Hi Amr, Emily, all Thank your for your thoughts! And before I respond, please let me point out that I have attached a first version of the Draft Initial Report. Just a quick note clarifying my roadmap¹ from my original email and also addressing the important points that have been raised. Please note that this is a draft Initial Report. As such it is not yet ready to go for public comment and it is not intended to go out before (nor during) ICANN 51. The document is produced now so that WG members have a substantial draft to present and discuss in LA. The Group will continue discussing the draft on Thursday's call and in LA during its face-to-face meeting. Potentially, further feedback from the community might come forward and feed into further amendments following LA. Only then would it the Initial Report be put out for public comment. Because the Group is faced with a binary question, the idea was to provide clearly to the community both sides of the argument that have been discussed (for an against mandatory transformation) and also provide the two logical recommendations that flow from these different sides of the arguments: mandatory transformation; no mandatory transformation. This would be done to help encourage community feedback during the public comment period that follows the finalized Initial Report post ICANN51. Also, the PDP Manual does not prescribe a mandatory formal consensus level call be conducted for an Initial Report - though it is of course an option. This is to allow for differences among WGs depending on each group¹s deliberations to date, such that the WG and its coChairs could decide not to determine consensus level at this stage, including on the basis that community feedback is important for informing the Final Report and the formal Consensus Call that will need to be done. In this way, relevant input from the public comment period will be assessed and fed into the Final Report that will only contain one set of recommendations, to be determined after the formal Consensus Call takes place. At that point, Minority Statement(s), if needed, can still be produced and attached to the Final Report. You may be interested to know that this approach was also recently followed for the IRTP-D and IGO-INGO PDP WGs. In any case, the Draft Initial Report is an amalgamation of Chris¹ straw man and Petter¹s modified version and so maybe a decision on which way to move forward could be taken on Thursday when everybody had the chance to read though the document? I would be able to amend the document very quickly after Thursday¹s call - based on the way forwarded decided by the WG membership. I hope this clarifies the thinking that went into producing the Draft Initial Report. Best wishes, Lars From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@netistrar.com> Date: Tuesday, 30 September 2014 17:33 To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>, "petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu" <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>, "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>, "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft initial report Dear all I agree with Amr's point of view. Is there a particular reason why we need to go back to Council at this point (I'm not particularly familiar with the process)? I was surprised by the recent edits because I had thought that the group was pretty comfortable about the position we were heading in. I must have been wrong there, and it is useful to surface the issues within the group and talk them through. I see this as a point where we need to work harder within the working group before going out to public comment (if I've understood the intent correctly) - not sure we're quite "ready for primetime" as the saying goes. Best Emily On 30 September 2014 15:05, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi Lars,
Personally, I find this approach rather odd. The WG is the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process. It¹s supposed to make concrete recommendations that are clearly stated in the initial report (or a draft of this report) with a clear indication of the WG¹s consensus level with these recommendations. The WG shouldn't have two sets of conflicting recommendations, and ask others to decide which set they like better. That¹s what the public comment period is for. This also provides an opportunity for any members with a minority position to provide a minority statement, which should be attached to the draft initial report and equally accessible for community review.
To send a draft with two completely conflicting set of recommendations will only serve to confuse the readers/audience on what the consensus of the WG members is, following months of dialogue on the advantages and disadvantages of mandatory transformation.
At this time, I believe the prudent course of action would be to determine the consensus levels among the WG members for each of the two drafts (Chris¹ latest draft and the one with the modifications made by Petter).
Thanks.
Amr
On Sep 30, 2014, at 11:05 AM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Emily, dear all,
First I would like to say that it is good to see some activity on the mailing list and as the discussion on this important issue moves forward. I just wanted to lay out the groups¹ envisaged progress from now until after LA to provide a little clarity where as are:
1. Later today or early tomorrow we will send out a Draft Initial Report. Please note: This report will reflect both sides of the argument one supporting and one opposing mandatory transformation of contact information. Consequently it will also contain two sets of recommendations, one recommending mandatory transformation and one not recommending mandatory transformation. Providing both sides of an argument and different sets of recommendations in our Initial Reports will hopefully help focus community feedback more effectively and propel forward the WG's discussion.
2. The Draft Initial Report, including both sides of the argument and both sets of recommendations, will be presented to the GNSO during ICANN 51 in LA, and form the basis of the discussion for the WG¹s face-to-face meeting. Please note: the WG will point out explicitly that there are opposing views among its members and that the WG would like to encourage feedback on both sides of the argument.
3. Based on the feedback, amendments will be made, and an Initial Report will be produced and put out for public comment after ICANN 51 Please note: Regardless of the discussion/feedback gathered in LA, the Initial Report will contain both sides of the argument and both sets of recommendations, one in favour and one opposing mandatory transformation, to encourage informed feedback on both sides of the argument.
4. Based on the community feedback gathered during the public comment period, the Group will then discuss the community submissions and hopefully be able to come to a consensus on either side of the recommendations. Please note: Any consensus decision will then be reflected in the WG's recommendations put forward in it Final Report which is no prejudiced by the wording/reasoning of the Initial Report.
Based on this, I would like to ask the Group to wait until the Draft Initial Report has been circulated to gather further input/feedback from their constituencies/stakeholder group and/or the wider community.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to get back to me or Julie either on or off list.
Many thanks and very best wishes, Lars
From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@netistrar.com> Date: Tuesday, 30 September 2014 10:44 To: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Cc: "petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu" <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>, "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>, "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft initial report
Dear Petter
Thank you for marking up and circulating your comments on the draft paper.
I note that you have deleted the word "not" from draft recommendation #1, which reverses its meaning. This would have the effect of making transformation of contact data mandatory, which has not been the consensus in the working group as far as I am aware.
I'm also not sure of the basis for the proposed change "the main part of the stakeholders" in favour of mandatory transformation. I thought the previous text which acknowledged that "some" are in favour, was a fairer representation of opinions on the working group.
The recommendation #5 now imposes costs of transformation on registries and registrars. Again, I do not see this as reflecting the consensus in group.
You have also removed the important text (page 4, para 3, that the costs of transformation are likely to outweigh the benefits. This is particularly important as the paper has rehearsed the complexity of transliteration/translation of proper names and address data.
