Dear colleagues, Thank you for yesterday’s discussion. Some of the themes still requiring attention are: 1. Is it within the remit of this group to consider the purpose of data? Purpose is certainly covered in detail in the ‘Final report from the EWG on gTLD Directory Services’. I fear we cannot ignore purpose, as there is a close link to need for accuracy (which again is linked to how any transformation is done). As I mentioned during the call, asking the question “Which purposes may be adequately fulfilled with inaccurate data?” may be a useful approach. 2. During the call I wasn’t sure what to do with registrants applying for domain names in languages not typically supported in a country – for example, a Russian applying to a Chinese registrar for a Russian Cyrillic domain name. Presumably registrars would do a business analysis; in this case Chinese registrars would decide whether to sell Russian Cyrillic domain names. If the guidelines in the straw man are followed, the Russian would be inputting data in Russian Cyrillic. 3. For those stakeholders who do decide to transform, how binding are our recommendations? 4. The draft was written, presuming that allowing registrants optionally to transform data could be an easy way of building up transformed data in the database. However, such optional transformation raises data quality, matching and versioning problems. Do we actually want actively to discourage transformation and have a simpler database with data only in original language and script? This is certainly not an exhaustive list. Please feel free to suggest other issues (and also ones we didn’t touch at all yesterday). Text addressing these and other issues is very welcome. Please note that there have been problems with email forwarding at UCL since yesterday, so I have put my underlying email address (ccaacdi@live.ucl.ac.uk) in the Cc field of this email to avoid delays. 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> From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine Sent: 14 August 2014 16:13 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] MP3 Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG meeting - 14 August 2014 Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group call held on Thursday 14 August at 1300 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-transliteration-contact-20140814-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#aug The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Emily Taylor - RrSG Chris Dillon – NCSG Amr Elsadr – NCUC Rudi Vansnick – NPOC Jennifer Chung - RySG Jim Galvin – SSAC Ubolthip Sethakaset – Individual Wolf-Ulrich Knoben – ISPCP Wanawit Ahkuputra – GAC Mae Suchayapim Siriwat – GAC Patrick Lenihan - NCUC Apologies: Petter Rindforth – IPC Iliya Bazlyankov – RrSG ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Mary Wong Amy Bivins Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Wiki page: http://tinyurl.com/mpwxstx Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie GNSO Secretariat Adobe Chat Transcript for Thursday 14 August 2014: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working group call on the 14th August 2014 Rudi Vansnick:hi everyone Emily Taylor:Hi everyone Chris Dillon:Hello all! Rudi Vansnick:just back from holidays Rudi Vansnick:very limited internet access during 2 weeks is painful ... Amr Elsadr:Hi all. Apologies about the prolonged absence. Hope you're all well. Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome back Rudi and Amr! Jennifer Chung:Hello everyone! Emily Taylor:This is my first call participating in the working group. I come from Registrar SG Chris Dillon:Welcome! Rudi Vansnick:welcome Emily Emily Taylor:Thank you. And thanks for the draft papers, Chris Julie Hedlund:I am in the process of getting on the call. Called in but got dropped. Julie Hedlund:Back on Jennifer Chung:I have updated my SOI - to include my wgs and picture Jennifer Chung:sorry couldn't connect audio just now Rudi Vansnick:thanks Jennifer Julie Hedlund:The document is unsynced. Nathalie Peregrine:Patrick Lenihan has joined the AC room Amr Elsadr:Can the document be shared in the AC Room? Emily Taylor:Sorry - acronym check - what's IRD? Amr Elsadr:Internationalized Registration Data. Emily Taylor::) Thanks Amr Elsadr:;-) Julie Hedlund:Pardon me -- which document is being referenced? I did not catch it. Amr Elsadr:@Jim: Is your concern about this WG recommending that IRD be provided as an option for registrants? Emily Taylor:I can hear you! but I'm not able to be heard. Sorry Emily Taylor:Agree with Jim Galvin Nathalie Peregrine:Emily, we can dial out to you if you provide me with a contact number Emily Taylor:on the costs and unintended consequences of two tracks of data, not knowing which is authoritative, and the legacy issue. Emily Taylor:I see Amr's question - I don't see IRD as being the optional bit, but a translation/transliteration as being optional Emily Taylor:Thanks for clarification Chris. Emily Taylor:I also got some feedback from our technical people, who were also questioning the value of having transliteration, and the difficulties/costs for registrars to have to validate such data Amr Elsadr:@Emily: I believe those concerns are reflected in the proposed recommendations. Emily Taylor:I think they are too :) Emily Taylor:Thanks for that, Chris. Very useful. One other thing (that may already be incorporated in your thinking), is that even to have an option to transliterate/translate will mean creation of new database fields, and potentially lengthening and complicating the process of registration Amr Elsadr:Ah. Thanks Chris. Emily Taylor:Thanks Chris Emily Taylor:LOL Amr Elsadr:Isn't legacy transformed contact information presumably already validated? Amr Elsadr::) Emily Taylor:Ok back to typing Emily Taylor:Everything you say is very sensible, Chris. My concern is that even setting flags to indicate that data is legacy or not will introduce costs for registrars potentially Emily Taylor:Is this something that has already been discussed? Emily Taylor:Thanks. LIke others, I just got back from holiday, and would like to share with other members of the RrSG who manage large databases Emily Taylor:to get their views Amr Elsadr:I (with my limited knowledge) agree with Emily. I'm also not exactly sure what purpose it would serve. Emily Taylor:Thanks Jim. Appreciate the clarification Rudi Vansnick:it looks like it is important to have clear view on the data model requests and the need for futher investigation on this topic Emily Taylor:Agree Amr Elsadr:OK. Thanks. :) Amr Elsadr:I'm wondering if there is a sense about the level of consensus amongst the WG on the proposed recommendations? Rudi Vansnick:very good question Jim ... Julie Hedlund:Apologies, but I have to leave to join another call. Rudi Vansnick:requires a lot of thinking ... Julie Hedlund:Thanks everyone! Rudi Vansnick:thanks Julie Emily Taylor:To borrow from the Dispute Resolution world, it could also be language of the Registrar agreement :) Jim Galvin:I have to leave for another call. See you next week. Rudi Vansnick:thanks to you Chris for the great work Emily Taylor:Thank you for your comments and chairing, Chris. Very useful call Amr Elsadr:Thanks Chris and all. Bye. Jennifer Chung:Thank you Chris and everyone. Mary Wong:Thanks for attending and participating, everyone. Chris Dillon:Thank you very much indeed!