Dear colleagues, I attach a new version of the final report with Amr's suggestions about the ccTLD reference and the misquote of the charter question adopted. I've also attached Rudi's email from earlier and the redline report, so that you have everything in one place. Our next meeting is at 13:00 UTC tomorrow. 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 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. -----Original Message----- From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] Sent: 10 June 2015 15:56 To: Rudi Vansnick Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org; Dillon, Chris; Lars Hoffmann Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Final version and call for consensus 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@ISOC.BE> 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), doesn't 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 'full consensus' call by the co-chairs.
I'm 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 includes...,
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 "full consensus", 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 don't 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