Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft initial report

[Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all

I agree with Amr's point of view.  Is there a particular reason why we need
to go back to Council at this point (I'm not particularly familiar with the
process)?  I was surprised by the recent edits because I had thought that
the group was pretty comfortable about the position we were heading in.  I
must have been wrong there, and it is useful to surface the issues within
the group and talk them through.  I see this as a point where we need to
work harder within the working group before going out to public comment (if
I've understood the intent correctly) - not sure we're quite "ready for
primetime" as the saying goes.

Best

Emily

On 30 September 2014 15:05, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Lars,
>
> Personally, I find this approach rather odd. The WG is the bottom of the
> bottom-up policy development process. It’s supposed to make concrete
> recommendations that are clearly stated in the initial report (or a draft
> of this report) with a clear indication of the WG’s consensus level with
> these recommendations. The WG shouldn't have two sets of conflicting
> recommendations, and ask others to decide which set they like better.
> That’s what the public comment period is for. This also provides an
> opportunity for any members with a minority position to provide a minority
> statement, which should be attached to the draft initial report and equally
> accessible for community review.
>
> To send a draft with two completely conflicting set of recommendations
> will only serve to confuse the readers/audience on what the consensus of
> the WG members is, following months of dialogue on the advantages and
> disadvantages of mandatory transformation.
>
> At this time, I believe the prudent course of action would be to determine
> the consensus levels among the WG members for each of the two drafts
> (Chris’ latest draft and the one with the modifications made by Petter).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Sep 30, 2014, at 11:05 AM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Emily, dear all,
>
> First I would like to say that it is good to see some activity on the
> mailing list and as the discussion on this important issue moves forward. I
> just wanted to lay out the groups’ envisaged progress from now until after
> LA to provide a little clarity where as are:
>
> *1. Later today or early tomorrow we will send out a Draft Initial Report.*
> Please note: This report will reflect both sides of the argument – one
> supporting and one opposing mandatory transformation of contact
> information. Consequently it will also contain two sets of recommendations,
> one recommending mandatory transformation and one not recommending
> mandatory transformation. Providing both sides of an argument and different
> sets of recommendations in our Initial Reports will hopefully help focus
> community feedback more effectively and propel forward the WG's discussion.
>
> *2. The Draft Initial Report, including both sides of the argument and
> both sets of recommendations, will be presented to the GNSO during ICANN 51
> in LA, and form the basis of the discussion for the WG’s face-to-face
> meeting.*
> Please note: the WG will point out explicitly that there are opposing
> views among its members and that the WG would like to  encourage feedback
> on both sides of the argument.
>
> *3. Based on the feedback, amendments will be made, and an Initial Report
>  will be produced and put out for public comment after ICANN 51*
> Please note: Regardless of the discussion/feedback gathered in LA,
> the Initial Report will contain both sides of the argument and both sets
> of recommendations, one in favour and one opposing mandatory
> transformation, to encourage informed feedback on both sides of the
> argument.
>
> *4. Based on the community feedback gathered during the public comment
> period, the Group will then discuss the community submissions and hopefully
> be able to come to a consensus on either side of the recommendations.*
> Please note: Any consensus decision will then be reflected in the WG's
> recommendations put forward in it Final Report – which is no prejudiced by
> the wording/reasoning of the Initial Report.
>
> Based on this, *I would like to ask the Group to wait until the Draft
> Initial Report has been circulated *to gather further input/feedback from
> their constituencies/stakeholder group and/or the wider community.
>
> If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to get back to
> me or Julie either on or off list.
>
> Many thanks and very best wishes,
> Lars
>
>
>
>
> From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday, 30 September 2014 10:44
> To: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx"
> <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft initial report
>
> Dear Petter
>
> Thank you for marking up and circulating your comments on the draft paper.
>
> I note that you have deleted the word "not" from draft recommendation #1,
> which reverses its meaning. This would have the effect of making
> transformation of contact data mandatory, which has not been the consensus
> in the working group as far as I am aware.
>
> I'm also not sure of the basis for the proposed change "the main part of
> the stakeholders" in favour of mandatory transformation.  I thought the
> previous text which acknowledged that "some" are in favour, was a fairer
> representation of opinions on the working group.
>
> The recommendation #5 now imposes costs of transformation on registries
> and registrars.  Again, I do not see this as reflecting the consensus in
> group.
>
> You have also removed the important text (page 4, para 3, that the costs
> of transformation are likely to outweigh the benefits.  This is
> particularly important as the paper has rehearsed the complexity of
> transliteration/translation of proper names and address data.
>
> I will be circulating your draft to the Registrar stakeholder group for
> comments, but wanted to give an immediate heads up that the changes
> proposed in your version circulated on 29 September are controversial,
> unlikely to be acceptable to industry colleagues, and are likely to upset
> the consensus in the policy working group.
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
> Emily.
>
> On 30 September 2014 08:00, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Dear Petter,
>> Thank you very much for your amendments - very good to see some activity
>> on the list. Alas, as you might recall, we are working on a Draft
