Dear working group members, As co-chairs of the Translation and Transliteration Working Group, Chris Dillon and I have reached the following conclusions: 1. All public comments have been reviewed and discussed by the WG and a number of amendments were made to the Initial Report - as agreed to by members of the Working Group. 2. There have been no objections to the Final Report communicated on the WG list it was first sent to the WG on 5 June 2015 at 06:50 UTC with a final response deadline of Tuesday 9 June 23:59 UTC. 3. Therefore, we determine that the Working Group has reached full consensus on the Final Report as attached in clean and redline versions, noting that the redline version highlights all edits made to the Initial Report that was published for public comment in December 2015. All WG participants have until 12:00 UTC (noon) on Thursday 11 June 2015 to object to the ‘full consensus’ call by the co-chairs. If anyone objects, please explain your reasons. If no one objects in the allotted time, the report will be sent by our Council Liaison to the GNSO Council for their action along with a draft motion for its approval. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask. Rudi Vansnick Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/> rudi.vansnick@npoc.org Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
Hi, Thanks for this, Rudi. I have a few questions and comment, which I have place in-line below: On Jun 10, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick@ISOC.BE> wrote:
Dear working group members,
As co-chairs of the Translation and Transliteration Working Group, Chris Dillon and I have reached the following conclusions: 1. All public comments have been reviewed and discussed by the WG and a number of amendments were made to the Initial Report - as agreed to by members of the Working Group. 2. There have been no objections to the Final Report communicated on the WG list it was first sent to the WG on 5 June 2015 at 06:50 UTC with a final response deadline of Tuesday 9 June 23:59 UTC.
Since the last editing session of the final report was yesterday (June 9th), doesn’t the final report attached to your email today actually count as the actual final report (as opposed to the one circulated on June 5th)? I ask this because:
3. Therefore, we determine that the Working Group has reached full consensus on the Final Report as attached in clean and redline versions, noting that the redline version highlights all edits made to the Initial Report that was published for public comment in December 2015.
All WG participants have until 12:00 UTC (noon) on Thursday 11 June 2015 to object to the ‘full consensus’ call by the co-chairs.
I’m not sure if the time allowed is enough for all WG members to respond to the consensus call or not. Seems a bit tight to me. One of the reasons includes…,
If anyone objects, please explain your reasons. If no one objects in the allotted time, the report will be sent by our Council Liaison to the GNSO Council for their action along with a draft motion for its approval.
Along with the objections and reasons provided by any who may wish to express a lack of “full consensus”, minority statements to the WG consensus may need to be submitted and attached to the final report. Pleas take the time needed (if at all needed) to do this into consideration with the deadline of the consensus call.
If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask.
A couple of questions: 1. On pages 4 and 19 of the final report, recommendation #3 mentions ccTLDs. Why are we including this in our recommendations? I don’t recall seeing it there before. Policies concerning ccTLDs are far beyond the remit of any GNSO PDP WG. 2. On pages 4 and 20 of the final report, the second charter question of this PDP seems misrepresented to me requiring a discussion on who should bear the burden of transformation, as opposed to who should decide who bears the burden. This is correctly represented in other parts of the report, such as on page 7. Having said all that, I support the recommendations in the final report. There seems to be a considerable amount of work done on it, and I very much appreciate the editing performed to get this done. Very well done, indeed. Thanks. Amr
Thank you for your comment, Amr. I think that the reason 5 June is mentioned is that the recommendations (in spirit) have not changed since then. Although small edits were made, they are unlikely to change someone¹s position at this stage. In addition, no comments or amendments were put forward on the email list either, nor were any additional ones raised during Tuesday¹s call. Also, the timeline was circulated among members and no objections were made regarding those. Of course, if there are concerns that more time is needed it is up to the Chair to extend deadlines were needed/appropriate; bearing in mind that the deadline to make the next GNSO Council submission deadline is this coming Sunday - which was the date the Group aimed for. Can I suggest that those needing/wanting more time, indicate this on list so that the Chair can take an informed decision? As for your two substantive issues, I completely agree with your comments. The /ccTLD should be taken out - as an explanation, it was something we discussed on the call (in a slightly different context) and it made it¹s way into the recommendation. It clearly is beyond our charter. References on pp. 4 and 20 to bearing cost should also be amended. Thank you very much for your help with getting us to this stage, Amr! Very best. Lars On 10/06/2015 16:56, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for this, Rudi. I have a few questions and comment, which I have place in-line below:
On Jun 10, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick@ISOC.BE> wrote:
Dear working group members,
As co-chairs of the Translation and Transliteration Working Group, Chris Dillon and I have reached the following conclusions: 1. All public comments have been reviewed and discussed by the WG and a number of amendments were made to the Initial Report - as agreed to by members of the Working Group. 2. There have been no objections to the Final Report communicated on the WG list it was first sent to the WG on 5 June 2015 at 06:50 UTC with a final response deadline of Tuesday 9 June 23:59 UTC.
