[gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Themes for discussion
Dear colleagues, I would like to assemble here some themes for discussion during tomorrow’s call, apart from the purposes/accuracy one that has already come up (see my earlier email below). Here are some other themes I am aware of: · Should we recommend that there should be an option for registrants voluntarily to input transformed contact information? · Should we recommend that something be done with legacy transformed contact information (i.e. contact information input using a different policy from what we are recommending)? · It seems likely that our recommendations for those cases when transformation occurs will not be binding. That would mean, for example, that C5 on when the policy comes into effect would need to be redrafted. · What should happen to transformed contact information created by other stakeholders? O2 may need redrafting. Please send any additional themes for discussion to this mailing list. I’ve attached the recommendations for your convenience. Regards, Chris. From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dillon, Chris Sent: 25 July 2014 11:00 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Purpose and accuracy Dear colleagues, Ideally we need to add something about the purposes of contact information that require accuracy and those that don't. The Final report from the EWG on gTLD Directory Services has a good list of purposes from p.19-34. The Study to evaluate solutions for the submission and display of internationalized contact data has a useful section on Information accuracy for effective use on p.9 with three levels of accuracy suggested: 1. Requiring accurate transformation (e.g. valid in a court of law, matching information in a passport, matching information in legal incorporation etc.) 2. Requiring consistent transformation (allowing use of such information to match other information provided in another context, e.g. to match address information to a registrant on a Google map, etc.) 3. Requiring ad hoc transformation (allowing informal or casual version of the information in another language to provide more general accessibility) The last sentence of the study is of particular interest to us from the accuracy point of view and also from its summary of the state of the transformation tools etc.: "The study has found that provisioning and querying protocols are lacking either support or deployment for internationalized registration data, and that the tools tested are not providing a high level of transformation accuracy and consistency of internationalized registration data." Do we need a better analysis of purposes and accuracy? Does one exist? Incidentally, see https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/7+Studies+and+Background+Documents for links to the reports mentioned above. 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> Attachment:
Straw man v6.docx |