WHOIS is 
undesirable, as it could only cope with a strange subset of languages. The 
option linking WHOIS to non-ASCII systems is undesirable as it would be 
implemented differently locally and could end up becoming a poor long-term 
solution.
Recommended Action: A new IRDS as soon as possible.
Answer: Y
 
Record 4
WG Response: none
Recommended Action: none
Answer: Y
 
Record 5
WG Response: A future IRDS will contain contact information in non-ASCII 
scripts.
Recommended Action: How do they see this being implemented in each member state?
Answer: N/A
 
Record 6
WG Response: It is important to note that policy cannot contradict the 2013 RAA.
Recommended Action:
Answer: N
 
Record 7
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
(No answer row, as they are not and SO or AC.)
 
Record 8
WG Response: This WG has not stated that validation or transformation is 
tightly related to the role of government. The economy of a single registry 
system is noted.
Recommended Action:
Answer: Y
 
Record 9
WG Response: Most members of this WG believe that validation should be done on 
data in the original language and script.
Recommended Action:
Answer: Y

I would propose we work on the table during the coming days through email, with 
the same structure as Chris had put above. If possible we should at least try 
to have input up to Issue 5 - nbr 26. We will collect all the reactions and 
will have a discussion on them during the next call (next week). 

Hope to see you all next call.

Rudi Vansnick