Since the last editing session of the final report was yesterday (June 9th), doesn¹t the final report attached to your email today actually count as the actual final report (as opposed to the one circulated on June 5th)? I ask this because:
3. Therefore, we determine that the Working Group has reached full consensus on the Final Report as attached in clean and redline versions, noting that the redline version highlights all edits made to the Initial Report that was published for public comment in December 2015.
All WG participants have until 12:00 UTC (noon) on Thursday 11 June 2015 to object to the full consensus¹ call by the co-chairs.
I¹m not sure if the time allowed is enough for all WG members to respond to the consensus call or not. Seems a bit tight to me. One of the reasons includes,
If anyone objects, please explain your reasons. If no one objects in the allotted time, the report will be sent by our Council Liaison to the GNSO Council for their action along with a draft motion for its approval.
Along with the objections and reasons provided by any who may wish to express a lack of ³full consensus², minority statements to the WG consensus may need to be submitted and attached to the final report. Pleas take the time needed (if at all needed) to do this into consideration with the deadline of the consensus call.
If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask.
A couple of questions:
1. On pages 4 and 19 of the final report, recommendation #3 mentions ccTLDs. Why are we including this in our recommendations? I don¹t recall seeing it there before. Policies concerning ccTLDs are far beyond the remit of any GNSO PDP WG.
2. On pages 4 and 20 of the final report, the second charter question of this PDP seems misrepresented to me requiring a discussion on who should bear the burden of transformation, as opposed to who should decide who bears the burden. This is correctly represented in other parts of the report, such as on page 7.
Having said all that, I support the recommendations in the final report. There seems to be a considerable amount of work done on it, and I very much appreciate the editing performed to get this done. Very well done, indeed.
Thanks.
Amr
Dear colleagues, I attach a new version of the final report with Amr's suggestions about the ccTLD reference and the misquote of the charter question adopted. I've also attached Rudi's email from earlier and the redline report, so that you have everything in one place. Our next meeting is at 13:00 UTC tomorrow. 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 working group members, As co-chairs of the Translation and Transliteration Working Group, Chris Dillon and I have reached the following conclusions: 1. All public comments have been reviewed and discussed by the WG and a number of amendments were made to the Initial Report - as agreed to by members of the Working Group. 2. There have been no objections to the Final Report communicated on the WG list it was first sent to the WG on 5 June 2015 at 06:50 UTC with a final response deadline of Tuesday 9 June 23:59 UTC. 3. Therefore, we determine that the Working Group has reached full consensus on the Final Report as attached in clean and redline versions, noting that the redline version highlights all edits made to the Initial Report that was published for public comment in December 2015. All WG participants have until 12:00 UTC (noon) on Thursday 11 June 2015 to object to the 'full consensus' call by the co-chairs. If anyone objects, please explain your reasons. If no one objects in the allotted time, the report will be sent by our Council Liaison to the GNSO Council for their action along with a draft motion for its approval. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask. -----Original Message----- From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] Sent: 10 June 2015 15:56 To: Rudi Vansnick Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org; Dillon, Chris; Lars Hoffmann Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Final version and call for consensus Hi, Thanks for this, Rudi. I have a few questions and comment, which I have place in-line below: On Jun 10, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick@ISOC.BE> wrote:
Dear working group members,
As co-chairs of the Translation and Transliteration Working Group, Chris Dillon and I have reached the following conclusions: 1. All public comments have been reviewed and discussed by the WG and a number of amendments were made to the Initial Report - as agreed to by members of the Working Group. 2. There have been no objections to the Final Report communicated on the WG list it was first sent to the WG on 5 June 2015 at 06:50 UTC with a final response deadline of Tuesday 9 June 23:59 UTC.
