Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info
Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the actions from our meeting on 06 February. These also are posted to the wiki page at:https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/06+February+2014. Actions: 1. Ching Chao will convey to the Council the PDP WG's request to get an agenda item on the Council meeting on 27 February so that the WG can bring to the Council its request for input. 2. Proposed Questions: Ask WG members to continue to suggest refinements on the list and the wiki. Question 1 -- ADD: What is the definition of translation and transliteration? Questions 3 & 4: Consider whether there are related questions or links to existing information.
1. What is contact information (review and expand on the taxonomies)?
2. Why are we doing this?; is this particular feature necessary?
3. Who gets access to what?
4. Who are the stakeholders?; who is affected? and what do they want (linking back to What)?
5. How much would a particular feature cost and how to weigh the costs versus the benefits?
6. When would policy come into effect?
7. What should be mandatory?
Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Dear colleagues, I have added two pages under 4. Who are the stakeholders?; who is affected? and what do they want (linking back to What)? https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44960119 1. The first is a simple list of possible stakeholders. Is anyone aware of a better one we could link to and discuss? 2. The other one is a list of groups and individuals to whom we have sent publicity e-mails. Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: 06 February 2014 18:44 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the actions from our meeting on 06 February. These also are posted to the wiki page at:https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/06+February+2014. Actions: 1. Ching Chao will convey to the Council the PDP WG's request to get an agenda item on the Council meeting on 27 February so that the WG can bring to the Council its request for input. 2. Proposed Questions: Ask WG members to continue to suggest refinements on the list and the wiki. Question 1 -- ADD: What is the definition of translation and transliteration? Questions 3 & 4: Consider whether there are related questions or links to existing information. 1. What is contact information (review and expand on the taxonomies)? 2. Why are we doing this?; is this particular feature necessary? 3. Who gets access to what? 4. Who are the stakeholders?; who is affected? and what do they want (linking back to What)? 5. How much would a particular feature cost and how to weigh the costs versus the benefits? 6. When would policy come into effect? 7. What should be mandatory? Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the actions from our meeting on 20 February. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/20+February+2014. Actions: 1. (From 13 February): Think about possible scenarios and check on those that the EWG used in its reports <https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11nov13-en.htm> - pay attention to difference between literal and figurative translation 2. Responses from SO/ACs: 3. 4. a) Staff will send reminders to the SOs/ACs to give responses as early as possible, or indicate if they need more time, or whether they want to join the PDP WG face-to-face meeting in Singapore; 5. 6. b) Rudi will reach out to Olivier concerning a meeting with the ALAC in Singapore. 7. 8. c) Rudi also will reach out to a colleague on the ccNSO. 9. 10. Study Group to Evaluate Available Solutions for the Submission and Display of Internationalized Contact Data: The WG will consider whether it will provide input on the survey that has gone out to the registrars and registries. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the actions from our meeting on 27 February. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/27+February+2014. Actions: 1. (From 13 February): Think about possible scenarios and check on those that the EWG used in its reports <https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11nov13-en.htm> - pay attention to difference between literal and figurative translation 2. Responses from SOs/ACs: Extend the deadline to the end of March. Staff will schedule a meeting in Singapore with the ALAC if possible. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Dear colleagues, As agreed at our last meeting, I have just sent out reminder e-mails to the SOs and ACs. Any responses from them will take priority on Thursday, but there may also be time to look at scenarios. Please have a critical look at p.12-14 and p.39 of: Initial report from the EWG on gTLD Directory Services: a next generation Registration Directory Service www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report-24jun13-en.pdf<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report-...> Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: 27 February 2014 15:17 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the actions from our meeting on 27 February. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/27+February+2014. Actions: 1. (From 13 February): Think about possible scenarios and check on those that the EWG used in its reports<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11nov13-en.htm> - pay attention to difference between literal and figurative translation 2. Responses from SOs/ACs: Extend the deadline to the end of March. Staff will schedule a meeting in Singapore with the ALAC if possible. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Dear Chris, Rudi and All, I am looking forward to our call this evening, and wanted to send in some information and examples from Taiwan. In Taiwan, we have some guidance in terms of an "official" translation of standardized Geographic Names. I attach for your reference an English translation of the Regulations of Translating the Standardized Geographic Names. There is also guidance on the transliteration of names, i.e. that Hanyu Pinyin system should be used unless otherwise provided. I attach these regs (in Chinese) also for reference. In Taiwan, though, different romanization systems have been used at different times in the past. Many of the city and county names continue to use transliterations that were based on romanization systems that were used previously (for example 台北 continues to be transliterated as "Taipei" rather than "Taibei"). There is not an "official" list of these exceptions, but the state-run postal service does provide its list of how the major city and county names should appear in their romanized forms. I attach that excel file as well for reference. Cheers, 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 Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
As agreed at our last meeting, I have just sent out reminder e-mails to the SOs and ACs. Any responses from them will take priority on Thursday, but there may also be time to look at scenarios.
