<<<
Chronological Index
>>>    <<<
Thread Index
>>>
 
Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Virtual continuation of Thursday 20's T&T meeting
- To: "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx>,        "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
 
- Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Virtual continuation of Thursday 20's T&T meeting
 
- From: James Galvin <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
 
- Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 10:09:43 -0500
 
 
 
Chris,
 Is it possible to distribute the DOC version of the file?  It's much 
easier to comment inline than to write on paper or transcribe comments 
into an email message.
Thanks,
Jim
On 11/26/14, 6:50 AM, Dillon, Chris wrote:
 
Dear colleagues,
 As I mentioned in my last meeting I would like to continue Thursday's 
call virtually, encouraging you to comment on version 5 of the Draft 
initial report (attached). Here are the comments I would have made if 
we had had more time:
 p.12 Mike asks us [MZ14 and MZ31] whether "increase in users that are 
not familiar with the Latin script" should be replaced with "increase 
in users whose languages are not based on the Latin script". Both 
aspects are true, but the latter wording hints at the former and so is 
a good replacement. As a statement the latter version would also be 
less Anglocentric.
 In MZ15, Mike suggests that some statements about law enforcement are 
actually broader. That seems true and I can at least add "for 
example". However, does anyone have concrete examples of organizations 
apart from law enforcement for which transformation to a Latin script 
would be useful?
 p.13 In ER16 and ER17 Erika highlights an apparent contradiction. The 
bullet point at the top of p.12 says that transformation would need to 
take place at a later stage (than entry by registered name holders) 
and that this would be detrimental to accuracy and consistency. The 
bullet point above the ccTLD graphic argues that only the data fields 
should be transformed by the registrar or registry. I will make clear 
the distinction between transformation (of data - how we have been 
using the term "transformation" on its own) and transformation of 
field names. Moreover, accuracy (at least senses 1 and 2 in the 
footnote) and consistency are likely to be worse the greater number of 
players involved i.e. if registrants were to do the transformation.
 CD18 Is anyone aware of reasons why the ccTLD approach exemplified 
wouldn't work with gTLDs?
 I reckon MZ21 is addressed by "not justified by benefits to others", 
the last line of p.12.
 MZ22 suggests the text "if no consensus is reached the status quo will 
be maintained". The key thing here is whether we're talking about the 
current Whois status quo where the system cannot accept non-Latin 
script data (answer "no" as this does not encourage the development of 
the Internet in wide areas of the world not using the Latin script), 
or a new DNRD with no Latin script (answer "no" as such a system would 
be very expensive, as it would need to be replaced soon) or a new DNRD 
with non-Latin script functionality (answer: possibly "yes" as the 
status quo would not involve transformation, except possibly of field 
names).
 ER23 picks up how we would handle a situation where we move from no 
clear consensus to a greater level of consensus. The short answer is 
to use the GNSO procedure.
 ER27 Automated transformation cannot occur if data are not marked as 
being in a language.
 ER29 "it" refers to "contact information data" and so should be 
"them". India-based companies are an interesting case, as in many 
cases there will be three or more possible languages - Hindi, English 
and a local language. If the language is not stipulated, there will be 
consistency issues in the event of transformation. Lars suggests the 
language the registrar operates in, but again there could be several 
and bad actors could deliberately apply in different languages to 
different registrars.
 As usual I welcome your views on any of these issues, or issues not in 
this list. I shall circulated a new version of the draft initial 
report shortly before our meeting on Thurs. 4  December.
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>
 
 
 
 
 
<<<
Chronological Index
>>>    <<<
Thread Index
>>>
 
 |