Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG call on the 4th June 2015
Lars Hoffmann:Hello everybody - just dialing in now.
Chris Dillon:Hello Lars & everyone!
Peter Dernbach:Hello all.
Nathalie Peregrine:Noted, thank you!
Lars Hoffmann:document is not un-synched.
Lars Hoffmann:*now
Jim Galvin:Rec #4 - "through the help of language tags" I suggest should be "through the help of language *and script" tags".
Jim Galvin:RDAP is a protocol. It does not store.
Rudi Vansnick:RFC 7480 if i'm not wrong
Jim Galvin:Yes, that wors
Jim Galvin:^wors^works
Justine Chew:Is RDAP spelt out anywhere earlier in the report?
Justine Chew:*Sorry, haven't had time to look at this V4-2*
Rudi Vansnick:@Justine: a reference to that will be put (footnote or somewhere else)
Lars Hoffmann:*justine - i beleive it is spelled out.
Jim Galvin:However, instead of RDAP maybe we should use "WHOIS replacement system".
Jim Galvin:well, you know what the script could be, since it's not necessarily unique and unambiguous.
Jim Galvin:Some languages are supported by multiple scripts. I think this is solveable algorithmically. Not absolutely certain yet but others have told me this should be the case.
Nathalie Peregrine:Please all mute your phones and mics when not speaking
Petter Rindforth:Just so that we are clear. If changing a word in one plce it has to be fully replaced
Jim Galvin:I guess what I'm saying is +1 Lars. Withdraw comment to add "scripts" to example.
Peter Green (CONAC):Sorry, again being late
Rudi Vansnick:RDAP is more in the IETF field while WHOIS is more recognised in ICANN
Jim Galvin:Rec 6 - again - RDAP to WHOIS Replacement System.
Rudi Vansnick:@Jim: +1
Jim Galvin:and probably "database" to "database system"
Jim Galvin:"database" comment is "rec #7"
Rudi Vansnick:store works for database / database system
Jim Galvin:Would we consider a "Finding" as opposed to a "non-recommendation"? Truly just a question.
Petter Rindforth:I suggest "should lie" to be changed to "may lie"
Jim Galvin:I would prefer we be more specific with the statement. So, I prefer "should" to "may"
Rudi Vansnick:@Jim: +1
Roger Carney:@Jim +1
Peter Dernbach:But in Recommendation #5 we consider that registrars may wish to perform transofrmation. In those cases there may not be a "requestor."
Jim Galvin:Wouldn't the registrar be the requestor in that case?
Jim Galvin:Rather than being "moot", why don't we answer the question regardless and call it a recommendation?
Rudi Vansnick:thanks LArs
Peter Dernbach:I would suggest that "Non-Recommendation 8" become a "Finding" and we just leave the first sentence in the current draft, deleting the second sentence (currently in red).
Jim Galvin:@peter - agree with Peter because the sentence is actually already in Rec #1.
Lars Hoffmann:also could be ust 'transformation lies with' ...
Peter Dernbach:I think that also exceeds the scope of our charter, which was to determine who should decide who bears the burden, not to decide who bears the burden.
Peter Dernbach:I appreciate, though, that this is a minority opinion.
Peter Dernbach:but we are making that suggestion in recommendation 1
Jim Galvin:@lars - +1
Lars Hoffmann:we can also just call it :finding in relation to charter question 2'
Peter Dernbach:@Lars +1
Sara Bockey:Could we just delete Non-Recommendation and have it just be a new paragraph stating: Based on recommendations 1-7...
Rudi Vansnick:just avoid transformation is done without the approval of the registrant engaging the registrant in an eventual legal action
Jim Galvin:Even the second RDAP shoudl be "whois replacement system"
Jim Galvin:@chris +1
Rudi Vansnick:+1
Rudi Vansnick:we did Chris
Rudi Vansnick:? what standards ?
Rudi Vansnick:i think so
Rudi Vansnick:great work done
Peter Dernbach:Thank you Chris, Lars and all!
Jim Galvin:thanks! bye all!
Sara Bockey:thank you everyone
Rudi Vansnick:have a nice day
Petter Rindforth:The same
Chris Dillon:Brilliant sunshine in London for once