Please have a critical look at p.12-14 and p.39 of:
Initial report from the EWG on gTLD Directory Services: a next generation Registration Directory Service
www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report-24jun13-en.pdf
Regards,
Chris.
--
Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) 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 *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* 27 February 2014 15:17 *To:* gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the actions from our meeting on 27 February. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/27+February+2014.
*Actions:*
1. (From 13 February): Think about possible scenarios and check on those that the EWG used in its reports<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11nov13-en.htm> - pay attention to difference between literal and figurative translation
2. Responses from SOs/ACs: Extend the deadline to the end of March. Staff will schedule a meeting in Singapore with the ALAC if possible.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Dear Peter, Thank you for your documentation. I have created a new page in the wiki for it under https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/Comments+on+what+is+contact+inf... . The existence of a large number of cities which have older Romanizations is an obstacle to a simple rule ��transliterate address information using the standard Romanization��. Taipei/Taibei, Keelung/Jilong and Pusan/Busan are good examples. There is also a category of completely unaligned forms e.g. Bangkok/Krung Thep. Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon From: Peter Dernbach [mailto:pdernbach@winklerpartners.com] Sent: 06 March 2014 09:26 To: Dillon, Chris Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] RE: Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Dear Chris, Rudi and All, I am looking forward to our call this evening, and wanted to send in some information and examples from Taiwan. In Taiwan, we have some guidance in terms of an "official" translation of standardized Geographic Names. I attach for your reference an English translation of the Regulations of Translating the Standardized Geographic Names. There is also guidance on the transliteration of names, i.e. that Hanyu Pinyin system should be used unless otherwise provided. I attach these regs (in Chinese) also for reference. In Taiwan, though, different romanization systems have been used at different times in the past. Many of the city and county names continue to use transliterations that were based on romanization systems that were used previously (for example ̨�� continues to be transliterated as "Taipei" rather than "Taibei"). There is not an "official" list of these exceptions, but the state-run postal service does provide its list of how the major city and county names should appear in their romanized forms. I attach that excel file as well for reference. Cheers, Peter [http://www.winklerpartners.com/Winkler-logo.gif]<http://www.winklerpartners.com/> Peter J.Dernbach �T赵� Partner ����Ɏ�(��������Ɏ�) 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. ������]�����丽������˽�С��C�ܡ��������e���o֮�Y�ϣ��H���ⶨ֮�ռ���ʹ�á������K�����ⶨ֮�ռ��ˣ�����������ʹ�á����u��ɢ�����KՈ�h������ݣ��K֪ͨ�ļ��ˡ� On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>> wrote: Dear colleagues, As agreed at our last meeting, I have just sent out reminder e-mails to the SOs and ACs. Any responses from them will take priority on Thursday, but there may also be time to look at scenarios. Please have a critical look at p.12-14 and p.39 of: Initial report from the EWG on gTLD Directory Services: a next generation Registration Directory Service www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report-24jun13-en.pdf<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report-...> 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) ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon<http://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 Julie Hedlund Sent: 27 February 2014 15:17 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the actions from our meeting on 27 February. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/27+February+2014. Actions: 1. (From 13 February): Think about possible scenarios and check on those that the EWG used in its reports<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11nov13-en.htm> - pay attention to difference between literal and figurative translation 2. Responses from SOs/ACs: Extend the deadline to the end of March. Staff will schedule a meeting in Singapore with the ALAC if possible. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the actions from our meeting on 06 March and previous meetings. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/06+March+2014. Actions: 1. Think about possible scenarios and check on those that the EWG used in its reports <https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11nov13-en.htm> - pay attention to difference between literal and figurative translation. 2. Responses from SOs/ACs: Extend the deadline to the end of March and send reminders (DONE). Staff will schedule a meeting in Singapore with the ALAC if possible (IN PROCESS). Continue to review responses. 3. Review questions and consider input/refinements. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the actions from our meeting on 24 March and previous meetings. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/24+March+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 03 April at our usual time of 1300 UTC. A meeting notice will be sent separately. Actions: 1. Responses from SOs/ACs: Extended the deadline to the end of March. Continue to review responses. 2. Review Work Plan and consider next steps. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Hi Julie, Is the SO/AC deadline extension set for end of March or end of April? End of March would mean until the Singapore meeting is over, and we are unlikely to get new comments this week. The registrars have indicated that they are planning on making a submission. Could we give them a little more time? Thanks. Amr On Mar 24, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the actions from our meeting on 24 March and previous meetings. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/24+March+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 03 April at our usual time of 1300 UTC. A meeting notice will be sent separately.
Actions:
1. Responses from SOs/ACs: Extended the deadline to the end of March. Continue to review responses. 2. Review Work Plan and consider next steps. Best regards, Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Hi Amr, The deadline is for the end of March, but we will take submissions after that. We do plan on working with the Registrar to get a submission, even if it is after the deadline. Best regards, Julie From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: Monday, March 24, 2014 2:04 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Hi Julie, Is the SO/AC deadline extension set for end of March or end of April? End of March would mean until the Singapore meeting is over, and we are unlikely to get new comments this week. The registrars have indicated that they are planning on making a submission. Could we give them a little more time? Thanks. Amr On Mar 24, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the actions from our meeting on 24 March and previous meetings. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/24+March+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 03 April at our usual time of 1300 UTC. A meeting notice will be sent separately.
