Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft Initial Report attached

[Justine Chew <justine.chew@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Chris,

Just in case I have to skip the call later, I thought I'd better put in my
preliminary thoughts to Draft Initial Report Version1.doc circulated by
Lars 2 days ago.

I will leave debate as to the merits of the posing draft recommendations
both for and against mandatory transformation to the larger group but I do
note the presence of divergence in the WG in respect of opinions for and
against the same.

At this point I am limiting my queries/comments/suggestions to the 2 sets
of Draft Recommendations on pages 14 and 15 of the Draft Initial Report
Version 1. There are:-


*Draft Recommendations Alternative #1 (i.e For)*
1. Is the WG withholding an extension of the 2nd and 3rd bullet points to
specify that English is the preferred Latin script? This is a query with
reference to the remark made by the IRD-WG "If translation were desired,
then the "must be present" language would be English" (found at the end of
para 1 of page 21 of the Draft Initial Report Version 1.


*Draft Recommendations Alternative #2 (i.e. Against)*
2. While I note that the first main Charter question is worded as "Whether
it is desirable to .....", I find the wording of the first bullet point
recommendation a little disconcerting. My position is that transformation
is desirable but should not be mandatory. Hence, I would ask if there is
any leeway to reword the 1st bullet point recommendation to state that
while making transformation of contact is desirable it should not be
mandatory? However, if the WG is constrained to answer in strict form to
the wording of the Charter question, then so be it.

3. In the 4th bullet point recommendation, I would venture to recommend
that registrar and registry assure that the data fields are not only
consistent but also accurate.

4. In the last bullet point recommendation, I think the last word
"accuracy" should be replaced with "accessibility". Accuracy of data stems
from the original registration process (in whatever language/script) which
I presume is established when a registrar or registry checks and verifies
the identity of the registrant during the registration process. So in
choosing to perform transformation of contact information, Registrars are
in fact allowing for maximum accessibility. A middle ground would be "to
allow for maximum accessibility and accuracy".

That's it for now, thanks.

Best,

Justine Chew
-----

On 2 October 2014 09:40, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Hi all,
>
>  Thank you every one for the report and thanks Lar for the good
> suggestion.
> Looking forward to discussing the initial report in the next call.
>
>  Best regards,
>
>  Pitinan
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 2, 2014, at 5:19 AM, "Petter Rindforth" <
> petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  Lars,
>
>  Very good suggestion, that seems the best way to deal with this without
> losing more time.
>
>  Best,
> Petter ("the bad guy")
>
> --
> 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
>
> 1 oktober 2014, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> skrev:
>
>  Hi,
>
>  Sounds good to me. I would recommend that, to avoid confusion, the
> standard decision-making thresholds detailed in the GNSO working group
> guidelines be used.
>
>  Thanks.
>
>  Amr
>
>  On Sep 30, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>  Dear all,
>
>  If I may chip in one more time. If there remains doubt about whether or
> not to make a consensus call for the Initial Report (and this does not have
> to be decided until after LA), one option could be to take a feel of the
> room and see who would support which set of recommendations. Based on that
> the Group could then add to the Initial Report that a small/large majority
> supports this recommendation and a small/large minority supports this other
> set. Maybe something else to discuss on Thursday’s call.
>
>  Very best,
> Lars
>
>
>
>
>   From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday, 30 September 2014 19:42
> To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx>, "
> 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 attached
>
>   Hi there
>
>  I'd like to echo Amr's thanks to Chris, Lars and the team.  I would also
> welcome some level of information about the consensus level at this stage.
> It would be helpful to those commenting (as Amr has pointed out).  I think
> it would also help us as a working group to try to articulate and
> understand the range of opinions within the group.
>
>  Best
>
> Emily
>
> On 30 September 2014 17:52, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
>  Thanks for the work on the document, Lars, Chris and everyone involved
> in bringing it together. I still feel that a consensus level should be
> determined on each set of alternative recommendations, and included in the
> draft report. Part of reporting a working group’s progress at this stage
> should be reporting to the public where the WG participants stand. So
> again, I ask that we determine these consensus levels and replace the
> findings with the observation made on page 14 under “Current state of
> discussion”. Although this section is not technically inaccurate, it is
> only because a consensus call on the sets of recommendations hasn’t been
> requested by the WG chairs. That could be remedied.
>
>  Some more comments in line below:
>
>  On Sep 30, 2014, at 5:58 PM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>  Hi Amr, Emily, all
>
>
> Thank your for your thoughts! And before I respond, please let me point
> out that I have attached a first version of the Draft Initial Report.
>
>
> Just a quick note clarifying my ‘roadmap’ from my original email and also
> addressing the important points that have been raised.
>
>
> Please note that this is a draft Initial Report. As such it is not yet
> ready to go for public comment and it is not intended to go out before (nor
> during) ICANN 51. The document is produced now so that WG members have a
> substantial draft to present and discuss in LA. The Group will continue
> discussing the draft on Thursday's call and in LA during its face-to-face
> meeting. Potentially, further feedback from the community might come
> forward and feed into further amendments following LA. Only then would it
> the Initial Report be put out for public comment.
>
>
>  Thanks. That sounds great.
>
>   Because the Group is faced with a binary question, the idea was to
> provide clearly to the community both sides of the argument that have been
> discussed (for an against mandatory transformation) and also provide the
> two logical recommendations that flow from these different sides of the
> arguments:  mandatory transformation; no mandatory transformation. This
> would be done to help encourage community feedback during the public
> comment period that follows the finalized Initial Report post ICANN51.
>
>
>  Presenting the pros and cons of policy findings in a WG report does not
> preclude defining a current consensus level. This was done, for example,
> with the initial and final reports of the “thick” WHOIS PDP WG (
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/thick-whois).
>
>  Also, the PDP Manual does not prescribe a mandatory formal consensus
> level call be conducted for an Initial Report - though it is of course an
> option. This is to allow for differences among WGs depending on each
> group’s deliberations to date, such that the WG and its co–Chairs could
> decide not to determine consensus level at this stage, including on the
> basis that community feedback is important for informing the Final Report
> and the formal Consensus Call that will need to be done. In this way,
> relevant input from the public comment period will be assessed and fed into
> the Final Report that will only contain one set of recommendations, to be
> determined after the formal Consensus Call takes place. At that point,
> Minority Statement(s), if needed, can still be produced and attached to the
> Final Report. You may be interested to know that this approach was also
> recently followed for the IRTP-D and IGO-INGO PDP WGs.
>
>
>  True. A consensus level at this stage is not required and only a
> tentative one, which may change following the public comment period. Still,
> it is informative and helpful to the community on where the WG members
> stand as a result of the work that has been done. Like I said, this was
> included in both reports of the “thick” WHOIS PDP WG referred to above.
>
>  In any case, the Draft Initial Report is an amalgamation of Chris’ straw
> man and Petter’s modified version and so maybe a decision on which way to
> move forward could be taken on Thursday when everybody had the chance to
> read though the document? I would be able to amend the document very
> quickly after Thursday’s call - based on the way forwarded decided by the
> WG membership.
>
>
>  Thanks again to the drafters, and thanks to you, Lars, for your
> willingness to accommodate our shifting requests. :)
>
>  Amr
>
>
>
>
>
>  --
>  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
>
>
>