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>
Hi Chris, I apologize about missing last week’s call, but thank you very much for bringing this discussion to the list. I would like to note that from a GNSO process perspective, having two conflicting sets of recommendations (even in the preliminary report) in response to the charter questions of this PDP will be extremely problematic. gTLD policy recommendation development in the GNSO is supposed to take place in GNSO working groups, where achieving consensus is the goal. Here, we are in the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process. To have these two sets of recommendations would (at least to me) seem like an indication that this PDP working group has failed in carrying out its mandate, and is attempting to shift the decision of a single set of recommendations elsewhere; probably the GNSO council. The GNSO council is not meant to make these decisions. In my humble opinion, I believe we should spend the time we have left to us trying to reach a compromise that would achieve full consensus among the working group members. If that proves impossible, we should try to provide recommendations with a consensus level consistent with one of the decision-making designations provided in section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (Annex 1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures found here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13nov14-en.pdf). I still hope that the working group members can reach full consensus. This would mean that compromises would need to be made. We really should focus on achieving this over the next few weeks. Thanks again. Amr On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
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
Dear Amr, Many thanks for your thoughtful comments. We will be sticking close to the GNSO Operating Procedures. I am not as familiar with them as many colleagues on the calls, you included, but I will listen to advice as we apply them. With kind 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 Amr Elsadr Sent: 25 November 2014 12:09 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Importance: High Hi Chris, I apologize about missing last week's call, but thank you very much for bringing this discussion to the list. I would like to note that from a GNSO process perspective, having two conflicting sets of recommendations (even in the preliminary report) in response to the charter questions of this PDP will be extremely problematic. gTLD policy recommendation development in the GNSO is supposed to take place in GNSO working groups, where achieving consensus is the goal. Here, we are in the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process. To have these two sets of recommendations would (at least to me) seem like an indication that this PDP working group has failed in carrying out its mandate, and is attempting to shift the decision of a single set of recommendations elsewhere; probably the GNSO council. The GNSO council is not meant to make these decisions. In my humble opinion, I believe we should spend the time we have left to us trying to reach a compromise that would achieve full consensus among the working group members. If that proves impossible, we should try to provide recommendations with a consensus level consistent with one of the decision-making designations provided in section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (Annex 1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures found here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13nov14-en.pdf). I still hope that the working group members can reach full consensus. This would mean that compromises would need to be made. We really should focus on achieving this over the next few weeks. Thanks again. Amr On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>> wrote: 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>
Hi again, A point of clarification on my part regarding the consensus levels in the GNSO operating procedures; they are not necessary for the initial report. I meant to indicate that they are required as part of the final report, but after re-reading my note, see that this was presented by me rather poorly. (Thanks for the heads up Marika) To try to be clearer on the other point of multiple recommendations in the initial report; if the desire is that this report reflect the lack of consensus currently in the working group on the charter questions we are being asked to tackle, I think this could be done more effectively than by presenting two conflicting recommendations as options, which suggests (to me) that the WG is lost in making a determination. As I believe we are closer to one set of recommendations than the other (although this is rather subjective speculation on my part), I think this should be reflected in the initial report one way or the other. Like I said before, I do hope we can focus on an attempt to reach full consensus over the next few weeks. On another unrelated topic, I noticed that I am not listed as a working group member in the report. May I ask to be added? :) Thanks again. Amr On Nov 25, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
Dear Amr,
Many thanks for your thoughtful comments.
We will be sticking close to the GNSO Operating Procedures. I am not as familiar with them as many colleagues on the calls, you included, but I will listen to advice as we apply them.
With kind 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
From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: 25 November 2014 12:09 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Importance: High
Hi Chris,
I apologize about missing last week’s call, but thank you very much for bringing this discussion to the list. I would like to note that from a GNSO process perspective, having two conflicting sets of recommendations (even in the preliminary report) in response to the charter questions of this PDP will be extremely problematic. gTLD policy recommendation development in the GNSO is supposed to take place in GNSO working groups, where achieving consensus is the goal. Here, we are in the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process. To have these two sets of recommendations would (at least to me) seem like an indication that this PDP working group has failed in carrying out its mandate, and is attempting to shift the decision of a single set of recommendations elsewhere; probably the GNSO council. The GNSO council is not meant to make these decisions.
In my humble opinion, I believe we should spend the time we have left to us trying to reach a compromise that would achieve full consensus among the working group members. If that proves impossible, we should try to provide recommendations with a consensus level consistent with one of the decision-making designations provided in section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (Annex 1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures found here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13nov14-en.pdf).