Actions:
1. Responses from SOs/ACs: Extended the deadline to the end of March. Continue to review responses. 2. Review Work Plan and consider next steps. Best regards, Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Great. Thanks, Julie. Amr On Mar 24, 2014, at 2:02 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Amr,
The deadline is for the end of March, but we will take submissions after that. We do plan on working with the Registrar to get a submission, even if it is after the deadline.
Best regards, Julie
From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: Monday, March 24, 2014 2:04 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info
Hi Julie,
Is the SO/AC deadline extension set for end of March or end of April? End of March would mean until the Singapore meeting is over, and we are unlikely to get new comments this week. The registrars have indicated that they are planning on making a submission. Could we give them a little more time?
Thanks.
Amr
On Mar 24, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the actions from our meeting on 24 March and previous meetings. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/24+March+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 03 April at our usual time of 1300 UTC. A meeting notice will be sent separately.
Actions:
1. Responses from SOs/ACs: Extended the deadline to the end of March. Continue to review responses. 2. Review Work Plan and consider next steps. Best regards, Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the actions from our meeting on 03 April. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/03+April+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 10 April at our usual time of 1300 UTC. A meeting notice will be sent separately. Actions: 1. Responses from SOs/ACs: Extended the deadline to the end of March. Continue to review responses. 2. Review Work Plan and consider next steps. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the actions from our meeting on 10 April. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/10+April+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 17 April at our usual time of 1300 UTC. A meeting notice will be sent separately. Actions: 1. Responses from SOs/ACs: Extended the deadline to the end of March. Continue to review responses. Send a reminder to the Registrar SG. 2. Review Work Plan and consider next steps. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the actions from our meeting on 17 April. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/17+April+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 24 April at our usual time of 1300 UTC. A meeting notice will be sent separately. Actions: 1. Responses from SOs/ACs: Extended the deadline to the end of March. Continue to review responses. Rudi will speak to Michele Neylon as a reminder (Chair, Registrar SG) 2. Review Work Plan and consider next steps. Consider creating a matrix to present proposals for each topic. 3. Consider Requesting F2F Meetings in London: Registrars, ALAC, others? Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the actions from our meeting on 01 May including documents for review/background. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/01+May+201 <https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/01+May+2014> . Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 08 May at our usual time of 1300 UTC. A meeting notice will be sent separately. Actions: 1. Responses from SOs/ACs: Extended the deadline to the end of March. Rudi will speak to Michele Neylon as a reminder (Chair, Registrar SG) 2. Review Work Plan and consider next steps. Staff will create a table/matrix to summarize responses. 3. Review reports re: Verification & Validation: Look at the relevant section of the RAA; page 23 of EWG Nov Update Document; Margie Milam's blog entry. 4. Consider Requesting F2F Meetings in London: Registrars, ALAC, others? For Review/Background: 1. Summary of Current Status/Next Steps (Stock Taking) 17 April 2014 2. <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/47265584/140417summaryQ.pd f?version=1&modificationDate=1398953010731&api=v2> 3. A Model for Exploring WHOIS Accuracy (by Margie Milam) <http://blog.icann.org/2014/03/a-model-for-exploring-whois-accuracy/> 4. Interim Report from the Expert Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data 10 April 2014 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/47265584/EWG%20IRD.pdf?ver sion=1&modificationDate=1398953132905&api=v2> 5. Status update report from the EWG on gTLD Directory Services 11 November 2013 <https://community.icann.org/www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-se rvices/status-update-11nov13-en.pdf> 6. WHOIS Accuracy Program Specification part of the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/approved-with-specs-27jun1 3-en.htm#whois-accuracy> Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Dear PDP WG members, Our meeting on 15 May was cancelled, but we did have a brief discussion about actions the WG members can take to prepare for our next meeting on 22 May. Please see the actions below. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/22+May+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 22 May at our usual time of 1300 UTC. A meeting notice was sent separately. Actions: Responses from SOs/ACs: Review the attached chart of community input (attached and on the wiki) and provide comments via email in the format provided below. Staff will revise the chart in advance of the next meeting. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Comments: WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA):
Dear colleagues, Please find below some responses etc. to comments for discussion on the list before Thursday's meeting. I have added a Note field to facilitate our discussions. It is not too late for other changes to the way we are handling comments. I would be especially interested in improvements to the field indicating agreement. Perhaps another WG has needed a simple indication of agreement in the past. Regards, Chris. == Issue #2: What exactly the benefits to the community are of translating and/or transliterating contact information, especially in light of the costs that may be connected to translation and/or transliteration? Note: The wording of the questions is to some extent presuming that there are benefits. (continued) 10 WG Response: WG policy applies to the current WHOIS (if implementable) and to replacements systems. There is no intention to disobey the 2013 RAA. Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: There is a list of benefits, hence Y. There is a case for saying that policy should only apply to the system replacing WHOIS and future RAAs. 11 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: There is a list of benefits, hence Y. 12 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: In fact there is recognition of some benefits for IP rights holders and law enforcement agencies, but the claim is that the burden should be on them. 13 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: This says that in China, information in Chinese is all that is required. 14 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: This says that WHOIS will fail without transformation. Issue #3: Should translation and/or transliteration of contact information be mandatory for all gTLDs? 15 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Confirm that "established in each country" means "implemented in each country". Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: 16 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: 17 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: 18 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: 19 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: This says that in China, information in Chinese is all that is required. 20 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #4 Should translation and or transliteration of contact information be mandatory for all registrants or only those based in certain countries and/or using specific non-ASCII scripts? 21 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): NA Note: Effectively there is no need in ASCII countries; it is only an issue in non-ASCII countries. 22 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: Mention of the possibility of automated transformation. 23 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: 24 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: This says that in China, information in Chinese is all that is required. 25 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: 26 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #5: What impact will translation/transliteration of contact information have on the WHOIS validation as set out under the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement? 27 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): A single point of registration system is recommended. Note: 28 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Validation should be carried out in the original language. Note: 29 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Unless there is a global system, the system itself will be threatened. Note: 30 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #6: When should any new policy relating to translation and transliteration of contact information come into effect? 31 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): at the earliest possible timeline Note: 32 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): after the conclusion of the two post-Expert WG PDPs Note: Isn't there only one PDP - the Board-directed one after the EWG on Directory Services? 33 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): as soon as possible Note: 34 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #7: Who should decide who should bear the burden translating contact information to a single common language or transliterating contact information to a single common script? This question relates to the concern expressed by the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) in its report that there are costs associated with providing translation and transliteration of contact information. For example, if a policy development process (PDP) determined that the registrar must translate or transliterate contact information, this policy would place a cost burden on the registrar. 35 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): all affected parties Note: But who makes the final decision? 36 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): all affected parties Note: 37 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): the domain name registrant Note: There should be no policy requiring a specific stakeholder to bear the costs. 38 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #8: Who does your SG/C believe should bear the cost, bearing in mind, however, the limits in scope set in the Initial Report on this issue? 39 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): The cost of conversion from local language into common language should belong to registrants and the cost for validation should belong to registrars. Note: 40 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Registries should bear the cost of translation and transliteration of Registrar data, and Registrars should bear the cost of translation and transliteration of registrant data. As indicated above, this is the cost of making business. Note: Would it be possible to protect registrants from cost increases? 41 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Depends whether it's general or specialized use. Note: Who defines whether it falls into one or the other? 42 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): registries and registrars Note: 43 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): end-user of WHOIS Note: A charge to use WHOIS? 44 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Any other information 45 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Destructive and anticompetitive to burden new IDN registrars with additional costs which discriminate against non-ASCII domain names. Note: 46 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Case for collecting and verifying information in Chinese in China Note: -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: 15 May 2014 15:45 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Importance: High Dear PDP WG members, Our meeting on 15 May was cancelled, but we did have a brief discussion about actions the WG members can take to prepare for our next meeting on 22 May. Please see the actions below. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/22+May+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 22 May at our usual time of 1300 UTC. A meeting notice was sent separately. Actions: Responses from SOs/ACs: Review the attached chart of community input (attached and on the wiki) and provide comments via email in the format provided below. Staff will revise the chart in advance of the next meeting. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Comments: WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA):
Dear Chris, Thank you very much for your helpful inputs. I have updated the attached table accordingly and posted it to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/13+Community+Input. I also will load it into the Adobe Connect room for our discussion tomorrow. Best regards, Julie From: <Dillon>, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:42 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Dear colleagues, Please find below some responses etc. to comments for discussion on the list before Thursday¹s meeting. I have added a Note field to facilitate our discussions. It is not too late for other changes to the way we are handling comments. I would be especially interested in improvements to the field indicating agreement. Perhaps another WG has needed a simple indication of agreement in the past. Regards, Chris. == Issue #2: What exactly the benefits to the community are of translating and/or transliterating contact information, especially in light of the costs that may be connected to translation and/or transliteration? Note: The wording of the questions is to some extent presuming that there are benefits. (continued) 10 WG Response: WG policy applies to the current WHOIS (if implementable) and to replacements systems. There is no intention to disobey the 2013 RAA. Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: There is a list of benefits, hence Y. There is a case for saying that policy should only apply to the system replacing WHOIS and future RAAs. 11 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: There is a list of benefits, hence Y. 12 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: In fact there is recognition of some benefits for IP rights holders and law enforcement agencies, but the claim is that the burden should be on them. 13 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: This says that in China, information in Chinese is all that is required. 14 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: This says that WHOIS will fail without transformation. Issue #3: Should translation and/or transliteration of contact information be mandatory for all gTLDs? 15 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Confirm that "established in each country" means "implemented in each country". Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: 16 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: 17 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: 18 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: 19 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: This says that in China, information in Chinese is all that is required. 20 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #4 Should translation and or transliteration of contact information be mandatory for all registrants or only those based in certain countries and/or using specific non-ASCII scripts? 21 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): NA Note: Effectively there is no need in ASCII countries; it is only an issue in non-ASCII countries. 22 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: Mention of the possibility of automated transformation. 23 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: 24 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: This says that in China, information in Chinese is all that is required. 25 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: 26 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #5: What impact will translation/transliteration of contact information have on the WHOIS validation as set out under the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement? 27 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): A single point of registration system is recommended. Note: 28 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Validation should be carried out in the original language. Note: 29 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Unless there is a global system, the system itself will be threatened. Note: 30 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #6: When should any new policy relating to translation and transliteration of contact information come into effect? 31 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): at the earliest possible timeline Note: 32 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): after the conclusion of the two post-Expert WG PDPs Note: Isn't there only one PDP - the Board-directed one after the EWG on Directory Services? 33 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): as soon as possible Note: 34 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #7: Who should decide who should bear the burden translating contact information to a single common language or transliterating contact information to a single common script? This question relates to the concern expressed by the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) in its report that there are costs associated with providing translation and transliteration of contact information. For example, if a policy development process (PDP) determined that the registrar must translate or transliterate contact information, this policy would place a cost burden on the registrar. 35 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): all affected parties Note: But who makes the final decision? 36 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): all affected parties Note: 37 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): the domain name registrant Note: There should be no policy requiring a specific stakeholder to bear the costs. 38 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #8: Who does your SG/C believe should bear the cost, bearing in mind, however, the limits in scope set in the Initial Report on this issue? 39 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): The cost of conversion from local language into common language should belong to registrants and the cost for validation should belong to registrars. Note: 40 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Registries should bear the cost of translation and transliteration of Registrar data, and Registrars should bear the cost of translation and transliteration of registrant data. As indicated above, this is the cost of making business. Note: Would it be possible to protect registrants from cost increases? 41 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Depends whether it's general or specialized use. Note: Who defines whether it falls into one or the other? 42 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): registries and registrars Note: 43 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): end-user of WHOIS Note: A charge to use WHOIS? 44 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Any other information 45 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Destructive and anticompetitive to burden new IDN registrars with additional costs which discriminate against non-ASCII domain names. Note: 46 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Case for collecting and verifying information in Chinese in China Note: -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: 15 May 2014 15:45 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Importance: High Dear PDP WG members, Our meeting on 15 May was cancelled, but we did have a brief discussion about actions the WG members can take to prepare for our next meeting on 22 May. Please see the actions below. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/22+May+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 22 May at our usual time of 1300 UTC. A meeting notice was sent separately. Actions: Responses from SOs/ACs: Review the attached chart of community input (attached and on the wiki) and provide comments via email in the format provided below. Staff will revise the chart in advance of the next meeting. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Comments: WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA):
Dear Julie, Many thanks. We've certainly got a full agenda. Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: 21 May 2014 18:08 To: Dillon, Chris; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Dear Chris, Thank you very much for your helpful inputs. I have updated the attached table accordingly and posted it to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/13+Community+Input. I also will load it into the Adobe Connect room for our discussion tomorrow. Best regards, Julie From: <Dillon>, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>> Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:42 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "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: Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Dear colleagues, Please find below some responses etc. to comments for discussion on the list before Thursday's meeting. I have added a Note field to facilitate our discussions. It is not too late for other changes to the way we are handling comments. I would be especially interested in improvements to the field indicating agreement. Perhaps another WG has needed a simple indication of agreement in the past. Regards, Chris. == Issue #2: What exactly the benefits to the community are of translating and/or transliterating contact information, especially in light of the costs that may be connected to translation and/or transliteration? Note: The wording of the questions is to some extent presuming that there are benefits. (continued) 10 WG Response: WG policy applies to the current WHOIS (if implementable) and to replacements systems. There is no intention to disobey the 2013 RAA. Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: There is a list of benefits, hence Y. There is a case for saying that policy should only apply to the system replacing WHOIS and future RAAs. 11 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: There is a list of benefits, hence Y. 12 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: In fact there is recognition of some benefits for IP rights holders and law enforcement agencies, but the claim is that the burden should be on them. 13 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: This says that in China, information in Chinese is all that is required. 14 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: This says that WHOIS will fail without transformation. Issue #3: Should translation and/or transliteration of contact information be mandatory for all gTLDs? 15 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Confirm that "established in each country" means "implemented in each country". Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: 16 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: 17 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: 18 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: 19 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: This says that in China, information in Chinese is all that is required. 20 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #4 Should translation and or transliteration of contact information be mandatory for all registrants or only those based in certain countries and/or using specific non-ASCII scripts? 21 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): NA Note: Effectively there is no need in ASCII countries; it is only an issue in non-ASCII countries. 22 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: Mention of the possibility of automated transformation. 23 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: 24 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: This says that in China, information in Chinese is all that is required. 25 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: 26 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #5: What impact will translation/transliteration of contact information have on the WHOIS validation as set out under the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement? 27 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): A single point of registration system is recommended. Note: 28 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Validation should be carried out in the original language. Note: 29 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Unless there is a global system, the system itself will be threatened. Note: 30 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #6: When should any new policy relating to translation and transliteration of contact information come into effect? 31 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): at the earliest possible timeline Note: 32 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): after the conclusion of the two post-Expert WG PDPs Note: Isn't there only one PDP - the Board-directed one after the EWG on Directory Services? 33 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): as soon as possible Note: 34 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #7: Who should decide who should bear the burden translating contact information to a single common language or transliterating contact information to a single common script? This question relates to the concern expressed by the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) in its report that there are costs associated with providing translation and transliteration of contact information. For example, if a policy development process (PDP) determined that the registrar must translate or transliterate contact information, this policy would place a cost burden on the registrar. 35 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): all affected parties Note: But who makes the final decision? 36 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): all affected parties Note: 37 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): the domain name registrant Note: There should be no policy requiring a specific stakeholder to bear the costs. 38 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #8: Who does your SG/C believe should bear the cost, bearing in mind, however, the limits in scope set in the Initial Report on this issue? 39 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): The cost of conversion from local language into common language should belong to registrants and the cost for validation should belong to registrars. Note: 40 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Registries should bear the cost of translation and transliteration of Registrar data, and Registrars should bear the cost of translation and transliteration of registrant data. As indicated above, this is the cost of making business. Note: Would it be possible to protect registrants from cost increases? 41 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Depends whether it's general or specialized use. Note: Who defines whether it falls into one or the other? 42 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): registries and registrars Note: 43 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): end-user of WHOIS Note: A charge to use WHOIS? 44 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Any other information 45 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Destructive and anticompetitive to burden new IDN registrars with additional costs which discriminate against non-ASCII domain names. Note: 46 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Case for collecting and verifying information in Chinese in China Note: -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: 15 May 2014 15:45 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Importance: High Dear PDP WG members, Our meeting on 15 May was cancelled, but we did have a brief discussion about actions the WG members can take to prepare for our next meeting on 22 May. Please see the actions below. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/22+May+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 22 May at our usual time of 1300 UTC. A meeting notice was sent separately. Actions: Responses from SOs/ACs: Review the attached chart of community input (attached and on the wiki) and provide comments via email in the format provided below. Staff will revise the chart in advance of the next meeting. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Comments: WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA):
Chris and Julie, thanks for the comprehensive document which makes the positions transparent. So far I can agre with the answers elaborated. However in particular re the cost burden issue there is still final agreement expected within our constituency. I’ll provide that within the next days. Sinc having a call overlapping today I apologize for not attending this meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Dillon, Chris Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 12:10 PM To: Julie Hedlund ; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] RE: Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Dear Julie, Many thanks. We’ve certainly got a full agenda. Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: 21 May 2014 18:08 To: Dillon, Chris; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Dear Chris, Thank you very much for your helpful inputs. I have updated the attached table accordingly and posted it to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/13+Community+Input. I also will load it into the Adobe Connect room for our discussion tomorrow. Best regards, Julie From: <Dillon>, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:42 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Dear colleagues, Please find below some responses etc. to comments for discussion on the list before Thursday’s meeting. I have added a Note field to facilitate our discussions. It is not too late for other changes to the way we are handling comments. I would be especially interested in improvements to the field indicating agreement. Perhaps another WG has needed a simple indication of agreement in the past. Regards, Chris. == Issue #2: What exactly the benefits to the community are of translating and/or transliterating contact information, especially in light of the costs that may be connected to translation and/or transliteration? Note: The wording of the questions is to some extent presuming that there are benefits. (continued) 10 WG Response: WG policy applies to the current WHOIS (if implementable) and to replacements systems. There is no intention to disobey the 2013 RAA. Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: There is a list of benefits, hence Y. There is a case for saying that policy should only apply to the system replacing WHOIS and future RAAs. 11 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: There is a list of benefits, hence Y. 12 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: In fact there is recognition of some benefits for IP rights holders and law enforcement agencies, but the claim is that the burden should be on them. 13 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: This says that in China, information in Chinese is all that is required. 14 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: This says that WHOIS will fail without transformation. Issue #3: Should translation and/or transliteration of contact information be mandatory for all gTLDs? 15 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Confirm that "established in each country" means "implemented in each country". Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: 16 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: 17 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: 18 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: 19 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: This says that in China, information in Chinese is all that is required. 20 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #4 Should translation and or transliteration of contact information be mandatory for all registrants or only those based in certain countries and/or using specific non-ASCII scripts? 21 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): NA Note: Effectively there is no need in ASCII countries; it is only an issue in non-ASCII countries. 22 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: Mention of the possibility of automated transformation. 23 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: 24 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: This says that in China, information in Chinese is all that is required. 25 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: 26 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #5: What impact will translation/transliteration of contact information have on the WHOIS validation as set out under the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement? 