ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Preparation for today's call

  • To: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Preparation for today's call
  • From: "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 08:22:11 +0000

Dear colleagues,

I'd like herewith to circulate ver.6 of the straw man and a list of the 
remaining major themes of which I'm aware, so that it is handy for today's call.

Going through the document, the only other major theme I spotted was legacy 
data (which we did discuss last week). This certainly doesn't mean that there 
are no more major themes, just that I have looked at this document so many 
times I am no longer seeing them. You are more than welcome to bring them up 
before or during the call.

Incidentally, UCL's email system has now recovered from last week's forwarding 
problems.

Regards,

Chris.

==

...
Some of the themes still requiring attention are:

1.    Is it within the remit of this group to consider the purpose of data? 
Purpose is certainly covered in detail in the 'Final report from the EWG on 
gTLD Directory Services'. I fear we cannot ignore purpose, as there is a close 
link to need for accuracy (which again is linked to how any transformation is 
done). As I mentioned during the call, asking the question "Which purposes may 
be adequately fulfilled with inaccurate data?" may be a useful approach.

2.    During the call I wasn't sure what to do with registrants applying for 
domain names in languages not typically supported in a country - for example, a 
Russian applying to a Chinese registrar for a Russian Cyrillic domain name. 
Presumably registrars would do a business analysis; in this case Chinese 
registrars would decide whether to sell Russian Cyrillic domain names. If the 
guidelines in the straw man are followed, the Russian would be inputting data 
in Russian Cyrillic.

3.    For those stakeholders who do decide to transform, how binding are our 
recommendations?

4.    The draft was written, presuming that allowing registrants optionally to 
transform data could be an easy way of building up transformed data in the 
database. However, such optional transformation raises data quality, matching 
and versioning problems. Do we actually want actively to discourage 
transformation and have a simpler database with data only in original language 
and script?
...

Attachment: Straw man v6.docx
Description: Straw man v6.docx



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy