Dear colleagues, I’ve added my comments to the public comment tool, attached. Best, Sara From: <Dillon>, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>> Date: Monday, April 13, 2015 at 5:45 AM To: "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: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Summary of Thursday's call, comment review tool for response by 24:00 UTC Weds. 15 and first draft of final report Dear colleagues, I am sending a summary of Thursday 9th's call so that decisions we made are in one place and easily available to those unable to attend. We discussed the public comment review tool for one of the last times. Please find a new version of it attached to this email. Note especially lines 22, 74 and 75 and various other additions as a result of Justine’s and Pascal’s suggestions. There are new columns asking whether you agree with the comments and responses. Please fill this in and return to the mailing list by 24:00 UTC on Wednesday 15 April. This will help us locate areas of difference in the group. We also discussed the work plan: Four meetings (16, 23 and 30 April and 7 May) and submit on May 11 Or, if this does not work for some reason, add meetings on 14, 21 and 28 May, and 4 and 11 June and submit on June 14. This discussion included some ideas for the final report, which is attached to this email: - The final version is based on the initial version and include the final version of the comment review tool and a link to the final version of the initial report. Early versions of the final report will indicate non-formatting changes. - Pink in the draft means "unfinished - we need to discuss it". One example of its use is on language interfaces for the Whois replacement. Currently we have that the interfaces should be "in as many languages as possible" but we know there are legal issues with this wording. If you know how to fix pink areas, please send text. I've also used Pink on the initial draft of the other recommendations that the report includes. Possibly they should be in a separate document as much work needs to be done, but including a broken draft of them may save a little time. Incidentally there was a detailed discussion of the necessity to identify language and script of data, possibly by tagging. This is another area which is likely to require further work. 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>