27 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): A single point of registration system is recommended. Note: 28 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Validation should be carried out in the original language. Note: 29 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Unless there is a global system, the system itself will be threatened. Note: 30 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #6: When should any new policy relating to translation and transliteration of contact information come into effect? 31 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): at the earliest possible timeline Note: 32 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): after the conclusion of the two post-Expert WG PDPs Note: Isn't there only one PDP - the Board-directed one after the EWG on Directory Services? 33 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): as soon as possible Note: 34 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #7: Who should decide who should bear the burden translating contact information to a single common language or transliterating contact information to a single common script? This question relates to the concern expressed by the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) in its report that there are costs associated with providing translation and transliteration of contact information. For example, if a policy development process (PDP) determined that the registrar must translate or transliterate contact information, this policy would place a cost burden on the registrar. 35 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): all affected parties Note: But who makes the final decision? 36 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): all affected parties Note: 37 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): the domain name registrant Note: There should be no policy requiring a specific stakeholder to bear the costs. 38 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #8: Who does your SG/C believe should bear the cost, bearing in mind, however, the limits in scope set in the Initial Report on this issue? 39 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): The cost of conversion from local language into common language should belong to registrants and the cost for validation should belong to registrars. Note: 40 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Registries should bear the cost of translation and transliteration of Registrar data, and Registrars should bear the cost of translation and transliteration of registrant data. As indicated above, this is the cost of making business. Note: Would it be possible to protect registrants from cost increases? 41 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Depends whether it's general or specialized use. Note: Who defines whether it falls into one or the other? 42 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): registries and registrars Note: 43 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): end-user of WHOIS Note: A charge to use WHOIS? 44 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Any other information 45 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Destructive and anticompetitive to burden new IDN registrars with additional costs which discriminate against non-ASCII domain names. Note: 46 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Case for collecting and verifying information in Chinese in China Note: -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: 15 May 2014 15:45 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Importance: High Dear PDP WG members, Our meeting on 15 May was cancelled, but we did have a brief discussion about actions the WG members can take to prepare for our next meeting on 22 May. Please see the actions below. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/22+May+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 22 May at our usual time of 1300 UTC. A meeting notice was sent separately. Actions: Responses from SOs/ACs: Review the attached chart of community input (attached and on the wiki) and provide comments via email in the format provided below. Staff will revise the chart in advance of the next meeting. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Comments: WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA):
Hi, Sorry, right now I am experiencing low and bad access to the Adobe Room. Can not join you now. Peter -----原始邮件----- 发件人:WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> 发送时间:2014-05-22 19:52:25 (星期四) 收件人: "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>, "Julie Hedlund" <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org 抄送: 主题: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] RE: Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Chris and Julie, thanks for the comprehensive document which makes the positions transparent. So far I can agre with the answers elaborated. However in particular re the cost burden issue there is still final agreement expected within our constituency. I’ll provide that within the next days. Sinc having a call overlapping today I apologize for not attending this meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From:Dillon, Chris Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 12:10 PM To:Julie Hedlund ; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] RE: Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Dear Julie, Many thanks. We’ve certainly got a full agenda. Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: 21 May 2014 18:08 To: Dillon, Chris; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Dear Chris, Thank you very much for your helpful inputs. I have updated the attached table accordingly and posted it to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/13+Community+Input. I also will load it into the Adobe Connect room for our discussion tomorrow. Best regards, Julie From: <Dillon>, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:42 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Dear colleagues, Please find below some responses etc. to comments for discussion on the list before Thursday’s meeting. I have added a Note field to facilitate our discussions. It is not too late for other changes to the way we are handling comments. I would be especially interested in improvements to the field indicating agreement. Perhaps another WG has needed a simple indication of agreement in the past. Regards, Chris. == Issue #2: What exactly the benefits to the community are of translating and/or transliterating contact information, especially in light of the costs that may be connected to translation and/or transliteration? Note: The wording of the questions is to some extent presuming that there are benefits. (continued) 10 WG Response: WG policy applies to the current WHOIS (if implementable) and to replacements systems. There is no intention to disobey the 2013 RAA. Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: There is a list of benefits, hence Y. There is a case for saying that policy should only apply to the system replacing WHOIS and future RAAs. 11 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: There is a list of benefits, hence Y. 12 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: In fact there is recognition of some benefits for IP rights holders and law enforcement agencies, but the claim is that the burden should be on them. 13 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: This says that in China, information in Chinese is all that is required. 14 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: This says that WHOIS will fail without transformation. Issue #3: Should translation and/or transliteration of contact information be mandatory for all gTLDs? 15 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Confirm that "established in each country" means "implemented in each country". Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: 16 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: 17 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: 18 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: 19 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: This says that in China, information in Chinese is all that is required. 20 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #4 Should translation and or transliteration of contact information be mandatory for all registrants or only those based in certain countries and/or using specific non-ASCII scripts? 21 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): NA Note: Effectively there is no need in ASCII countries; it is only an issue in non-ASCII countries. 