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

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

Dear Volker,

Thank you for your comments.

In a future hypothetical situation where there was a DNRD in which contact 
information was stored in many scripts and the information was not transformed 
into ASCII/English, syntactic validation would be more difficult than the 
current situation, as many scripts would be involved. If transformed contact 
information were to be validated, the situation would be even more difficult 
because of the lack of (or in some cases the availability of several) 
transliteration systems. I don’t think operational or identity validation would 
be affected.

(Further information: 2013 RAA. WHOIS Accuracy Program specification p.1 and 
https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/8+Verification+and+Validation )

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: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 28 November 2014 14:58
To: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana; Dillon, Chris; zhangzuan@xxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx; Chaichana Mitrpant; Werachai 
Prayoonpruk; Kriangkrai Charernroy; Ariya Nunnual; Thiphonphan Uthaithat
Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options

Jumping in here, just to say that under the 2013 RAA the validation of contact 
info is already mandatory for registrars, requiring them to validate all 
required fields are present and that all data conforms to the right format. So 
I am not sure where you are leading with this issue that I see as completely 
out of scope for this WG.

As an aside, validation is a completely useless exercise and waste of time and 
money as any criminal will just need to reach for the next phone book for a 
list of perfectly accurate verifyable contact details. As a registrar, I feel 
comfortable stating that this is now the norm for abusive registrations and 
there is no way to prevent this with any amount of validation.

Best,

Volker
Am 28.11.2014 05:05, schrieb Pitinan Kooarmornpatana:
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