ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Justine Chew <justine.chew@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Final version and call for consensus
  • From: "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:31:22 +0000

Dear Justine and colleagues,

I should have mentioned earlier, as Lars email’d, please raise any request for 
deadline extension as soon as possible.

Justine - Many thanks for your painstaking proofreading. I am happy to adopt 
all your edits with the one exception of “losslessly” which is supposed to mean 
“without loss (of information etc.)”, not “loosely”. There will be one last 
version with proofreading edits made.


Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, 
Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) 

From: Justine Chew [mailto:justine.chew@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 10 June 2015 16:19
To: Rudi Vansnick; Dillon, Chris; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Lars Hoffmann
Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Final version and call for consensus

Dear Chris, Rudi,

I am re-reading Final Report T&T.docx and while in my opinion, everything is 
substantially in order, there are some formatting issues and spelling errors 
for your attention:

1. Table of Contents - section 6. Community Input has renumbered itself to 1. 
and so forth.

2. Chapter 1.1 Background - the open inverted comma that appears towards the 
end of the 4th line is missing is close counterpart. This perhaps should appear 
at the end of Chapter 1.1, ie. end of the 2nd bullet?
3. Chapter 1.3 Recommendation #3 on pg 4 - is reference to 'ccTLD' meant to be 
included considering that our mission and scope only pertains to contact 
information with respect to gTLDs? Where else is 'ccTLD' mentioned except as a 
supporting example on pg 16? I thought our debate centered purely on gLTDs.

4. Chapter 1.3 Recommendation #4 on pg 4 - 'policies' on the 4th line is 
mis-spelt. Also the 2nd sentence on the 4th line seems to be 'hanging', perhaps 
prefix it with "It is also assured that ....."?

5. Chapter 1.3 Recommendation #6 on pg 4 - the part of the sentence beginning 
on the 3rd line reads funny. May I suggest it be reworded to read as "... and 
its linguistic/script capacity expanded for receiving, ......"?
6. Chapter 1.3 Last paragraph on pg 4 - should be '... the question of who 
should decide who should bear ....' i.e the words 'of who' have been omitted.

7. Chapter 1.4 - I know that the Working Group has been abbreviated to (WG) in 
para 1.2 but I think no where else is the abbreviation of WG used in this 
document except for in chapter 1.4 - so can I please be pedantic and ask that 
the 2 references to 'WG' - one in each paragraph - be amended to 'Working 
8. Chapter 3 - suffers the same issue as in Chapter 1.1 i.e. missing closing 
inverted comma in 1st para.

9. Chapter 4 on pg 9 2nd para - to remove the word 'some' on the 4th line.

10. End of Chapter 5.1.2 on pg 17 - perhaps add the words 'although the Working 
Group did not come to a conclusion as to who should decide who should bear the 
said burden.' to properly address our non-answering of Charter Q2.

11. Chapter 5.1.3 on pg 17 - the word 'borne' is mis-spelt; appears twice in 
the 2nd paragraph.

12. Chapter 5.2.1 on pg 18 para 1 - 'losslessly'? You mean 'loosely'?

13. Chapter 5.2.2 Recommendation #3 on pg 19 - see point 3 above, take out 
reference to 'ccTLD'?

14. Chapter 5.2.2 Recommendation #4 on pg 19 - see point 4 above, 'policies' is 

15. Chapter 5.2.2 Recommendation $6 on top of pg 20 - see point 5 above.

16. End of Chapter 5.2.2 re Charter Q2 - see point 6 above.

I take it that the rest of the document contains text copied from a reliable 
source. Also that Annex B is the same copy that was finalised before.

Once again, I thank you for your hard work and dedication in leading the WG to 
this Final Report.

Kind regards,

Justine Chew

On 10 June 2015 at 20:56, Rudi Vansnick 
<rudi.vansnick@xxxxxxx<mailto: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.
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 ‘full consensus’ call by the co-chairs.  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.

If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask.

Rudi Vansnick
Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC)

Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16<tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32<tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy