Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options

["Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Pitinan,

Thank you for your vote. I think we can accept it, although it is after the 
deadline.
Please note that the option (mandatory or non-mandatory) will be decided 
separately.

Thank you very much for your comments, which I will pick up during a meeting in 
the near future.

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: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:pitinan@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, 28 November 2014 04:05
To: Chris Dillon <c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"zhangzuan@xxxxxxxx<mailto:zhangzuan@xxxxxxxx>" 
<zhangzuan@xxxxxxxx<mailto:zhangzuan@xxxxxxxx>>
Cc: 
"gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
Chaichana Mitrpant <chaichana@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:chaichana@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 
Werachai Prayoonpruk <werachai@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:werachai@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 
Kriangkrai Charernroy <kriangkrai@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:kriangkrai@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 
Ariya Nunnual <ariya@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ariya@xxxxxxxxxx>>, Thiphonphan 
Uthaithat <thiphonphan@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:thiphonphan@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options

Dear all,

Hope this is not too late to cast my vote.

My quick answer is  "Yes - we should have one option"
that option is "Mandatory  (..to have the trustable contact info)"
However, in my humble opinion, it is not mandatory to "transform the contact 
info" but Mandatory to "validate the contact info"

As much as I bear in mind that the validate-or-not is out of the scope of our 
WG’s scope, but I found it's very hard making decision of this two functions 
separately.
Kindly let me try to explain.

-----------------------------
I think we do agree that:
-----------------------------
1. ICANN principle of non-discrimination and reach-out will always allow 
registrants to input the contact-info in local language – which is good,

2. the validated contact info is preferable,

3. there will surely be cost associated to the one who do the validation. But, 
the validation is much cheaper or even only-possible when using contact info in 
local-script, and using local validator (like Thailand Post validating any 
Address in Thailand),

4. once the contact-info in local script is validated, then it is not too 
troublesome to 'transform' into any language, either using tool or 
human-translator for quick understanding purpose or the first clue to contact 
the entity. And when you need to act any legal action to the entity you will 
need the legal document in local script or legally-notarized-translated version 
anyway.

5. it is quite promising that ICANN approach of improving whois information 
will include the validating too.

6. Lastly, internet is all connected, any critical rule or policy should apply 
to all (mandatory) across the globe to avoid the loophole of the internet 
governance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From points above, the answer of transforming-or-not depends on how we do 
validation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario1: The contact info must be validated by local validator
                --> then there is no need to transform

Scenario2: The contact info could be validated by non-local validator
                --> then it must be transformed in the standardized way so the 
non-local validator can perform

Scenario3: There is no need to validate contact information
                --> then there is no need to do anything… it’s trash in – trash 
out

---------------
In Summary
---------------
I believe that it will likely to be scenario1 – trustable data, not so costly

That’s why I would say,
Yes, there should be one option,
If is mandatory to validate the contact info, There is no need to transform the 
script.

-------------


Thank you and Very Best Regards,


Pitinan Kooarmornpatana
Director of Information Infrastructure Office

Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA)
T: 02-123-1234, F: 02-123-1200
+(66) 81 375 3433
pitinan at etda.or.th


From: 
owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
 [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dillon, Chris
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 9:44 PM
To: 张钻
Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your vote. It is noted.

Technically, I’ve received it after the deadline, but I think there is no point 
in worrying about half an hour.

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>

From: 张钻 [mailto:zhangzuan@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: 27 November 2014 14:32
To: Dillon, Chris
Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options
Importance: High

Hi Chris,

Soryy for belated response.

I vote for "No". It may be better for the public to see the two sides of the 
“coin”.

Best Regards
Peter Green
-----原始邮件-----
发件人:"Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx>>
发送时间:2014-11-25 17:31:51 (星期二)
收件人: 
"gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
抄送:
主题: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options
Dear colleagues,

During Thursday's call, we had a straw poll:
Are you in favor of having only one option in the initial report?
As you know, in the versions of the draft initial report until now there have 
been two options (recommendations for and against mandatory transformation), 
but if it is possible to have only one, the report will likely have a stronger 
effect. Whatever the result of the report, the arguments for and against will 
remain in it; this poll only concerns the options.
Please send your vote to the list if you did not vote on Thursday. The options 
are: Yes, No and Abstain.
Please vote by 14:00 UTC on Thursday 27 November. (Note that there is no 
meeting on that day; the next one is 4 December.)

In summary
- This is not a consensus call on the options.
- This is to decide whether the initial report should have one set of 
recommendations or two sets of recommendations.
- If a majority believes it should be only one set, the WG, at a later stage 
(probably during our next meeting, on 4 December) will decide which set it will 
be.
- Please bear in mind that this is the initial report and following public 
comments on it we will be able to modify/amend/change/reverse our draft 
recommendations.

Incidentally, I shall email soon asking for your comments on version 5 of the 
report and including the rest of mine.

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>


--

政务和公益机构域名注册管理中心（中央编办事业发展中心）

国际部     张钻
电 话：010-5203 5153
Email：zhangzuan@xxxxxxxx<mailto:zhangzuan@xxxxxxxx>
网 址：http://www.conac.cn
地 址：北京市朝阳区西坝河光熙门北里甲31号中央编办楼412室
邮 编：100028