Dear all, Hope this is not too late to cast my vote. My quick answer is "Yes - we should have one option" that option is "Mandatory (..to have the trustable contact info)" However, in my humble opinion, it is not mandatory to "transform the contact info" but Mandatory to "validate the contact info" As much as I bear in mind that the validate-or-not is out of the scope of our WG’s scope, but I found it's very hard making decision of this two functions separately. Kindly let me try to explain. ----------------------------- I think we do agree that: ----------------------------- 1. ICANN principle of non-discrimination and reach-out will always allow registrants to input the contact-info in local language – which is good, 2. the validated contact info is preferable, 3. there will surely be cost associated to the one who do the validation. But, the validation is much cheaper or even only-possible when using contact info in local-script, and using local validator (like Thailand Post validating any Address in Thailand), 4. once the contact-info in local script is validated, then it is not too troublesome to 'transform' into any language, either using tool or human-translator for quick understanding purpose or the first clue to contact the entity. And when you need to act any legal action to the entity you will need the legal document in local script or legally-notarized-translated version anyway. 5. it is quite promising that ICANN approach of improving whois information will include the validating too. 6. Lastly, internet is all connected, any critical rule or policy should apply to all (mandatory) across the globe to avoid the loophole of the internet governance. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From points above, the answer of transforming-or-not depends on how we do validation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario1: The contact info must be validated by local validator --> then there is no need to transform Scenario2: The contact info could be validated by non-local validator --> then it must be transformed in the standardized way so the non-local validator can perform Scenario3: There is no need to validate contact information --> then there is no need to do anything… it’s trash in – trash out --------------- In Summary --------------- I believe that it will likely to be scenario1 – trustable data, not so costly That’s why I would say, Yes, there should be one option, If is mandatory to validate the contact info, There is no need to transform the script. ------------- Thank you and Very Best Regards, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana Director of Information Infrastructure Office Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) T: 02-123-1234, F: 02-123-1200 +(66) 81 375 3433 pitinan at etda.or.th From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dillon, Chris Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 9:44 PM To: 张钻 Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Dear Peter, Thank you for your vote. It is noted. Technically, I’ve received it after the deadline, but I think there is no point in worrying about half an hour. Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) <http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon> www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon From: 张钻 [mailto:zhangzuan@conac.cn] Sent: 27 November 2014 14:32 To: Dillon, Chris Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Importance: High Hi Chris, Soryy for belated response. I vote for "No". It may be better for the public to see the two sides of the “coin”. Best Regards Peter Green -----原始邮件----- 发件人:"Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk <mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> > 发送时间:2014-11-25 17:31:51 (星期二) 收件人: "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> > 抄送: 主题: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Dear colleagues, During Thursday's call, we had a straw poll: Are you in favor of having only one option in the initial report? As you know, in the versions of the draft initial report until now there have been two options (recommendations for and against mandatory transformation), but if it is possible to have only one, the report will likely have a stronger effect. Whatever the result of the report, the arguments for and against will remain in it; this poll only concerns the options. Please send your vote to the list if you did not vote on Thursday. The options are: Yes, No and Abstain. Please vote by 14:00 UTC on Thursday 27 November. (Note that there is no meeting on that day; the next one is 4 December.) In summary - This is not a consensus call on the options. - This is to decide whether the initial report should have one set of recommendations or two sets of recommendations. - If a majority believes it should be only one set, the WG, at a later stage (probably during our next meeting, on 4 December) will decide which set it will be. - Please bear in mind that this is the initial report and following public comments on it we will be able to modify/amend/change/reverse our draft recommendations. Incidentally, I shall email soon asking for your comments on version 5 of the report and including the rest of mine. 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> -- 政务和公益机构域名注册管理中心（中央编办事业发展中心） 国际部 张钻 电 话：010-5203 5153 Email：zhangzuan@conac.cn <mailto:zhangzuan@conac.cn> 网 址：http://www.conac.cn 地 址：北京市朝阳区西坝河光熙门北里甲31号中央编办楼412室 邮 编：100028