I will be circulating your draft to the Registrar stakeholder group for comments, but wanted to give an immediate heads up that the changes proposed in your version circulated on 29 September are controversial, unlikely to be acceptable to industry colleagues, and are likely to upset the consensus in the policy working group.
Best wishes,
Emily.
On 30 September 2014 08:00, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Petter, Thank you very much for your amendments - very good to see some activity on the list. Alas, as you might recall, we are working on a Draft Initial Report that we thought to send out to the Group today I hope to reedit the document based on your submission as soon as possible, still, it might somewhat delay the Draft Report¹s completion and distribution for review. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars
From: Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> Reply-To: "petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu" <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> Date: Monday, 29 September 2014 22:53 To: "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> Cc: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft initial report
Dear All,
I have made some "minor" changes, based on the initial IPC comments (see enclosed).
Best, Petter
-- Petter Rindforth, LL M
Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 <tel:%2B46%280%298-4631010> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu <http://www.fenixlegal.eu/>
NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu <http://www.fenixlegal.eu/> Thank you
12 september 2014, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> skrev:
Dear colleagues,
Just to confirm that it was decided to start work on turning the straw man (latest version attached) into a draft initial report, the first version of which, it is hoped, will be presented during our call on 25 Sept.
In the meantime, please submit any suggestions or corrections to the list. Speaking of corrections, note that there is rather a confusing typo in paragraph 1 of Appendix B: registrar should read registrant.
Regards,
Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 <tel:%2B44%2020%207679%201599> (int 31599) www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon <http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon>
From:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine Sent: 11 September 2014 21:44 To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] MP3 Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG meeting - 11 September 2014
Dear All,
Please find the MP3 recording for the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group call held on Thursday 11 September at 1300 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-transliteration-contact-20140911-en.mp3
On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep>
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/>
Attendees: Chris Dillon NCSG Ubolthip Sethakaset Individual Peter Dernbach- IPC Pitinan Kooarmornpatana-GAC Peter Green (Zhang Zuan)-NCUC Justine Chew- Individual Rudi Vansnick NPOC Lindsay Hamilton Reid RrSG Jennifer Chung RySG Wen Zhai - NTAG
Apologies: Petter Rindforth IPC Jim Galvin SSAC Emily Taylor - RrSG
ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Lars Hoffmann Amy Bivins Glen de Saint Gery Nathalie Peregrine
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Wiki page:http://tinyurl.com/mpwxstx <http://tinyurl.com/mpwxstx>
Thank you. Kind regards,
Nathalie GNSO Secretariat
Adobe Chat Transcript for Thursday 11 September 2014: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working group call on the 11th September 2014 Jennifer Chung:Hello Nathalie and Julie! Nathalie Peregrine:Hello Jennifer! Jennifer Chung:It looks a bit thin on the numbers right now? Chris Dillon:Hello all Jennifer Chung:Hello Chris Rudi Vansnick:hello everyone Julie Hedlund:@Chris: I've made you a host so you can move the document on the screen. Chris Dillon:Thanks Peter Dernbach:Hell all. Peter Dernbach:Hello all. Wen Zhai:Good evening~ Chris Dillon:Good afternoon! Wen Zhai::) Nathalie Peregrine:noted! for Emily Taylor Justine Chew:@Chris: Yes, happy with your suggestion Lindsay Hamilton-Reid:Apologies for being late. Rudi Vansnick:are there any suggestions to add to the present document ? Peter Dernbach:In Appendix B you refer to "registrars" but I think you mean "registrants". Peter Dernbach:"easier to contact registrars" Rudi Vansnick:yes should be registrants in fact Rudi Vansnick:end of paragraph 1 Peter Dernbach:and end of paragraph 2 Rudi Vansnick:could be both also ! Justine Chew:yes could be both Justine Chew:@Rudi: +1 Justine Chew:Since we are making recommendations, perhaps mention it and qualify if it is not within the WG scope? Rudi Vansnick:thank you all Jennifer Chung:Thank you Chris, thanks all. Pitinan Kooarmornpatana:thanks all Julie Hedlund:Thank you everyone! Chris Dillon:Thank you. Chris Dillon:We have some busy weeks coming up!
-- Emily Taylor MA(Cantab), MBA Director
Netistrar Limited 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DD11 0DL | T: +44 1865 582811 <tel:%2B44%201865%20582811> | M: +44 7540 049322 <tel:%2B44%207540%20049322> E: emily.taylor@netistrar.com | W: www.netistrar.com <http://www.netistrar.com/>
Registered office: Netistrar Limited, 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DE11 0DL UK. Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332
-- Emily Taylor MA(Cantab), MBA Director Netistrar Limited 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DD11 0DL | T: +44 1865 582811 | M: +44 7540 049322 E: emily.taylor@netistrar.com | W: www.netistrar.com <http://www.netistrar.com> Registered office: Netistrar Limited, 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DE11 0DL UK. Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332
Hi, Thanks for the work on the document, Lars, Chris and everyone involved in bringing it together. I still feel that a consensus level should be determined on each set of alternative recommendations, and included in the draft report. Part of reporting a working group’s progress at this stage should be reporting to the public where the WG participants stand. So again, I ask that we determine these consensus levels and replace the findings with the observation made on page 14 under “Current state of discussion”. Although this section is not technically inaccurate, it is only because a consensus call on the sets of recommendations hasn’t been requested by the WG chairs. That could be remedied. Some more comments in line below: On Sep 30, 2014, at 5:58 PM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Amr, Emily, all
Thank your for your thoughts! And before I respond, please let me point out that I have attached a first version of the Draft Initial Report.
Just a quick note clarifying my ‘roadmap’ from my original email and also addressing the important points that have been raised.
Please note that this is a draft Initial Report. As such it is not yet ready to go for public comment and it is not intended to go out before (nor during) ICANN 51. The document is produced now so that WG members have a substantial draft to present and discuss in LA. The Group will continue discussing the draft on Thursday's call and in LA during its face-to-face meeting. Potentially, further feedback from the community might come forward and feed into further amendments following LA. Only then would it the Initial Report be put out for public comment.
Thanks. That sounds great.
Because the Group is faced with a binary question, the idea was to provide clearly to the community both sides of the argument that have been discussed (for an against mandatory transformation) and also provide the two logical recommendations that flow from these different sides of the arguments: mandatory transformation; no mandatory transformation. This would be done to help encourage community feedback during the public comment period that follows the finalized Initial Report post ICANN51.