I still hope that the working group members can reach full consensus. This would mean that compromises would need to be made. We really should focus on achieving this over the next few weeks.
Thanks again.
Amr
On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
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
Dear Amr, I just realised I forget to write that I'll put your name in the report. Sorry it was omitted. 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 Amr Elsadr Sent: 25 November 2014 12:57 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Hi again, A point of clarification on my part regarding the consensus levels in the GNSO operating procedures; they are not necessary for the initial report. I meant to indicate that they are required as part of the final report, but after re-reading my note, see that this was presented by me rather poorly. (Thanks for the heads up Marika) To try to be clearer on the other point of multiple recommendations in the initial report; if the desire is that this report reflect the lack of consensus currently in the working group on the charter questions we are being asked to tackle, I think this could be done more effectively than by presenting two conflicting recommendations as options, which suggests (to me) that the WG is lost in making a determination. As I believe we are closer to one set of recommendations than the other (although this is rather subjective speculation on my part), I think this should be reflected in the initial report one way or the other. Like I said before, I do hope we can focus on an attempt to reach full consensus over the next few weeks. On another unrelated topic, I noticed that I am not listed as a working group member in the report. May I ask to be added? :) Thanks again. Amr On Nov 25, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>> wrote: Dear Amr, Many thanks for your thoughtful comments. We will be sticking close to the GNSO Operating Procedures. I am not as familiar with them as many colleagues on the calls, you included, but I will listen to advice as we apply them. With kind 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> [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: 25 November 2014 12:09 To: 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, I apologize about missing last week's call, but thank you very much for bringing this discussion to the list. I would like to note that from a GNSO process perspective, having two conflicting sets of recommendations (even in the preliminary report) in response to the charter questions of this PDP will be extremely problematic. gTLD policy recommendation development in the GNSO is supposed to take place in GNSO working groups, where achieving consensus is the goal. Here, we are in the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process. To have these two sets of recommendations would (at least to me) seem like an indication that this PDP working group has failed in carrying out its mandate, and is attempting to shift the decision of a single set of recommendations elsewhere; probably the GNSO council. The GNSO council is not meant to make these decisions. In my humble opinion, I believe we should spend the time we have left to us trying to reach a compromise that would achieve full consensus among the working group members. If that proves impossible, we should try to provide recommendations with a consensus level consistent with one of the decision-making designations provided in section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (Annex 1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures found here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13nov14-en.pdf). I still hope that the working group members can reach full consensus. This would mean that compromises would need to be made. We really should focus on achieving this over the next few weeks. Thanks again. Amr On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>> wrote: 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>
Dear Amr, Many thanks for clarifying your earlier email. I too have concerns with a report (albeit an initial one) which contains two sets of conflicting recommendations, and would be happy if the WG could reach full consensus on our recommendations. However, given the way the discussions have taken place in weeks past, this might prove a difficult goal if more time were unavailable to us. I would be pleased to be proven wrong though! Hence, as Chris has stated in his email, the approach proposed for taking the strawman draft forward is to set out the arguments both for and against mandatory transformation but to conclude with one set of recommendations either for or against, which was the approach the WG members present at last week's call were asked to vote on. As Chris has also said, it has yet to be decided which set of recommendations will prevail for the purposes of the initial report. I imagine presentation of opposing arguments would have to be reworked somewhat within a later draft in order for the consensus or majority view (as the case may be) to be properly reflected. Dear Chris, Thank you for confirming the correctness of my understanding in respect of the vote being taken, and I am pleased to say that I haven't changed my mind on my vote. Just another query - will you be circulating another version 5 or are we meant to keep looking at the version 5 from last week's call? Thanks and regards, Justine Chew ----- On 25 November 2014 at 22:26, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
Dear Amr,
I just realised I forget to write that I’ll put your name in the report.
Sorry it was omitted.
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
*From:* owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org [mailto: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Amr Elsadr *Sent:* 25 November 2014 12:57
*To:* gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options
Hi again,
A point of clarification on my part regarding the consensus levels in the GNSO operating procedures; they are not necessary for the initial report. I meant to indicate that they are required as part of the final report, but after re-reading my note, see that this was presented by me rather poorly. (Thanks for the heads up Marika)
To try to be clearer on the other point of multiple recommendations in the initial report; if the desire is that this report reflect the lack of consensus currently in the working group on the charter questions we are being asked to tackle, I think this could be done more effectively than by presenting two conflicting recommendations as options, which suggests (to me) that the WG is lost in making a determination. As I believe we are closer to one set of recommendations than the other (although this is rather subjective speculation on my part), I think this should be reflected in the initial report one way or the other.