Since the last editing session of the final report was yesterday (June 9th), doesn't the final report attached to your email today actually count as the actual final report (as opposed to the one circulated on June 5th)? I ask this because:
3. Therefore, we determine that the Working Group has reached full consensus on the Final Report as attached in clean and redline versions, noting that the redline version highlights all edits made to the Initial Report that was published for public comment in December 2015.
All WG participants have until 12:00 UTC (noon) on Thursday 11 June 2015 to object to the 'full consensus' call by the co-chairs.
I'm not sure if the time allowed is enough for all WG members to respond to the consensus call or not. Seems a bit tight to me. One of the reasons includes...,
If anyone objects, please explain your reasons. If no one objects in the allotted time, the report will be sent by our Council Liaison to the GNSO Council for their action along with a draft motion for its approval.
Along with the objections and reasons provided by any who may wish to express a lack of "full consensus", minority statements to the WG consensus may need to be submitted and attached to the final report. Pleas take the time needed (if at all needed) to do this into consideration with the deadline of the consensus call.
If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask.
A couple of questions: 1. On pages 4 and 19 of the final report, recommendation #3 mentions ccTLDs. Why are we including this in our recommendations? I don't recall seeing it there before. Policies concerning ccTLDs are far beyond the remit of any GNSO PDP WG. 2. On pages 4 and 20 of the final report, the second charter question of this PDP seems misrepresented to me requiring a discussion on who should bear the burden of transformation, as opposed to who should decide who bears the burden. This is correctly represented in other parts of the report, such as on page 7. Having said all that, I support the recommendations in the final report. There seems to be a considerable amount of work done on it, and I very much appreciate the editing performed to get this done. Very well done, indeed. Thanks. Amr
Dear Chris, Rudi, I am re-reading Final Report T&T.docx and while in my opinion, everything is substantially in order, there are some formatting issues and spelling errors for your attention: 1. Table of Contents - section 6. Community Input has renumbered itself to 1. and so forth. 2. Chapter 1.1 Background - the open inverted comma that appears towards the end of the 4th line is missing is close counterpart. This perhaps should appear at the end of Chapter 1.1, ie. end of the 2nd bullet? 3. Chapter 1.3 Recommendation #3 on pg 4 - is reference to 'ccTLD' meant to be included considering that our mission and scope only pertains to contact information with respect to gTLDs? Where else is 'ccTLD' mentioned except as a supporting example on pg 16? I thought our debate centered purely on gLTDs. 4. Chapter 1.3 Recommendation #4 on pg 4 - 'policies' on the 4th line is mis-spelt. Also the 2nd sentence on the 4th line seems to be 'hanging', perhaps prefix it with "It is also assured that ....."? 5. Chapter 1.3 Recommendation #6 on pg 4 - the part of the sentence beginning on the 3rd line reads funny. May I suggest it be reworded to read as "... and its linguistic/script capacity expanded for receiving, ......"? 6. Chapter 1.3 Last paragraph on pg 4 - should be '... the question of who should decide who should bear ....' i.e the words 'of who' have been omitted. 7. Chapter 1.4 - I know that the Working Group has been abbreviated to (WG) in para 1.2 but I think no where else is the abbreviation of WG used in this document except for in chapter 1.4 - so can I please be pedantic and ask that the 2 references to 'WG' - one in each paragraph - be amended to 'Working Group'? 8. Chapter 3 - suffers the same issue as in Chapter 1.1 i.e. missing closing inverted comma in 1st para. 9. Chapter 4 on pg 9 2nd para - to remove the word 'some' on the 4th line. 10. End of Chapter 5.1.2 on pg 17 - perhaps add the words 'although the Working Group did not come to a conclusion as to who should decide who should bear the said burden.' to properly address our non-answering of Charter Q2. 11. Chapter 5.1.3 on pg 17 - the word 'borne' is mis-spelt; appears twice in the 2nd paragraph. 12. Chapter 5.2.1 on pg 18 para 1 - 'losslessly'? You mean 'loosely'? 13. Chapter 5.2.2 Recommendation #3 on pg 19 - see point 3 above, take out reference to 'ccTLD'? 14. Chapter 5.2.2 Recommendation #4 on pg 19 - see point 4 above, 'policies' is mis-spelt. 15. Chapter 5.2.2 Recommendation $6 on top of pg 20 - see point 5 above. 16. End of Chapter 5.2.2 re Charter Q2 - see point 6 above. I take it that the rest of the document contains text copied from a reliable source. Also that Annex B is the same copy that was finalised before. Once again, I thank you for your hard work and dedication in leading the WG to this Final Report. Kind regards, Justine Chew ----- On 10 June 2015 at 20:56, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick@isoc.be> wrote:
Dear working group members,
As co-chairs of the Translation and Transliteration Working Group, Chris Dillon and I have reached the following conclusions: 1. All public comments have been reviewed and discussed by the WG and a number of amendments were made to the Initial Report - as agreed to by members of the Working Group. 2. There have been no objections to the Final Report communicated on the WG list it was first sent to the WG on 5 June 2015 at 06:50 UTC with a final response deadline of Tuesday 9 June 23:59 UTC. 3. Therefore, we determine that the Working Group has reached full consensus on the Final Report as attached in clean and redline versions, noting that the redline version highlights all edits made to the Initial Report that was published for public comment in December 2015.
All WG participants have until 12:00 UTC (noon) on Thursday 11 June 2015 to object to the ‘full consensus’ call by the co-chairs. If anyone objects, please explain your reasons. If no one objects in the allotted time, the report will be sent by our Council Liaison to the GNSO Council for their action along with a draft motion for its approval.
If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask.
Rudi Vansnick Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) www.npoc.org
rudi.vansnick@npoc.org Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
Dear Justine and colleagues, I should have mentioned earlier, as Lars email’d, please raise any request for deadline extension as soon as possible. Justine - Many thanks for your painstaking proofreading. I am happy to adopt all your edits with the one exception of “losslessly” which is supposed to mean “without loss (of information etc.)”, not “loosely”. There will be one last version with proofreading edits made. 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: 10 June 2015 16:19 To: Rudi Vansnick; Dillon, Chris; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Cc: Lars Hoffmann Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Final version and call for consensus Dear Chris, Rudi, I am re-reading Final Report T&T.docx and while in my opinion, everything is substantially in order, there are some formatting issues and spelling errors for your attention: 1. Table of Contents - section 6. Community Input has renumbered itself to 1. and so forth. 2. Chapter 1.1 Background - the open inverted comma that appears towards the end of the 4th line is missing is close counterpart. This perhaps should appear at the end of Chapter 1.1, ie. end of the 2nd bullet? 3. Chapter 1.3 Recommendation #3 on pg 4 - is reference to 'ccTLD' meant to be included considering that our mission and scope only pertains to contact information with respect to gTLDs? Where else is 'ccTLD' mentioned except as a supporting example on pg 16? I thought our debate centered purely on gLTDs. 4. Chapter 1.3 Recommendation #4 on pg 4 - 'policies' on the 4th line is mis-spelt. Also the 2nd sentence on the 4th line seems to be 'hanging', perhaps prefix it with "It is also assured that ....."? 5. Chapter 1.3 Recommendation #6 on pg 4 - the part of the sentence beginning on the 3rd line reads funny. May I suggest it be reworded to read as "... and its linguistic/script capacity expanded for receiving, ......"? 6. Chapter 1.3 Last paragraph on pg 4 - should be '... the question of who should decide who should bear ....' i.e the words 'of who' have been omitted. 7. Chapter 1.4 - I know that the Working Group has been abbreviated to (WG) in para 1.2 but I think no where else is the abbreviation of WG used in this document except for in chapter 1.4 - so can I please be pedantic and ask that the 2 references to 'WG' - one in each paragraph - be amended to 'Working Group'? 