Dear Rudi, Thank you for forwarding the responses and actions provided by Chris. I have compiled these into the attached updated table and also posted it to the wiki on the community input page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/13+Community+Input. I will separately send an action request to WG members to provide responses via email on the list in the format suggested by Chris. Staff then can input those responses into the table and send an updated version in advance of next week's meeting. Best regards, Julie From: Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick@isoc.be> Date: Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:21 AM To: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org> Cc: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> Subject: Responses to the complete overview table Dear all, During the call of May 5 we have been working on the overview table put together by staff (Lars & Julie : many thanks) and ended up at nbr 9. Chris Dillon has put the responses and recommended actions together, which you can find below. Record 1 WG Response: It may be necessary to confirm that the second use of ³English² refers to a transliteration to the Latin alphabet. Recommended Action: Confirm we have understood correctly Answer: Y Record 2 WG Response: A future IRDS will contain contact information in non-ASCII scripts. Recommended Action: How do they see this being implemented in each member state? Answer: N/A Record 3 WG Response: The option using scripts representable in the current WHOIS is undesirable, as it could only cope with a strange subset of languages. The option linking WHOIS to non-ASCII systems is undesirable as it would be implemented differently locally and could end up becoming a poor long-term solution. Recommended Action: A new IRDS as soon as possible. Answer: Y Record 4 WG Response: none Recommended Action: none Answer: Y Record 5 WG Response: A future IRDS will contain contact information in non-ASCII scripts. Recommended Action: How do they see this being implemented in each member state? Answer: N/A Record 6 WG Response: It is important to note that policy cannot contradict the 2013 RAA. Recommended Action: Answer: N Record 7 WG Response: Recommended Action: (No answer row, as they are not and SO or AC.) Record 8 WG Response: This WG has not stated that validation or transformation is tightly related to the role of government. The economy of a single registry system is noted. Recommended Action: Answer: Y Record 9 WG Response: Most members of this WG believe that validation should be done on data in the original language and script. Recommended Action: Answer: Y I would propose we work on the table during the coming days through email, with the same structure as Chris had put above. If possible we should at least try to have input up to Issue 5 - nbr 26. We will collect all the reactions and will have a discussion on them during the next call (next week). Hope to see you all next call. Rudi Vansnick