Like I said before, I do hope we can focus on an attempt to reach full consensus over the next few weeks.
On another unrelated topic, I noticed that I am not listed as a working group member in the report. May I ask to be added? :)
Thanks again.
Amr
On Nov 25, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
Dear Amr,
Many thanks for your thoughtful comments.
We will be sticking close to the GNSO Operating Procedures. I am not as familiar with them as many colleagues on the calls, you included, but I will listen to advice as we apply them.
With kind 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
*From:* owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org [ mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org <owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Amr Elsadr *Sent:* 25 November 2014 12:09 *To:* gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options *Importance:* High
Hi Chris,
I apologize about missing last week’s call, but thank you very much for bringing this discussion to the list. I would like to note that from a GNSO process perspective, having two conflicting sets of recommendations (even in the preliminary report) in response to the charter questions of this PDP will be extremely problematic. gTLD policy recommendation development in the GNSO is supposed to take place in GNSO working groups, where achieving consensus is the goal. Here, we are in the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process. To have these two sets of recommendations would (at least to me) seem like an indication that this PDP working group has failed in carrying out its mandate, and is attempting to shift the decision of a single set of recommendations elsewhere; probably the GNSO council. The GNSO council is not meant to make these decisions.
In my humble opinion, I believe we should spend the time we have left to us trying to reach a compromise that would achieve full consensus among the working group members. If that proves impossible, we should try to provide recommendations with a consensus level consistent with one of the decision-making designations provided in section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (Annex 1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures found here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13nov14-en.pdf).
I still hope that the working group members can reach full consensus. This would mean that compromises would need to be made. We really should focus on achieving this over the next few weeks.
Thanks again.
Amr
On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
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
Dear Justine, Thank you for your email. Sometime after 14:00 UTC on Thursday there will be a new version. It will not be version 5; possibly version 6. That will include updates to arguments attempting to reflect our recent discussions. The number of sets of options will reflect the straw poll. 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: Justine Chew [mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com] Sent: 25 November 2014 15:23 To: Dillon, Chris Cc: Amr Elsadr; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Dear Amr, Many thanks for clarifying your earlier email. I too have concerns with a report (albeit an initial one) which contains two sets of conflicting recommendations, and would be happy if the WG could reach full consensus on our recommendations. However, given the way the discussions have taken place in weeks past, this might prove a difficult goal if more time were unavailable to us. I would be pleased to be proven wrong though! Hence, as Chris has stated in his email, the approach proposed for taking the strawman draft forward is to set out the arguments both for and against mandatory transformation but to conclude with one set of recommendations either for or against, which was the approach the WG members present at last week's call were asked to vote on. As Chris has also said, it has yet to be decided which set of recommendations will prevail for the purposes of the initial report. I imagine presentation of opposing arguments would have to be reworked somewhat within a later draft in order for the consensus or majority view (as the case may be) to be properly reflected. Dear Chris, Thank you for confirming the correctness of my understanding in respect of the vote being taken, and I am pleased to say that I haven't changed my mind on my vote. Just another query - will you be circulating another version 5 or are we meant to keep looking at the version 5 from last week's call? Thanks and regards, Justine Chew ----- On 25 November 2014 at 22:26, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>> wrote: Dear Amr, I just realised I forget to write that I’ll put your name in the report. Sorry it was omitted. Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599<tel:%2B44%2020%207679%201599> (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> [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: 25 November 2014 12:57 To: 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 Hi again, A point of clarification on my part regarding the consensus levels in the GNSO operating procedures; they are not necessary for the initial report. I meant to indicate that they are required as part of the final report, but after re-reading my note, see that this was presented by me rather poorly. (Thanks for the heads up Marika) To try to be clearer on the other point of multiple recommendations in the initial report; if the desire is that this report reflect the lack of consensus currently in the working group on the charter questions we are being asked to tackle, I think this could be done more effectively than by presenting two conflicting recommendations as options, which suggests (to me) that the WG is lost in making a determination. As I believe we are closer to one set of recommendations than the other (although this is rather subjective speculation on my part), I think this should be reflected in the initial report one way or the other. Like I said before, I do hope we can focus on an attempt to reach full consensus over the next few weeks. On another unrelated topic, I noticed that I am not listed as a working group member in the report. May I ask to be added? :) Thanks again. Amr On Nov 25, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>> wrote: Dear Amr, Many thanks for your thoughtful