Presenting the pros and cons of policy findings in a WG report does not preclude defining a current consensus level. This was done, for example, with the initial and final reports of the “thick” WHOIS PDP WG (http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/thick-whois).
Also, the PDP Manual does not prescribe a mandatory formal consensus level call be conducted for an Initial Report - though it is of course an option. This is to allow for differences among WGs depending on each group’s deliberations to date, such that the WG and its co–Chairs could decide not to determine consensus level at this stage, including on the basis that community feedback is important for informing the Final Report and the formal Consensus Call that will need to be done. In this way, relevant input from the public comment period will be assessed and fed into the Final Report that will only contain one set of recommendations, to be determined after the formal Consensus Call takes place. At that point, Minority Statement(s), if needed, can still be produced and attached to the Final Report. You may be interested to know that this approach was also recently followed for the IRTP-D and IGO-INGO PDP WGs.
True. A consensus level at this stage is not required and only a tentative one, which may change following the public comment period. Still, it is informative and helpful to the community on where the WG members stand as a result of the work that has been done. Like I said, this was included in both reports of the “thick” WHOIS PDP WG referred to above.
In any case, the Draft Initial Report is an amalgamation of Chris’ straw man and Petter’s modified version and so maybe a decision on which way to move forward could be taken on Thursday when everybody had the chance to read though the document? I would be able to amend the document very quickly after Thursday’s call - based on the way forwarded decided by the WG membership.
Thanks again to the drafters, and thanks to you, Lars, for your willingness to accommodate our shifting requests. :) Amr
Hi there I'd like to echo Amr's thanks to Chris, Lars and the team. I would also welcome some level of information about the consensus level at this stage. It would be helpful to those commenting (as Amr has pointed out). I think it would also help us as a working group to try to articulate and understand the range of opinions within the group. Best Emily On 30 September 2014 17:52, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the work on the document, Lars, Chris and everyone involved in bringing it together. I still feel that a consensus level should be determined on each set of alternative recommendations, and included in the draft report. Part of reporting a working group’s progress at this stage should be reporting to the public where the WG participants stand. So again, I ask that we determine these consensus levels and replace the findings with the observation made on page 14 under “Current state of discussion”. Although this section is not technically inaccurate, it is only because a consensus call on the sets of recommendations hasn’t been requested by the WG chairs. That could be remedied.
Some more comments in line below:
On Sep 30, 2014, at 5:58 PM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Amr, Emily, all
Thank your for your thoughts! And before I respond, please let me point out that I have attached a first version of the Draft Initial Report.
Just a quick note clarifying my ‘roadmap’ from my original email and also addressing the important points that have been raised.
Please note that this is a draft Initial Report. As such it is not yet ready to go for public comment and it is not intended to go out before (nor during) ICANN 51. The document is produced now so that WG members have a substantial draft to present and discuss in LA. The Group will continue discussing the draft on Thursday's call and in LA during its face-to-face meeting. Potentially, further feedback from the community might come forward and feed into further amendments following LA. Only then would it the Initial Report be put out for public comment.
Thanks. That sounds great.
Because the Group is faced with a binary question, the idea was to provide clearly to the community both sides of the argument that have been discussed (for an against mandatory transformation) and also provide the two logical recommendations that flow from these different sides of the arguments: mandatory transformation; no mandatory transformation. This would be done to help encourage community feedback during the public comment period that follows the finalized Initial Report post ICANN51.
Presenting the pros and cons of policy findings in a WG report does not preclude defining a current consensus level. This was done, for example, with the initial and final reports of the “thick” WHOIS PDP WG ( http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/thick-whois).
Also, the PDP Manual does not prescribe a mandatory formal consensus level call be conducted for an Initial Report - though it is of course an option. This is to allow for differences among WGs depending on each group’s deliberations to date, such that the WG and its co–Chairs could decide not to determine consensus level at this stage, including on the basis that community feedback is important for informing the Final Report and the formal Consensus Call that will need to be done. In this way, relevant input from the public comment period will be assessed and fed into the Final Report that will only contain one set of recommendations, to be determined after the formal Consensus Call takes place. At that point, Minority Statement(s), if needed, can still be produced and attached to the Final Report. You may be interested to know that this approach was also recently followed for the IRTP-D and IGO-INGO PDP WGs.
True. A consensus level at this stage is not required and only a tentative one, which may change following the public comment period. Still, it is informative and helpful to the community on where the WG members stand as a result of the work that has been done. Like I said, this was included in both reports of the “thick” WHOIS PDP WG referred to above.
In any case, the Draft Initial Report is an amalgamation of Chris’ straw man and Petter’s modified version and so maybe a decision on which way to move forward could be taken on Thursday when everybody had the chance to read though the document? I would be able to amend the document very quickly after Thursday’s call - based on the way forwarded decided by the WG membership.
Thanks again to the drafters, and thanks to you, Lars, for your willingness to accommodate our shifting requests. :)
Amr
-- Emily Taylor *MA(Cantab), MBA* Director *Netistrar Limited* 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DD11 0DL | T: +44 1865 582811 | M: +44 7540 049322 E: emily.taylor@netistrar.com | W: www.netistrar.com Registered office: Netistrar Limited, 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DE11 0DL UK. Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332
Dear all, If I may chip in one more time. If there remains doubt about whether or not to make a consensus call for the Initial Report (and this does not have to be decided until after LA), one option could be to take a feel of the room and see who would support which set of recommendations. Based on that the Group could then add to the Initial Report that a small/large majority supports this recommendation and a small/large minority supports this other set. Maybe something else to discuss on Thursday¹s call. Very best, Lars From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@netistrar.com> Date: Tuesday, 30 September 2014 19:42 To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>, "petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu" <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>, "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>, "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft Initial Report attached Hi there I'd like to echo Amr's thanks to Chris, Lars and the team. I would also welcome some level of information about the consensus level at this stage. It would be helpful to those commenting (as Amr has pointed out). I think it would also help us as a working group to try to articulate and understand the range of opinions within the group. Best Emily On 30 September 2014 17:52, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the work on the document, Lars, Chris and everyone involved in bringing it together. I still feel that a consensus level should be determined on each set of alternative recommendations, and included in the draft report. Part of reporting a working group¹s progress at this stage should be reporting to the public where the WG participants stand. So again, I ask that we determine these consensus levels and replace the findings with the observation made on page 14 under ³Current state of discussion². Although this section is not technically inaccurate, it is only because a consensus call on the sets of recommendations hasn¹t been requested by the WG chairs. That could be remedied.