8. Chapter 3 - suffers the same issue as in Chapter 1.1 i.e. missing closing inverted comma in 1st para. 9. Chapter 4 on pg 9 2nd para - to remove the word 'some' on the 4th line. 10. End of Chapter 5.1.2 on pg 17 - perhaps add the words 'although the Working Group did not come to a conclusion as to who should decide who should bear the said burden.' to properly address our non-answering of Charter Q2. 11. Chapter 5.1.3 on pg 17 - the word 'borne' is mis-spelt; appears twice in the 2nd paragraph. 12. Chapter 5.2.1 on pg 18 para 1 - 'losslessly'? You mean 'loosely'? 13. Chapter 5.2.2 Recommendation #3 on pg 19 - see point 3 above, take out reference to 'ccTLD'? 14. Chapter 5.2.2 Recommendation #4 on pg 19 - see point 4 above, 'policies' is mis-spelt. 15. Chapter 5.2.2 Recommendation $6 on top of pg 20 - see point 5 above. 16. End of Chapter 5.2.2 re Charter Q2 - see point 6 above. I take it that the rest of the document contains text copied from a reliable source. Also that Annex B is the same copy that was finalised before. Once again, I thank you for your hard work and dedication in leading the WG to this Final Report. Kind regards, Justine Chew ----- On 10 June 2015 at 20:56, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick@isoc.be<mailto:rudi.vansnick@isoc.be>> wrote: Dear working group members, As co-chairs of the Translation and Transliteration Working Group, Chris Dillon and I have reached the following conclusions: 1. All public comments have been reviewed and discussed by the WG and a number of amendments were made to the Initial Report - as agreed to by members of the Working Group. 2. There have been no objections to the Final Report communicated on the WG list it was first sent to the WG on 5 June 2015 at 06:50 UTC with a final response deadline of Tuesday 9 June 23:59 UTC. 3. Therefore, we determine that the Working Group has reached full consensus on the Final Report as attached in clean and redline versions, noting that the redline version highlights all edits made to the Initial Report that was published for public comment in December 2015. All WG participants have until 12:00 UTC (noon) on Thursday 11 June 2015 to object to the ‘full consensus’ call by the co-chairs. If anyone objects, please explain your reasons. If no one objects in the allotted time, the report will be sent by our Council Liaison to the GNSO Council for their action along with a draft motion for its approval. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask. Rudi Vansnick Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) www.npoc.org<http://www.npoc.org> rudi.vansnick@npoc.org<mailto:rudi.vansnick@npoc.org> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16<tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32<tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
Dear Chris, Rudi, Lars and All, Unfortunately, I have a conflict that prevents me from joining today's call. 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 Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
Dear Justine and colleagues,
I should have mentioned earlier, as Lars email’d, please raise any request for deadline extension as soon as possible.
Justine - Many thanks for your painstaking proofreading. I am happy to adopt all your edits with the one exception of “losslessly” which is supposed to mean “without loss (of information etc.)”, not “loosely”. There will be one last version with proofreading edits made.
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:* Justine Chew [mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com] *Sent:* 10 June 2015 16:19 *To:* Rudi Vansnick; Dillon, Chris; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org *Cc:* Lars Hoffmann *Subject:* Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Final version and call for consensus
Dear Chris, Rudi,
I am re-reading Final Report T&T.docx and while in my opinion, everything is substantially in order, there are some formatting issues and spelling errors for your attention:
1. Table of Contents - section 6. Community Input has renumbered itself to 1. and so forth.
2. Chapter 1.1 Background - the open inverted comma that appears towards the end of the 4th line is missing is close counterpart. This perhaps should appear at the end of Chapter 1.1, ie. end of the 2nd bullet?
