Dear Amr and colleagues, I will pick up prioritization tomorrow when we discuss the questions and other possible working methodologies. Thank you for summarizing the points you made in last week's call. I have made summaries of last week's discussions on questions 5-7 in the wiki, so that new members and others can get a good idea of what we're doing without listening to all the calls. Obviously I welcome improvements either on this list or in the wiki: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44960091 Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: 21 February 2014 18:51 To: Amr Elsadr Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] WHOIS-Related Current and Completed Work Hi Amr, Thank you very much for the helpful clarification and the context for your comments/questions. I agree that the WG may want to place the questions in some order of priority. Best regards, Julie From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Date: Friday, February 21, 2014 12:27 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] WHOIS-Related Current and Completed Work Hi Julie, Thanks for laying this all out for us. It's quite helpful. Just in case I wasn't clear during the call, my comment/question was related to two of the questions this PDP has been chartered to answer and listed on a separate page on the WG wiki<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44960091>: Q6. When would policy come into effect? I imagine that the timelines involved in the concurrent projects will influence the answer to this question, of course also depending on what this WG recommends on how desirable or undesirable it is to translate and/or transliterate contact info. The EWG on gTLD Directory Services is wrapping up its work with the public comment period on their report nearing conclusion. I guess this means we can expect an issue report on this soon. Q7. What should be mandatory? Although I personally think it would have been helpful for this PDP to address what data elements in registrants' contact info should be translated, this is not a really relevant observation right now. It is clearly outside of our scope, and in answering this question, we need to focus on wether it should be mandatory to translate/transliterate contact info associated with all gTLDs as well as for all registrants in all countries. Perhaps, in light of all the projects potentially influencing this PDP and their timelines, we should start discussing the order in which we would like to answer our charter questions. That is assuming we're settled on the actual questions. :) Thanks. Amr On Feb 20, 2014, at 9:50 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear PDP WG members, In response to the question from Amr today about whether there is WHOIS-related PDP (or other) work that may be addressing the same issues as the PDP WG please see below the list of current and recently completed work. Staff have presented some of this information at various times in the formation of this PDP WG, and via presentations from Margie Milam and Steve Sheng at a previous meeting, but it appears that it would be helpful to put it all in one place to avoid any confusion. One thing to note is that following the Board resolutions on WHOIS in November 2012 a large number of projects (both PDP and non-PDP) were launched and the Board envisioned that these would proceed concurrently, rather than consecutively. See the helpful blog from Margie Milam on all of the WHOIS-related developments at: http://blog.icann.org/2013/03/whois-whats-to-come/. As I noted on today's call, this PDP WG is the only PDP that addresses the specific issues relating to the translation and transliteration of contact information. The work of this PDP WG will be taken into consideration in conjunction with the Board-initiated PDP on gTLD directory services, which is tied to the work of the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services (see below). The final report of the EWG will form the Final Issue Report for that Board-initiated PDP. The Expert Working Group that is defining requirements for internationalized registration data and a corresponding data model for gTLD registries (#3 below) is the group that Jim Galvin is leading. The work of that group is tied closely to that of this PDP WG. Both relate to item #13 in the chart in Margie's blog, which is taken from the Board's work plan. That plan states, "ICANN will form a community working group to determine appropriate internationalized domain name registration data requirements based on requirements set forth in GNSO internationalized registration data working Group final Report." The work this PDP WG will be considered by this EWG so the two groups will coordinate closely. I have added this information to the studies and background page on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/7.+Studies+and+Background+Docum.... For a list of active GNSO PDP and non-PDP projects see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active. As you can see, these efforts are very much intertwined. Policies resulting from this PDP WG (if any) will be key elements in future policies relating to the development of a new gTLD directory service, in defining requirements for internationalized registration data, and in the development of the data model for gTLD registries. Please let me know if you have further questions. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Recently Completed Work: PDP on Thick WHOIS: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/thick-whois The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 noting that the Issue Report should 'not only consider a possible requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would be desirable or not'. The Final Report was adopted by the ICANN Board on 07 February 2014. See the resolution at: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-07feb14-en.htm#2..... Current Work: 1. Study Group to Evaluate Available Solutions for the Submission and Display of Internationalized Contact Data. See: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisird/Study+to+Evaluate+Available+Sol... The purpose of the study is to: 1. Document the submission and display practices of internationalized registration data at a representative set of gTLD and ccTLD registries and registrars. 2. Investigate and document how other e-merchants or web sites manage internationalized contact data. 3. Consider and assess the cost and functionality of commercial, open source, or other known but as yet not widely implemented solutions for 1) transliterating internationalized contact information to US-ASCII, 2) translating internationalized contact information to English, 3) transcribing internationalized contact information to US-ASCII, or 4) a mixture of translation, transliteration and transcription. 4. Consider and assess the accuracy implications for transliteration and translation of the internationalized contact data 5. Based on practices documented in 1 and understanding the issues raised in 3 and 4 and best practices by other e-merchants in 2, summarize some common best practices registry/registrar could do to minimize these variations, if translation and/or transliteration is deemed necessary. The study team is currently on the first task, and has prepared a registry and registrar survey to complete. Since this group is closely working in this area, we appreciate very much if you have any feedback on these survey questions. Such feedback will help us to make sure we ask the right questions. 2. Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services, See: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services 13 December 2012 - Fadi Chehadé, ICANN's President and CEO, announces the creation of an Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services. This first step in fulfilling the ICANN Board's directive to help redefine the purpose and provision of gTLD registration data will provide a foundation to help the ICANN community (through the Generic Names Supporting Organization, GNSO) create a new global policy for gTLD directory services. Interested individuals are invited to indicate their interest in serving as volunteer working group members. Initial Report: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report-... Status Update Report: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/status-update-1... See the Preliminary Issue Report of the Board-initiated PDP at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gtld-registration-data-15mar13-e.... 3. Expert Working Group to Define Requirements for Internationalized Registration Data and Corresponding Data Model for gTLD Registries See: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-08jul13-en.htm. As part of the process to implement WHOIS review team recommendations related to Internationalized Domain Name registration data requirements, ICANN seeks volunteers who are community representatives with expertise in linguistics, IDNA, policy and registry/registrar operations to participate in a working group to determine appropriate Internationalized Domain Name registration data requirements and data model for Registration Data Directory Services (aka WHOIS services). The result of the WG product will go through a public comment process to ensure broad input is received. It will form the basis for further policy development and/or contractual framework for generic Top-level domains, as well as ideally becoming a best practice for country code top-level domains.