Some more comments in line below:
On Sep 30, 2014, at 5:58 PM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Amr, Emily, all
Thank your for your thoughts! And before I respond, please let me point out that I have attached a first version of the Draft Initial Report.
Just a quick note clarifying my roadmap¹ from my original email and also addressing the important points that have been raised.
Please note that this is a draft Initial Report. As such it is not yet ready to go for public comment and it is not intended to go out before (nor during) ICANN 51. The document is produced now so that WG members have a substantial draft to present and discuss in LA. The Group will continue discussing the draft on Thursday's call and in LA during its face-to-face meeting. Potentially, further feedback from the community might come forward and feed into further amendments following LA. Only then would it the Initial Report be put out for public comment.
Thanks. That sounds great.
Because the Group is faced with a binary question, the idea was to provide clearly to the community both sides of the argument that have been discussed (for an against mandatory transformation) and also provide the two logical recommendations that flow from these different sides of the arguments: mandatory transformation; no mandatory transformation. This would be done to help encourage community feedback during the public comment period that follows the finalized Initial Report post ICANN51.
Presenting the pros and cons of policy findings in a WG report does not preclude defining a current consensus level. This was done, for example, with the initial and final reports of the ³thick² WHOIS PDP WG (http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/thick-whois).
Also, the PDP Manual does not prescribe a mandatory formal consensus level call be conducted for an Initial Report - though it is of course an option. This is to allow for differences among WGs depending on each group¹s deliberations to date, such that the WG and its coChairs could decide not to determine consensus level at this stage, including on the basis that community feedback is important for informing the Final Report and the formal Consensus Call that will need to be done. In this way, relevant input from the public comment period will be assessed and fed into the Final Report that will only contain one set of recommendations, to be determined after the formal Consensus Call takes place. At that point, Minority Statement(s), if needed, can still be produced and attached to the Final Report. You may be interested to know that this approach was also recently followed for the IRTP-D and IGO-INGO PDP WGs.
True. A consensus level at this stage is not required and only a tentative one, which may change following the public comment period. Still, it is informative and helpful to the community on where the WG members stand as a result of the work that has been done. Like I said, this was included in both reports of the ³thick² WHOIS PDP WG referred to above.
In any case, the Draft Initial Report is an amalgamation of Chris¹ straw man and Petter¹s modified version and so maybe a decision on which way to move forward could be taken on Thursday when everybody had the chance to read though the document? I would be able to amend the document very quickly after Thursday¹s call - based on the way forwarded decided by the WG membership.
Thanks again to the drafters, and thanks to you, Lars, for your willingness to accommodate our shifting requests. :)
Amr
-- Emily Taylor MA(Cantab), MBA Director Netistrar Limited 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DD11 0DL | T: +44 1865 582811 | M: +44 7540 049322 E: emily.taylor@netistrar.com | W: www.netistrar.com <http://www.netistrar.com> Registered office: Netistrar Limited, 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DE11 0DL UK. Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332
Hi, Sounds good to me. I would recommend that, to avoid confusion, the standard decision-making thresholds detailed in the GNSO working group guidelines be used. Thanks. Amr On Sep 30, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
If I may chip in one more time. If there remains doubt about whether or not to make a consensus call for the Initial Report (and this does not have to be decided until after LA), one option could be to take a feel of the room and see who would support which set of recommendations. Based on that the Group could then add to the Initial Report that a small/large majority supports this recommendation and a small/large minority supports this other set. Maybe something else to discuss on Thursday’s call.
Very best, Lars
From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@netistrar.com> Date: Tuesday, 30 September 2014 19:42 To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>, "petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu" <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>, "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>, "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft Initial Report attached
Hi there
I'd like to echo Amr's thanks to Chris, Lars and the team. I would also welcome some level of information about the consensus level at this stage. It would be helpful to those commenting (as Amr has pointed out). I think it would also help us as a working group to try to articulate and understand the range of opinions within the group.
Best
Emily
On 30 September 2014 17:52, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the work on the document, Lars, Chris and everyone involved in bringing it together. I still feel that a consensus level should be determined on each set of alternative recommendations, and included in the draft report. Part of reporting a working group’s progress at this stage should be reporting to the public where the WG participants stand. So again, I ask that we determine these consensus levels and replace the findings with the observation made on page 14 under “Current state of discussion”. Although this section is not technically inaccurate, it is only because a consensus call on the sets of recommendations hasn’t been requested by the WG chairs. That could be remedied.
Some more comments in line below:
On Sep 30, 2014, at 5:58 PM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Amr, Emily, all
Thank your for your thoughts! And before I respond, please let me point out that I have attached a first version of the Draft Initial Report.
Just a quick note clarifying my ‘roadmap’ from my original email and also addressing the important points that have been raised.
Please note that this is a draft Initial Report. As such it is not yet ready to go for public comment and it is not intended to go out before (nor during) ICANN 51. The document is produced now so that WG members have a substantial draft to present and discuss in LA. The Group will continue discussing the draft on Thursday's call and in LA during its face-to-face meeting. Potentially, further feedback from the community might come forward and feed into further amendments following LA. Only then would it the Initial Report be put out for public comment.
Thanks. That sounds great.
Because the Group is faced with a binary question, the idea was to provide clearly to the community both sides of the argument that have been discussed (for an against mandatory transformation) and also provide the two logical recommendations that flow from these different sides of the arguments: mandatory transformation; no mandatory transformation. This would be done to help encourage community feedback during the public comment period that follows the finalized Initial Report post ICANN51.
Presenting the pros and cons of policy findings in a WG report does not preclude defining a current consensus level. This was done, for example, with the initial and final reports of the “thick” WHOIS PDP WG (http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/thick-whois).
Also, the PDP Manual does not prescribe a mandatory formal consensus level call be conducted for an Initial Report - though it is of course an option. This is to allow for differences among WGs depending on each group’s deliberations to date, such that the WG and its co–Chairs could decide not to determine consensus level at this stage, including on the basis that community feedback is important for informing the Final Report and the formal Consensus Call that will need to be done. In this way, relevant input from the public comment period will be assessed and fed into the Final Report that will only contain one set of recommendations, to be determined after the formal Consensus Call takes place. At that point, Minority Statement(s), if needed, can still be produced and attached to the Final Report. You may be interested to know that this approach was also recently followed for the IRTP-D and IGO-INGO PDP WGs.
True. A consensus level at this stage is not required and only a tentative one, which may change following the public comment period. Still, it is informative and helpful to the community on where the WG members stand as a result of the work that has been done. Like I said, this was included in both reports of the “thick” WHOIS PDP WG referred to above.
In any case, the Draft Initial Report is an amalgamation of Chris’ straw man and Petter’s modified version and so maybe a decision on which way to move forward could be taken on Thursday when everybody had the chance to read though the document? I would be able to amend the document very quickly after Thursday’s call - based on the way forwarded decided by the WG membership.
Thanks again to the drafters, and thanks to you, Lars, for your willingness to accommodate our shifting requests. :)
Amr
-- Emily Taylor MA(Cantab), MBA Director
Netistrar Limited 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DD11 0DL | T: +44 1865 582811 | M: +44 7540 049322 E: emily.taylor@netistrar.com | W: www.netistrar.com
Registered office: Netistrar Limited, 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DE11 0DL UK. Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332
Lars, Very good suggestion, that seems the best way to deal with this without losing more time. Best,Petter ("the bad guy") -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 1 oktober 2014, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> skrev:
Hi,
Sounds good to me. I would recommend that, to avoid confusion, the standard decision-making thresholds detailed in the GNSO working group guidelines be used.
Thanks.
Amr On Sep 30, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Lars Hoffmann <<lars.hoffmann@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear all,
If I may chip in one more time. If there remains doubt about whether or not to make a consensus call for the Initial Report (and this does not have to be decided until after LA), one option could be to take a feel of the room and see who would support which set of recommendations. Based on that the Group could then add to the Initial Report that a small/large majority supports this recommendation and a small/large minority supports this other set. Maybe something else to discuss on Thursday’s call.
Very best, Lars
From: Emily Taylor <<emily.taylor@netistrar.com>> Date: Tuesday, 30 September 2014 19:42 To: Amr Elsadr <<aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: Lars HOFFMANN <<lars.hoffmann@icann.org>>, "<petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>" <<petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>>, "Dillon, Chris" <<c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>>, "<gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <<gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft Initial Report attached
Hi there
I'd like to echo Amr's thanks to Chris, Lars and the team. I would also welcome some level of information about the consensus level at this stage. It would be helpful to those commenting (as Amr has pointed out). I think it would also help us as a working group to try to articulate and understand the range of opinions within the group.
Best Emily On 30 September 2014 17:52, Amr Elsadr <<aelsadr@egyptig.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the work on the document, Lars, Chris and everyone involved in bringing it together. I still feel that a consensus level should be determined on each set of alternative recommendations, and included in the draft report. Part of reporting a working group’s progress at this stage should be reporting to the public where the WG participants stand. So again, I ask that we determine these consensus levels and replace the findings with the observation made on page 14 under “Current state of discussion”. Although this section is not technically inaccurate, it is only because a consensus call on the sets of recommendations hasn’t been requested by the WG chairs. That could be remedied.
Some more comments in line below:
On Sep 30, 2014, at 5:58 PM, Lars Hoffmann <<lars.hoffmann@icann.org>> wrote:
Hi Amr, Emily, all
Thank your for your thoughts! And before I respond, please let me point out that I have attached a first version of the Draft Initial Report.
Just a quick note clarifying my ‘roadmap’ from my original email and also addressing the important points that have been raised.
Please note that this is a draft Initial Report. As such it is not yet ready to go for public comment and it is not intended to go out before (nor during) ICANN 51. The document is produced now so that WG members have a substantial draft to present and discuss in LA. The Group will continue discussing the draft onThursday's call and in LA during its face-to-face meeting. Potentially, further feedback from the community might come forward and feed into further amendments following LA. Only then would it the Initial Report be put out for public comment. Thanks. That sounds great.> Because the Group is faced with a binary question, the idea was to provide clearly to the community both sides of the argument that have been discussed (for an against mandatory transformation) and also provide the two logical recommendations that flow from these different sides of the arguments: mandatory transformation; no mandatory transformation. This would be done to help encourage community feedback during the public comment period that follows the finalized Initial Report post ICANN51. Presenting the pros and cons of policy findings in a WG report does not preclude defining a current consensus level. This was done, for example, with the initial and final reports of the “thick” WHOIS PDP WG (<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/thick-whois>).> Also, the PDP Manual does not prescribe a mandatory formal consensus level call be conducted for an Initial Report - though it is of course an option. This is to allow for differences among WGs depending on each group’s deliberations to date, such that the WG and its co–Chairs could decide not to determine consensus level at this stage, including on the basis that community feedback is important for informing the Final Report and the formal Consensus Call that will need to be done. In this way, relevant input from the public comment period will be assessed and fed into the Final Report that will only contain one set of recommendations, to be determined after the formal Consensus Call takes place. At that point, Minority Statement(s), if needed, can still be produced and attached to the Final Report. You may be interested to know that this approach was also recently followed for the IRTP-D and IGO-INGO PDP WGs. True. A consensus level at this stage is not required and only a tentative one, which may change following the public comment period. Still, it is informative and helpful to the community on where the WG members stand as a result of the work that has been done. Like I said, this was included in both reports of the “thick” WHOIS PDP WG referred to above.> In any case, the Draft Initial Report is an amalgamation of Chris’ straw man and Petter’s modified version and so maybe a decision on which way to move forward could be taken on Thursday when everybody had the chance to read though the document? I would be able to amend the document very quickly after Thursday’s call - based on the way forwarded decided by the WG membership. Thanks again to the drafters, and thanks to you, Lars, for your willingness to accommodate our shifting requests. :)Amr
--
Emily Taylor MA(Cantab), MBA Director Netistrar Limited 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DD11 0DL| T:+44 1865 582811| M:+44 7540 049322 E:<emily.taylor@netistrar.com>| W:<http://www.netistrar.com/>
Registered office: Netistrar Limited, 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DE11 0DL UK. Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332
Hi all, Thank you every one for the report and thanks Lar for the good suggestion. Looking forward to discussing the initial report in the next call. Best regards, Pitinan Sent from my iPad On Oct 2, 2014, at 5:19 AM, "Petter Rindforth" <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>> wrote: Lars, Very good suggestion, that seems the best way to deal with this without losing more time. Best, Petter ("the bad guy") -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you 1 oktober 2014, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> skrev: Hi, Sounds good to me. I would recommend that, to avoid confusion, the standard decision-making thresholds detailed in the GNSO working group guidelines be used. Thanks. Amr On Sep 30, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, If I may chip in one more time. If there remains doubt about whether or not to make a consensus call for the Initial Report (and this does not have to be decided until after LA), one option could be to take a feel of the room and see who would support which set of recommendations. Based on that the Group could then add to the Initial Report that a small/large majority supports this recommendation and a small/large minority supports this other set. Maybe something else to discuss on Thursday’s call. Very best, Lars From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@netistrar.com<mailto:emily.taylor@netistrar.com>> Date: Tuesday, 30 September 2014 19:42 To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>>, "petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>" <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>>, "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>>, "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft Initial Report attached Hi there I'd like to echo Amr's thanks to Chris, Lars and the team. I would also welcome some level of information about the consensus level at this stage. It would be helpful to those commenting (as Amr has pointed out). I think it would also help us as a working group to try to articulate and understand the range of opinions within the group. Best Emily On 30 September 2014 17:52, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> wrote: Hi, Thanks for the work on the document, Lars, Chris and everyone involved in bringing it together. I still feel that a consensus level should be determined on each set of alternative recommendations, and included in the draft report. Part of reporting a working group’s progress at this stage should be reporting to the public where the WG participants stand. So again, I ask that we determine these consensus levels and replace the findings with the observation made on page 14 under “Current state of discussion”. Although this section is not technically inaccurate, it is only because a consensus call on the sets of recommendations hasn’t been requested by the WG chairs. That could be remedied. Some more comments in line below: On Sep 30, 2014, at 5:58 PM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Amr, Emily, all Thank your for your thoughts! And before I respond, please let me point out that I have attached a first version of the Draft Initial Report. Just a quick note clarifying my ‘roadmap’ from my original email and also addressing the important points that have been raised. Please note that this is a draft Initial Report. As such it is not yet ready to go for public comment and it is not intended to go out before (nor during) ICANN 51. The document is produced now so that WG members have a substantial draft to present and discuss in LA. The Group will continue discussing the draft on Thursday's call and in LA during its face-to-face meeting. Potentially, further feedback from the community might come forward and feed into further amendments following LA. Only then would it the Initial Report be put out for public comment. Thanks. That sounds great. Because the Group is faced with a binary question, the idea was to provide clearly to the community both sides of the argument that have been discussed (for an against mandatory transformation) and also provide the two logical recommendations that flow from these different sides of the arguments: mandatory transformation; no mandatory transformation. This would be done to help encourage community feedback during the public comment period that follows the finalized Initial Report post ICANN51. Presenting the pros and cons of policy findings in a WG report does not preclude defining a current consensus level. This was done, for example, with the initial and final reports of the “thick” WHOIS PDP WG (http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/thick-whois). Also, the PDP Manual does not prescribe a mandatory formal consensus level call be conducted for an Initial Report - though it is of course an option. This is to allow for differences among WGs depending on each group’s deliberations to date, such that the WG and its co–Chairs could decide not to determine consensus level at this stage, including on the basis that community feedback is important for informing the Final Report and the formal Consensus Call that will need to be done. In this way, relevant input from the public comment period will be assessed and fed into the Final Report that will only contain one set of recommendations, to be determined after the formal Consensus Call takes place. At that point, Minority Statement(s), if needed, can still be produced and attached to the Final Report. You may be interested to know that this approach was also recently followed for the IRTP-D and IGO-INGO PDP WGs. True. A consensus level at this stage is not required and only a tentative one, which may change following the public comment period. Still, it is informative and helpful to the community on where the WG members stand as a result of the work that has been done. Like I said, this was included in both reports of the “thick” WHOIS PDP WG referred to above. In any case, the Draft Initial Report is an amalgamation of Chris’ straw man and Petter’s modified version and so maybe a decision on which way to move forward could be taken on Thursday when everybody had the chance to read though the document? I would be able to amend the document very quickly after Thursday’s call - based on the way forwarded decided by the WG membership. Thanks again to the drafters, and thanks to you, Lars, for your willingness to accommodate our shifting requests. :) Amr -- Emily Taylor MA(Cantab), MBA Director Netistrar Limited 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DD11 0DL | T: +44 1865 582811 | M: +44 7540 049322 E: emily.taylor@netistrar.com<mailto:emily.taylor@netistrar.com> | W: www.netistrar.com<http://www.netistrar.com/> [cid:] Registered office: Netistrar Limited, 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DE11 0DL UK. Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332
Hi Chris, Just in case I have to skip the call later, I thought I'd better put in my preliminary thoughts to Draft Initial Report Version1.doc circulated by Lars 2 days ago. I will leave debate as to the merits of the posing draft recommendations both for and against mandatory transformation to the larger group but I do note the presence of divergence in the WG in respect of opinions for and against the same. At this point I am limiting my queries/comments/suggestions to the 2 sets of Draft Recommendations on pages 14 and 15 of the Draft Initial Report Version 1. There are:- *Draft Recommendations Alternative #1 (i.e For)* 1. Is the WG withholding an extension of the 2nd and 3rd bullet points to specify that English is the preferred Latin script? This is a query with reference to the remark made by the IRD-WG "If translation were desired, then the "must be present" language would be English" (found at the end of para 1 of page 21 of the Draft Initial Report Version 1. *Draft Recommendations Alternative #2 (i.e. Against)* 2. While I note that the first main Charter question is worded as "Whether it is desirable to .....", I find the wording of the first bullet point recommendation a little disconcerting. My position is that transformation is desirable but should not be mandatory. Hence, I would ask if there is any leeway to reword the 1st bullet point recommendation to state that while making transformation of contact is desirable it should not be mandatory? However, if the WG is constrained to answer in strict form to the wording of the Charter question, then so be it. 3. In the 4th bullet point recommendation, I would venture to recommend that registrar and registry assure that the data fields are not only consistent but also accurate. 4. In the last bullet point recommendation, I think the last word "accuracy" should be replaced with "accessibility". Accuracy of data stems from the original registration process (in whatever language/script) which I presume is established when a registrar or registry checks and verifies the identity of the registrant during the registration process. So in choosing to perform transformation of contact information, Registrars are in fact allowing for maximum accessibility. A middle ground would be "to allow for maximum accessibility and accuracy". That's it for now, thanks. Best, Justine Chew ----- On 2 October 2014 09:40, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan@etda.or.th> wrote:
Hi all,
Thank you every one for the report and thanks Lar for the good suggestion. Looking forward to discussing the initial report in the next call.
Best regards,
Pitinan
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 2, 2014, at 5:19 AM, "Petter Rindforth" < petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> wrote:
Lars,
Very good suggestion, that seems the best way to deal with this without losing more time.
Best, Petter ("the bad guy")
-- Petter Rindforth, LL M
Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu
NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you
1 oktober 2014, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> skrev:
Hi,
Sounds good to me. I would recommend that, to avoid confusion, the standard decision-making thresholds detailed in the GNSO working group guidelines be used.
Thanks.
Amr
On Sep 30, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
If I may chip in one more time. If there remains doubt about whether or not to make a consensus call for the Initial Report (and this does not have to be decided until after LA), one option could be to take a feel of the room and see who would support which set of recommendations. Based on that the Group could then add to the Initial Report that a small/large majority supports this recommendation and a small/large minority supports this other set. Maybe something else to discuss on Thursday’s call.
Very best, Lars
From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@netistrar.com> Date: Tuesday, 30 September 2014 19:42 To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>, " petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu" <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>, "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>, "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft Initial Report attached
Hi there
I'd like to echo Amr's thanks to Chris, Lars and the team. I would also welcome some level of information about the consensus level at this stage. It would be helpful to those commenting (as Amr has pointed out). I think it would also help us as a working group to try to articulate and understand the range of opinions within the group.
Best
Emily
On 30 September 2014 17:52, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the work on the document, Lars, Chris and everyone involved in bringing it together. I still feel that a consensus level should be determined on each set of alternative recommendations, and included in the draft report. Part of reporting a working group’s progress at this stage should be reporting to the public where the WG participants stand. So again, I ask that we determine these consensus levels and replace the findings with the observation made on page 14 under “Current state of discussion”. Although this section is not technically inaccurate, it is only because a consensus call on the sets of recommendations hasn’t been requested by the WG chairs. That could be remedied.
Some more comments in line below:
On Sep 30, 2014, at 5:58 PM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Amr, Emily, all
Thank your for your thoughts! And before I respond, please let me point out that I have attached a first version of the Draft Initial Report.
Just a quick note clarifying my ‘roadmap’ from my original email and also addressing the important points that have been raised.
Please note that this is a draft Initial Report. As such it is not yet ready to go for public comment and it is not intended to go out before (nor during) ICANN 51. The document is produced now so that WG members have a substantial draft to present and discuss in LA. The Group will continue discussing the draft on Thursday's call and in LA during its face-to-face meeting. Potentially, further feedback from the community might come forward and feed into further amendments following LA. Only then would it the Initial Report be put out for public comment.
Thanks. That sounds great.
Because the Group is faced with a binary question, the idea was to provide clearly to the community both sides of the argument that have been discussed (for an against mandatory transformation) and also provide the two logical recommendations that flow from these different sides of the arguments: mandatory transformation; no mandatory transformation. This would be done to help encourage community feedback during the public comment period that follows the finalized Initial Report post ICANN51.
Presenting the pros and cons of policy findings in a WG report does not preclude defining a current consensus level. This was done, for example, with the initial and final reports of the “thick” WHOIS PDP WG ( http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/thick-whois).
Also, the PDP Manual does not prescribe a mandatory formal consensus level call be conducted for an Initial Report - though it is of course an option. This is to allow for differences among WGs depending on each group’s deliberations to date, such that the WG and its co–Chairs could decide not to determine consensus level at this stage, including on the basis that community feedback is important for informing the Final Report and the formal Consensus Call that will need to be done. In this way, relevant input from the public comment period will be assessed and fed into the Final Report that will only contain one set of recommendations, to be determined after the formal Consensus Call takes place. At that point, Minority Statement(s), if needed, can still be produced and attached to the Final Report. You may be interested to know that this approach was also recently followed for the IRTP-D and IGO-INGO PDP WGs.
True. A consensus level at this stage is not required and only a tentative one, which may change following the public comment period. Still, it is informative and helpful to the community on where the WG members stand as a result of the work that has been done. Like I said, this was included in both reports of the “thick” WHOIS PDP WG referred to above.
In any case, the Draft Initial Report is an amalgamation of Chris’ straw man and Petter’s modified version and so maybe a decision on which way to move forward could be taken on Thursday when everybody had the chance to read though the document? I would be able to amend the document very quickly after Thursday’s call - based on the way forwarded decided by the WG membership.
Thanks again to the drafters, and thanks to you, Lars, for your willingness to accommodate our shifting requests. :)
Amr
-- Emily Taylor
*MA(Cantab), MBA* Director
*Netistrar Limited* 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DD11 0DL | T: +44 1865 582811 | M: +44 7540 049322 E: emily.taylor@netistrar.com | W: www.netistrar.com
Registered office: Netistrar Limited, 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DE11 0DL UK. Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332
Dear Justine, Thank you for your points. If you are unable to make the call, I shall put them for you. 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: 02 October 2014 11:53 To: Dillon, Chris Cc: Lars Hoffmann; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft Initial Report attached Hi Chris, Just in case I have to skip the call later, I thought I'd better put in my preliminary thoughts to Draft Initial Report Version1.doc circulated by Lars 2 days ago. I will leave debate as to the merits of the posing draft recommendations both for and against mandatory transformation to the larger group but I do note the presence of divergence in the WG in respect of opinions for and against the same. At this point I am limiting my queries/comments/suggestions to the 2 sets of Draft Recommendations on pages 14 and 15 of the Draft Initial Report Version 1. There are:- Draft Recommendations Alternative #1 (i.e For) 1. Is the WG withholding an extension of the 2nd and 3rd bullet points to specify that English is the preferred Latin script? This is a query with reference to the remark made by the IRD-WG "If translation were desired, then the "must be present" language would be English" (found at the end of para 1 of page 21 of the Draft Initial Report Version 1. Draft Recommendations Alternative #2 (i.e. Against) 2. While I note that the first main Charter question is worded as "Whether it is desirable to .....", I find the wording of the first bullet point recommendation a little disconcerting. My position is that transformation is desirable but should not be mandatory. Hence, I would ask if there is any leeway to reword the 1st bullet point recommendation to state that while making transformation of contact is desirable it should not be mandatory? However, if the WG is constrained to answer in strict form to the wording of the Charter question, then so be it. 3. In the 4th bullet point recommendation, I would venture to recommend that registrar and registry assure that the data fields are not only consistent but also accurate. 4. In the last bullet point recommendation, I think the last word "accuracy" should be replaced with "accessibility". Accuracy of data stems from the original registration process (in whatever language/script) which I presume is established when a registrar or registry checks and verifies the identity of the registrant during the registration process. So in choosing to perform transformation of contact information, Registrars are in fact allowing for maximum accessibility. A middle ground would be "to allow for maximum accessibility and accuracy". That's it for now, thanks. Best, Justine Chew ----- On 2 October 2014 09:40, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan@etda.or.th<mailto:pitinan@etda.or.th>> wrote: Hi all, Thank you every one for the report and thanks Lar for the good suggestion. Looking forward to discussing the initial report in the next call. Best regards, Pitinan Sent from my iPad On Oct 2, 2014, at 5:19 AM, "Petter Rindforth" <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>> wrote: Lars, Very good suggestion, that seems the best way to deal with this without losing more time. Best, Petter ("the bad guy") -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010<tel:%2B46%280%298-4631010> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you 1 oktober 2014, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> skrev: Hi, Sounds good to me. I would recommend that, to avoid confusion, the standard decision-making thresholds detailed in the GNSO working group guidelines be used. Thanks. Amr On Sep 30, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, If I may chip in one more time. If there remains doubt about whether or not to make a consensus call for the Initial Report (and this does not have to be decided until after LA), one option could be to take a feel of the room and see who would support which set of recommendations. Based on that the Group could then add to the Initial Report that a small/large majority supports this recommendation and a small/large minority supports this other set. Maybe something else to discuss on Thursday’s call. Very best, Lars From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@netistrar.com<mailto:emily.taylor@netistrar.com>> Date: Tuesday, 30 September 2014 19:42 To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>>, "petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>" <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>>, "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>>, "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft Initial Report attached Hi there I'd like to echo Amr's thanks to Chris, Lars and the team. I would also welcome some level of information about the consensus level at this stage. It would be helpful to those commenting (as Amr has pointed out). I think it would also help us as a working group to try to articulate and understand the range of opinions within the group. Best Emily On 30 September 2014 17:52, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> wrote: Hi, Thanks for the work on the document, Lars, Chris and everyone involved in bringing it together. I still feel that a consensus level should be determined on each set of alternative recommendations, and included in the draft report. Part of reporting a working group’s progress at this stage should be reporting to the public where the WG participants stand. So again, I ask that we determine these consensus levels and replace the findings with the observation made on page 14 under “Current state of discussion”. Although this section is not technically inaccurate, it is only because a consensus call on the sets of recommendations hasn’t been requested by the WG chairs. That could be remedied. Some more comments in line below: On Sep 30, 2014, at 5:58 PM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Amr, Emily, all Thank your for your thoughts! And before I respond, please let me point out that I have attached a first version of the Draft Initial Report. Just a quick note clarifying my ‘roadmap’ from my original email and also addressing the important points that have been raised. Please note that this is a draft Initial Report. As such it is not yet ready to go for public comment and it is not intended to go out before (nor during) ICANN 51. The document is produced now so that WG members have a substantial draft to present and discuss in LA. The Group will continue discussing the draft on Thursday's call and in LA during its face-to-face meeting. Potentially, further feedback from the community might come forward and feed into further amendments following LA. Only then would it the Initial Report be put out for public comment. Thanks. That sounds great. Because the Group is faced with a binary question, the idea was to provide clearly to the community both sides of the argument that have been discussed (for an against mandatory transformation) and also provide the two logical recommendations that flow from these different sides of the arguments: mandatory transformation; no mandatory transformation. This would be done to help encourage community feedback during the public comment period that follows the finalized Initial Report post ICANN51. Presenting the pros and cons of policy findings in a WG report does not preclude defining a current consensus level. This was done, for example, with the initial and final reports of the “thick” WHOIS PDP WG (http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/thick-whois). Also, the PDP Manual does not prescribe a mandatory formal consensus level call be conducted for an Initial Report - though it is of course an option. This is to allow for differences among WGs depending on each group’s deliberations to date, such that the WG and its co–Chairs could decide not to determine consensus level at this stage, including on the basis that community feedback is important for informing the Final Report and the formal Consensus Call that will need to be done. In this way, relevant input from the public comment period will be assessed and fed into the Final Report that will only contain one set of recommendations, to be determined after the formal Consensus Call takes place. At that point, Minority Statement(s), if needed, can still be produced and attached to the Final Report. You may be interested to know that this approach was also recently followed for the IRTP-D and IGO-INGO PDP WGs. True. A consensus level at this stage is not required and only a tentative one, which may change following the public comment period. Still, it is informative and helpful to the community on where the WG members stand as a result of the work that has been done. Like I said, this was included in both reports of the “thick” WHOIS PDP WG referred to above. In any case, the Draft Initial Report is an amalgamation of Chris’ straw man and Petter’s modified version and so maybe a decision on which way to move forward could be taken on Thursday when everybody had the chance to read though the document? I would be able to amend the document very quickly after Thursday’s call - based on the way forwarded decided by the WG membership. Thanks again to the drafters, and thanks to you, Lars, for your willingness to accommodate our shifting requests. :) Amr -- Emily Taylor MA(Cantab), MBA Director Netistrar Limited 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DD11 0DL | T: +44 1865 582811<tel:%2B44%201865%20582811> | M: +44 7540 049322<tel:%2B44%207540%20049322> E: emily.taylor@netistrar.com<mailto:emily.taylor@netistrar.com> | W: www.netistrar.com<http://www.netistrar.com/> Error! Filename not specified. Registered office: Netistrar Limited, 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DE11 0DL UK. Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332
participants (7)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Dillon, Chris -
Emily Taylor -
Justine Chew -
Lars Hoffmann -
Petter Rindforth -
Pitinan Kooarmornpatana