3. Chapter 1.3 Recommendation #3 on pg 4 - is reference to 'ccTLD' meant to be included considering that our mission and scope only pertains to contact information with respect to gTLDs? Where else is 'ccTLD' mentioned except as a supporting example on pg 16? I thought our debate centered purely on gLTDs.
4. Chapter 1.3 Recommendation #4 on pg 4 - 'policies' on the 4th line is mis-spelt. Also the 2nd sentence on the 4th line seems to be 'hanging', perhaps prefix it with "It is also assured that ....."?
5. Chapter 1.3 Recommendation #6 on pg 4 - the part of the sentence beginning on the 3rd line reads funny. May I suggest it be reworded to read as "... and its linguistic/script capacity expanded for receiving, ......"?
6. Chapter 1.3 Last paragraph on pg 4 - should be '... the question of who should decide who should bear ....' i.e the words 'of who' have been omitted.
7. Chapter 1.4 - I know that the Working Group has been abbreviated to (WG) in para 1.2 but I think no where else is the abbreviation of WG used in this document except for in chapter 1.4 - so can I please be pedantic and ask that the 2 references to 'WG' - one in each paragraph - be amended to 'Working Group'?
8. Chapter 3 - suffers the same issue as in Chapter 1.1 i.e. missing closing inverted comma in 1st para.
9. Chapter 4 on pg 9 2nd para - to remove the word 'some' on the 4th line.
10. End of Chapter 5.1.2 on pg 17 - perhaps add the words 'although the Working Group did not come to a conclusion as to who should decide who should bear the said burden.' to properly address our non-answering of Charter Q2.
11. Chapter 5.1.3 on pg 17 - the word 'borne' is mis-spelt; appears twice in the 2nd paragraph.
12. Chapter 5.2.1 on pg 18 para 1 - 'losslessly'? You mean 'loosely'?
13. Chapter 5.2.2 Recommendation #3 on pg 19 - see point 3 above, take out reference to 'ccTLD'?
14. Chapter 5.2.2 Recommendation #4 on pg 19 - see point 4 above, 'policies' is mis-spelt.
15. Chapter 5.2.2 Recommendation $6 on top of pg 20 - see point 5 above.
16. End of Chapter 5.2.2 re Charter Q2 - see point 6 above.
I take it that the rest of the document contains text copied from a reliable source. Also that Annex B is the same copy that was finalised before.
Once again, I thank you for your hard work and dedication in leading the WG to this Final Report.
Kind regards,
Justine Chew -----
On 10 June 2015 at 20:56, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick@isoc.be> wrote:
Dear working group members,
As co-chairs of the Translation and Transliteration Working Group, Chris Dillon and I have reached the following conclusions:
1. All public comments have been reviewed and discussed by the WG and a number of amendments were made to the Initial Report - as agreed to by members of the Working Group.
2. There have been no objections to the Final Report communicated on the WG list it was first sent to the WG on 5 June 2015 at 06:50 UTC with a final response deadline of Tuesday 9 June 23:59 UTC.
3. Therefore, we determine that the Working Group has reached full consensus on the Final Report as attached in clean and redline versions, noting that the redline version highlights all edits made to the Initial Report that was published for public comment in December 2015.
All WG participants have until 12:00 UTC (noon) on Thursday 11 June 2015 to object to the ‘full consensus’ call by the co-chairs. If anyone objects, please explain your reasons. If no one objects in the allotted time, the report will be sent by our Council Liaison to the GNSO Council for their action along with a draft motion for its approval.
If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask.
Rudi Vansnick
Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC)
www.npoc.org
rudi.vansnick@npoc.org
Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
participants (6)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Dillon, Chris -
Justine Chew -
Lars Hoffmann -
Peter Dernbach -
Rudi Vansnick