22 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: Mention of the possibility of automated transformation. 23 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Y Note: 24 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: This says that in China, information in Chinese is all that is required. 25 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): N Note: 26 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #5: What impact will translation/transliteration of contact information have on the WHOIS validation as set out under the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement? 27 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): A single point of registration system is recommended. Note: 28 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Validation should be carried out in the original language. Note: 29 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Unless there is a global system, the system itself will be threatened. Note: 30 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #6: When should any new policy relating to translation and transliteration of contact information come into effect? 31 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): at the earliest possible timeline Note: 32 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): after the conclusion of the two post-Expert WG PDPs Note: Isn't there only one PDP - the Board-directed one after the EWG on Directory Services? 33 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): as soon as possible Note: 34 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #7: Who should decide who should bear the burden translating contact information to a single common language or transliterating contact information to a single common script? This question relates to the concern expressed by the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) in its report that there are costs associated with providing translation and transliteration of contact information. For example, if a policy development process (PDP) determined that the registrar must translate or transliterate contact information, this policy would place a cost burden on the registrar. 35 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): all affected parties Note: But who makes the final decision? 36 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): all affected parties Note: 37 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): the domain name registrant Note: There should be no policy requiring a specific stakeholder to bear the costs. 38 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Issue #8: Who does your SG/C believe should bear the cost, bearing in mind, however, the limits in scope set in the Initial Report on this issue? 39 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): The cost of conversion from local language into common language should belong to registrants and the cost for validation should belong to registrars. Note: 40 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Registries should bear the cost of translation and transliteration of Registrar data, and Registrars should bear the cost of translation and transliteration of registrant data. As indicated above, this is the cost of making business. Note: Would it be possible to protect registrants from cost increases? 41 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Depends whether it's general or specialized use. Note: Who defines whether it falls into one or the other? 42 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): registries and registrars Note: 43 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): end-user of WHOIS Note: A charge to use WHOIS? 44 WG Response: Recommended Action: Note: Any other information 45 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Destructive and anticompetitive to burden new IDN registrars with additional costs which discriminate against non-ASCII domain names. Note: 46 WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): Case for collecting and verifying information in Chinese in China Note: -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: 15 May 2014 15:45 To:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Importance: High Dear PDP WG members, Our meeting on 15 May was cancelled, but we did have a brief discussion about actions the WG members can take to prepare for our next meeting on 22 May. Please see the actions below. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/22+May+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 22 May at our usual time of 1300 UTC. A meeting notice was sent separately. Actions: Responses from SOs/ACs: Review the attached chart of community input (attached and on the wiki) and provide comments via email in the format provided below. Staff will revise the chart in advance of the next meeting. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Comments: WG Response: Recommended Action: Answer (Y/N/NA): -- 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 PDP WG members, Please see below the actions from the 22 May meeting. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/22+May+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 29 May at our usual time of 1300 UTC. A meeting notice will be sent separately. Actions: 1. Responses from SOs/ACs: Deadline for responses is 29 May. Continue to review the chart and add responses/comments. 2. The Chairs should encourage the WG members who are from the Registrar SG to participate in the WG meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the actions from the 29 May meeting. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/29+May+2014 <https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/22+May+2014> . Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 05 June at our usual time of 1300 UTC. A meeting notice will be sent separately. Actions: 1. Responses from SOs/ACs: Continue to review questions from EWG on IRD (at https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/4+Proposed+Questions+and+Taxono mies) and other relevant documents. 2. The Chairs should encourage the WG members who are from the Registrar SG to participate in the WG meetings. 3. Develop slides for London: 1) update for GNSO Council; 2) slides for public meeting Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the actions from the 05 June meeting. These also are posted to the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/05+June+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 12 June at our usual time of 1300 UTC. A meeting notice will be sent separately. Actions: 1. Responses from SOs/ACs: Review relevant documents posted at https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/7+Studies+and+Background+Docume nts and in particular the following reports: EWG IRD Interim Report (10 April 2014): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/41891674/EWG%20IRD.pdf?vers ion=1&modificationDate=1398951380000&api=v2 Study on Available Solutions for the Submission and Display of Internationalized Contact Data: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/41891674/transform-dnrd-02j un14-en.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1401880342000&api=v2. 2. The Chairs should encourage the WG members who are from the Registrar SG to participate in the WG meetings. 3. Develop slides for London: 1) update for GNSO Council; 2) slides for public meeting Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the actions from the 12 June meeting. These also are posted to the wiki page at: h <https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/05+June+2014> https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/12+June+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled as a face-to-face meeting at the ICANN-50 meeting in London from 0900-1000 local time/UTC+1. See: http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-transliteration-contact. A meeting notice will be sent separately. Note that the revised London Update slides are attached for your review and also posted to the wiki. Actions: 1. Responses from SOs/ACs: Review relevant documents and think about what may be missing (other than response from Registrar SG). 2. The Chairs should encourage the WG members who are from the Registrar SG to participate in the WG meetings. 3. Review the revised London Update slides (see attached and on the wiki). Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
participants (6)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Dillon, Chris -
Julie Hedlund -
Peter Dernbach -
WUKnoben -
张钻