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

[Peter Dernbach <pdernbach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Chris, Lars, Petter, Emily and Amr: First of all, I would like to
thank everyone for all their work on the Working Group thus far and the
recent input on the draft initial report.

I am particularly happy to see Emily's input, as we have not received much
input from the Registrars to date. I understand that membership in the
Working Groups is always open, and welcome Emily's joining the Working
Group and the discussion now as we want to ensure that the Working Group
takes into consideration the opinions of the Registrars.

My impression from the input we received from the community prior to our
meeting in London was that there was not a consensus from the community on
the first question of whether mandatory translation or transliteration of
contact information into a single language or script was desirable. Some in
the community thought it was desirable, and some thought it was not. In our
discussions in person, it did not seem that those in the room had a
consensus either. I was personally surprised at the first draft of the
strawman that suggested to me a high degree of consensus among the members
of the Working Group that translation/transliteration was not desirable. I
did not think this reflected the content of our discussions, and mentioned
this in some of the previous calls. Perhaps in our calls leading up to Los
Angeles we can explore this, and the level to which there is, or is not,
consensus.

Best regards,
Peter


 <http://www.winklerpartners.com/>

  Peter J.Dernbach
譚璧德


Partner
合夥律師(外國法事務律師)
   *T* 886 (0)2 2311 2345 # 222
*F* 886 (0)2 2311 2688   www.winklerpartners.com
pdernbach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------

NOTICE: This email and any attachments contain private, confidential and
privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.
If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or distribute
the contents and are requested to delete them and to notify the sender.

本電子郵件及其附件含有私有、機密、依法受特別保護之資料，僅供意定之收件人使用。若您並非所意定之收件人，即不得予以使用、重製或散布，並請刪除其內容，並通知寄件人。

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> 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
>