>> Initial Report that we thought to send out to the Group today – I  hope to
>> re–edit the document based on your submission as soon as possible, still,
>> it might somewhat delay the Draft Report’s completion and distribution for
>> review.
>> Many thanks and best wishes,
>> Lars
>>
>>
>> From: Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reply-To: "petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <
>> petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Monday, 29 September 2014 22:53
>> To: "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <
>> gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft initial report
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I have made some "minor" changes, based on the initial IPC comments (see
>> enclosed).
>>
>> Best,
>> Petter
>>
>> --
>> Petter Rindforth, LL M
>>
>> Fenix Legal KB
>> Stureplan 4c, 4tr
>> 114 35 Stockholm
>> Sweden
>> Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
>> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
>> E-mail: petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> www.fenixlegal.eu
>>
>>
>> NOTICE
>> This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals
>> to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client
>> privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this
>> message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy
>> or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it
>> immediately and notify us by return e-mail.
>> Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu
>> Thank you
>>
>> 12 september 2014, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx> skrev:
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> Just to confirm that it was decided to start work on turning the straw
>> man (latest version attached) into a draft initial report, the first
>> version of which, it is hoped, will be presented during our call on 25 Sept.
>>
>> In the meantime, please submit any suggestions or corrections to the
>> list. Speaking of corrections, note that there is rather a confusing typo
>> in paragraph 1 of Appendix B: *registrar* should read *registrant*.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> *From:*owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx [
>> mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>> <owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>] *On Behalf Of *Nathalie
>> Peregrine
>> *Sent:* 11 September 2014 21:44
>> *To:* gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>> *Cc:* gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx
>> *Subject:* [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] MP3 Translation and Transliteration
>> of Contact Information PDP WG meeting - 11 September 2014
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Please find the MP3 recording for the Translation and Transliteration of
>> Contact Information PDP Working Group call held on Thursday 11 September
>> at 1300 UTC at:
>> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-transliteration-contact-20140911-en.mp3
>>
>> On page:
>>
>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep
>> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO
>> Master Calendar page:
>> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/
>>
>> *Attendees:*
>> Chris Dillon – NCSG
>> Ubolthip Sethakaset – Individual
>> Peter Dernbach- IPC
>> Pitinan Kooarmornpatana-GAC
>> Peter Green (Zhang Zuan)-NCUC
>> Justine Chew- Individual
>> Rudi Vansnick – NPOC
>> Lindsay Hamilton Reid – RrSG
>> Jennifer Chung – RySG
>> Wen Zhai - NTAG
>>
>> *Apologies: *
>> Petter Rindforth – IPC
>> Jim Galvin – SSAC
>> Emily Taylor - RrSG
>>
>> *ICANN staff:*
>> Julie Hedlund
>> Lars Hoffmann
>> Amy Bivins
>> Glen de Saint Gery
>> Nathalie Peregrine
>>
>> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
>>
>>  Wiki page:http://tinyurl.com/mpwxstx
>>
>> Thank you.
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Nathalie
>> GNSO Secretariat
>>
>> *Adobe Chat Transcript for Thursday 11 September 2014:*
>>  Nathalie  Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the Translation and
>> Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working group call on the 11th
>> September 2014
>>   Jennifer Chung:Hello Nathalie and Julie!
>>   Nathalie  Peregrine:Hello Jennifer!
>>   Jennifer Chung:It looks a bit thin on the numbers right now?
>>   Chris Dillon:Hello all
>>   Jennifer Chung:Hello Chris
>>   Rudi Vansnick:hello everyone
>>   Julie Hedlund:@Chris: I've made you a host so you can move the
>> document on the screen.
>>   Chris Dillon:Thanks
>>   Peter Dernbach:Hell all.
>>   Peter Dernbach:Hello all.
>>   Wen Zhai:Good evening~
>>   Chris Dillon:Good afternoon!
>>   Wen Zhai::)
>>   Nathalie  Peregrine:noted! for Emily Taylor
>>   Justine Chew:@Chris: Yes, happy with your suggestion
>>   Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:Apologies for being late.
>>   Rudi Vansnick:are there any suggestions to add to the present document ?
>>   Peter Dernbach:In Appendix B you refer to "registrars" but I think you
>> mean "registrants".
>>   Peter Dernbach:"easier to contact registrars"
>>   Rudi Vansnick:yes should be registrants in fact
>>   Rudi Vansnick:end of paragraph 1
>>   Peter Dernbach:and end of paragraph 2
>>   Rudi Vansnick:could be both also !
>>   Justine Chew:yes could be both
>>   Justine Chew:@Rudi: +1
>>   Justine Chew:Since we are making recommendations, perhaps mention it
>> and qualify if it is not within the WG scope?
>>   Rudi Vansnick:thank you all
>>   Jennifer Chung:Thank you Chris, thanks all.
>>   Pitinan Kooarmornpatana:thanks all
>>   Julie Hedlund:Thank you everyone!
>>   Chris Dillon:Thank you.
>>   Chris Dillon:We have some busy weeks coming up!
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Emily Taylor
>
> *MA(Cantab), MBA*
> Director
>
> *Netistrar Limited*
> 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DD11 0DL | T: +44 1865 582811 |
> M: +44 7540 049322
> E: emily.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | W: www.netistrar.com
>
> Registered office: Netistrar Limited, 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote,
> Derbyshire DE11 0DL UK. Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT
> No. 190062332
>
>
>


-- 

Emily Taylor

*MA(Cantab), MBA*
Director

*Netistrar Limited*
661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DD11 0DL | T: +44 1865 582811 | M: +44
7540 049322
E: emily.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | W: www.netistrar.com

Registered office: Netistrar Limited, 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote,
Derbyshire DE11 0DL UK. Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT
No. 190062332