Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Final version and call for consensus

[Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you for your comment, Amr.

I think that the reason 5 June is mentioned is that the recommendations
(in spirit) have not changed since then. Although small edits were made,
they are unlikely to change someone¹s position at this stage. In addition,
no comments or amendments were put forward on the email list either, nor
were any additional ones raised during Tuesday¹s call.  Also, the timeline
was circulated among members and no objections were made regarding those.
Of course, if there are concerns that more time is needed it is up to the
Chair to extend deadlines were needed/appropriate; bearing in mind that
the deadline to make the next GNSO Council submission deadline is this
coming Sunday - which was the date the Group aimed for. Can I suggest that
those needing/wanting more time, indicate this on list so that the Chair
can take an informed decision?

As for your two substantive issues, I completely agree with your comments.
The /ccTLD should be taken out - as an explanation, it was something we
discussed on the call (in a slightly different context) and it made it¹s
way into the recommendation. It clearly is beyond our charter. References
on pp. 4 and 20 to bearing cost should also be amended. Thank you very
much for your help with getting us to this stage, Amr!

Very best. 
Lars



On 10/06/2015 16:56, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Thanks for this, Rudi. I have a few questions and comment, which I have
>place in-line below:
>
>On Jun 10, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Dear working group members,
>> 
>> As co-chairs of the Translation and Transliteration Working Group,
>>Chris Dillon and I have reached the following conclusions:
>> 1.       All public comments have been reviewed and discussed by the WG
>>and a number of amendments were made to the Initial Report - as agreed
>>to by members of the Working Group.
>> 2.       There have been no objections to the Final Report communicated
>>on the WG list it was first sent to the WG on 5 June 2015 at 06:50 UTC
>>with a final response deadline of Tuesday 9 June 23:59 UTC.
>
>Since the last editing session of the final report was yesterday (June
>9th), doesn¹t the final report attached to your email today actually
>count as the actual final report (as opposed to the one circulated on
>June 5th)? I ask this because:
>
>> 3.       Therefore, we determine that the Working Group has reached
>>full consensus on the Final Report as attached in clean and redline
>>versions, noting that the redline version highlights all edits made to
>>the Initial Report that was published for public comment in December
>>2015.
>>  
>> All WG participants have until 12:00 UTC (noon) on Thursday 11 June
>>2015 to object to the Œfull consensus¹ call by the co-chairs.
>
>I¹m not sure if the time allowed is enough for all WG members to respond
>to the consensus call or not. Seems a bit tight to me. One of the reasons
>includesŠ,
>
>> If anyone objects, please explain your reasons.  If no one objects in
>>the allotted time, the report will be sent by our Council Liaison to the
>>GNSO Council for their action along with a draft motion for its approval.
>
>Along with the objections and reasons provided by any who may wish to
>express a lack of ³full consensus², minority statements to the WG
>consensus may need to be submitted and attached to the final report.
>Pleas take the time needed (if at all needed) to do this into
>consideration with the deadline of the consensus call.
>
>>  
>> If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask.
>
>A couple of questions:
>
>1. On pages 4 and 19 of the final report, recommendation #3 mentions
>ccTLDs. Why are we including this in our recommendations? I don¹t recall
>seeing it there before. Policies concerning ccTLDs are far beyond the
>remit of any GNSO PDP WG.
>
>2. On pages 4 and 20 of the final report, the second charter question of
>this PDP seems misrepresented to me requiring a discussion on who should
>bear the burden of transformation, as opposed to who should decide who
>bears the burden. This is correctly represented in other parts of the
>report, such as on page 7.
>
>Having said all that, I support the recommendations in the final report.
>There seems to be a considerable amount of work done on it, and I very
>much appreciate the editing performed to get this done. Very well done,
>indeed.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Amr

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature