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>
Dear Chris et al, I am returning my filled-in Public Comment tool to the mailing list, as requested. For easy reference, my *edits/additions are highlighted in bold* while *yellow highlights indicate suggestions or "still being mulled over"* as I didn't want to miss your set deadline. Yes, I agree that "in as many languages as possible" is problematic but I haven't got a fix for you at this point - will mull on it. On a administrative point, now that the earlier column of "new argument?" has been removed, the tool looks somewhat incomplete in a sense that some (whether repeated or similar) comments have not drawn a stated response in the WG Response column. I wonder if you or Lars (or someone from ICANN staff group) could go through and fill in corresponding WG responses (eg "see response no. 2") in those WG Response boxes which remain empty EXCEPT for where the comment refers to strictly being in support of or opposing the WG preliminary recommendation. This way, at least the WG avoids being accused of not having considered some comments. Just a thought. Thanks and regards, Justine Chew ----- On 13 April 2015 at 05:45, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
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
Dear Justine, Many thanks for your spreadsheet. It helps not only to know where there are differences in the group but also to have constructive criticism. We certainly need not to give the impression that we haven’t considered all the comments! 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: 15 April 2015 09:11 To: Dillon, Chris Cc: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [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 Chris et al, I am returning my filled-in Public Comment tool to the mailing list, as requested. For easy reference, my edits/additions are highlighted in bold while yellow highlights indicate suggestions or "still being mulled over" as I didn't want to miss your set deadline. Yes, I agree that "in as many languages as possible" is problematic but I haven't got a fix for you at this point - will mull on it. On a administrative point, now that the earlier column of "new argument?" has been removed, the tool looks somewhat incomplete in a sense that some (whether repeated or similar) comments have not drawn a stated response in the WG Response column. I wonder if you or Lars (or someone from ICANN staff group) could go through and fill in corresponding WG responses (eg "see response no. 2") in those WG Response boxes which remain empty EXCEPT for where the comment refers to strictly being in support of or opposing the WG preliminary recommendation. This way, at least the WG avoids being accused of not having considered some comments. Just a thought. Thanks and regards, Justine Chew ----- On 13 April 2015 at 05:45, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>> wrote: 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<tel:%2B44%2020%207679%201599> (int 31599) www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon>
participants (2)
-
Dillon, Chris -
Justine Chew