comments. We will be sticking close to the GNSO Operating Procedures. I am not as familiar with them as many colleagues on the calls, you included, but I will listen to advice as we apply them. With kind regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599<tel:%2B44%2020%207679%201599> (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> [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: 25 November 2014 12:09 To: 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, I apologize about missing last week’s call, but thank you very much for bringing this discussion to the list. I would like to note that from a GNSO process perspective, having two conflicting sets of recommendations (even in the preliminary report) in response to the charter questions of this PDP will be extremely problematic. gTLD policy recommendation development in the GNSO is supposed to take place in GNSO working groups, where achieving consensus is the goal. Here, we are in the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process. To have these two sets of recommendations would (at least to me) seem like an indication that this PDP working group has failed in carrying out its mandate, and is attempting to shift the decision of a single set of recommendations elsewhere; probably the GNSO council. The GNSO council is not meant to make these decisions. In my humble opinion, I believe we should spend the time we have left to us trying to reach a compromise that would achieve full consensus among the working group members. If that proves impossible, we should try to provide recommendations with a consensus level consistent with one of the decision-making designations provided in section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (Annex 1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures found here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13nov14-en.pdf). I still hope that the working group members can reach full consensus. This would mean that compromises would need to be made. We really should focus on achieving this over the next few weeks. Thanks again. Amr On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>> wrote: 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<tel:%2B44%2020%207679%201599> (int 31599)www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon>
Dear All, As I presume that I cannot convince all of you to vote in favour of mandatory translation/transliteration, my vote is: No All the best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 25 november 2014, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> skrev:
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, NoandAbstain. 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) <http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon>
Dear Petter, Thank you for voting. Your vote is noted. 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 From: Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>> Reply-To: Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>> Date: Wednesday, 26 November 2014 21:17 To: Chris Dillon <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>> Cc: "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>> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Dear All, As I presume that I cannot convince all of you to vote in favour of mandatory translation/transliteration, my vote is: No All the best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 25 november 2014, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>> skrev: 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>
Dear Chris and All, Apologies that I have not been able to attend the most recent conference calls due to other pressing work commitments. I am new to ICANN Working Groups, so am not as familiar with the process as many of you are. My procedural question is this: how important is the date for delivering our Initial Report? It seems clear to me that our working group has not yet reached a consensus position. I also believe that issuing an initial report with multiple opinions may not be as helpful to the community in the policy making process. Is there another option of providing an update saying that the Working Group has not yet come to a consensus on the content of its initial report, so the initial report will be delayed while we continue to work on reaching consensus? The question at hand is "am I in favor of having only one opinion in the initial report?" In theory, I am, but if we need to issue an initial report at this stage, I do not think we should include only one opinion as I do not think that reflects the current state of the Working Group. Best regards, Peter <http://www.winklerpartners.com/> Peter J.Dernbach 譚璧德 Partner 合夥律師(外國法事務律師) *T* 886 (0)2 2311 2345 # 222 *F* 886 (0)2 2311 2688 www.winklerpartners.com pdernbach@winklerpartners.com ------------------------------ NOTICE: This email and any attachments contain private, confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or distribute the contents and are requested to delete them and to notify the sender. 本電子郵件及其附件含有私有、機密、依法受特別保護之資料，僅供意定之收件人使用。若您並非所意定之收件人，即不得予以使用、重製或散布，並請刪除其內容，並通知寄件人。 On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
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
Dear Peter, Thank you for your vote. I believe we do agree that we need to get the initial report out according to the work plan, although we are running about a week behind it. In which case, I take your vote as a “no”. I will pick up the issues you raise during our next meetings. 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: Peter Dernbach [mailto:pdernbach@winklerpartners.com] Sent: 26 November 2014 22:30 To: Dillon, Chris Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Dear Chris and All, Apologies that I have not been able to attend the most recent conference calls due to other pressing work commitments. I am new to ICANN Working Groups, so am not as familiar with the process as many of you are. My procedural question is this: how important is the date for delivering our Initial Report? It seems clear to me that our working group has not yet reached a consensus position. I also believe that issuing an initial report with multiple opinions may not be as helpful to the community in the policy making process. Is there another option of providing an update saying that the Working Group has not yet come to a consensus on the content of its initial report, so the initial report will be delayed while we continue to work on reaching consensus? The question at hand is "am I in favor of having only one opinion in the initial report?" In theory, I am, but if we need to issue an initial report at this stage, I do not think we should include only one opinion as I do not think that reflects the current state of the Working Group. Best regards, Peter [http://www.winklerpartners.com/Winkler-logo.gif]<http://www.winklerpartners.com/> Peter J.Dernbach 譚璧德 Partner 合夥律師(外國法事務律師) T 886 (0)2 2311 2345 # 222 F 886 (0)2 2311 2688 www.winklerpartners.com<http://www.winklerpartners.com> pdernbach@winklerpartners.com<mailto:pdernbach@winklerpartners.com> ________________________________ NOTICE: This email and any attachments contain private, confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or distribute the contents and are requested to delete them and to notify the sender. 本電子郵件及其附件含有私有、機密、依法受特別保護之資料，僅供意定之收件人使用。若您並非所意定之收件人，即不得予以使用、重製或散布，並請刪除其內容，並通知寄件人。 On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>> wrote: 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<tel:%2B44%2020%207679%201599> (int 31599) www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon>
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> 发送时间:2014-11-25 17:31:51 (星期二) 收件人: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org" <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 -- 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 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
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) www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon<http://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 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
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
Dear Pitinan, Thank you for your vote. I think we can accept it, although it is after the deadline. Please note that the option (mandatory or non-mandatory) will be decided separately. Thank you very much for your comments, which I will pick up during a meeting in the near future. 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 From: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan@etda.or.th<mailto:pitinan@etda.or.th>> Date: Friday, 28 November 2014 04:05 To: Chris Dillon <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>>, "zhangzuan@conac.cn<mailto:zhangzuan@conac.cn>" <zhangzuan@conac.cn<mailto:zhangzuan@conac.cn>> Cc: "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>>, Chaichana Mitrpant <chaichana@etda.or.th<mailto:chaichana@etda.or.th>>, Werachai Prayoonpruk <werachai@etda.or.th<mailto:werachai@etda.or.th>>, Kriangkrai Charernroy <kriangkrai@etda.or.th<mailto:kriangkrai@etda.or.th>>, Ariya Nunnual <ariya@etda.or.th<mailto:ariya@etda.or.th>>, Thiphonphan Uthaithat <thiphonphan@etda.or.th<mailto:thiphonphan@etda.or.th>> Subject: RE: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options 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> [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<mailto: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) www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon<http://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
Jumping in here, just to say that under the 2013 RAA the validation of contact info is already mandatory for registrars, requiring them to validate all required fields are present and that all data conforms to the right format. So I am not sure where you are leading with this issue that I see as completely out of scope for this WG. As an aside, validation is a completely useless exercise and waste of time and money as any criminal will just need to reach for the next phone book for a list of perfectly accurate verifyable contact details. As a registrar, I feel comfortable stating that this is now the norm for abusive registrations and there is no way to prevent this with any amount of validation. Best, Volker Am 28.11.2014 05:05, schrieb Pitinan Kooarmornpatana:
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) www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon <http://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
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Dear Volker, Thank you for your comments. In a future hypothetical situation where there was a DNRD in which contact information was stored in many scripts and the information was not transformed into ASCII/English, syntactic validation would be more difficult than the current situation, as many scripts would be involved. If transformed contact information were to be validated, the situation would be even more difficult because of the lack of (or in some cases the availability of several) transliteration systems. I don’t think operational or identity validation would be affected. (Further information: 2013 RAA. WHOIS Accuracy Program specification p.1 and https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/8+Verification+and+Validation ) 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: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: 28 November 2014 14:58 To: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana; Dillon, Chris; zhangzuan@conac.cn Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org; Chaichana Mitrpant; Werachai Prayoonpruk; Kriangkrai Charernroy; Ariya Nunnual; Thiphonphan Uthaithat Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options Jumping in here, just to say that under the 2013 RAA the validation of contact info is already mandatory for registrars, requiring them to validate all required fields are present and that all data conforms to the right format. So I am not sure where you are leading with this issue that I see as completely out of scope for this WG. As an aside, validation is a completely useless exercise and waste of time and money as any criminal will just need to reach for the next phone book for a list of perfectly accurate verifyable contact details. As a registrar, I feel comfortable stating that this is now the norm for abusive registrations and there is no way to prevent this with any amount of validation. Best, Volker Am 28.11.2014 05:05, schrieb Pitinan Kooarmornpatana: 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
participants (8)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Dillon, Chris -
Justine Chew -
Peter Dernbach -
Petter Rindforth -
Pitinan Kooarmornpatana -
Volker Greimann -
张钻