Likewise, I don’t feel strongly about either option. However, if I had to choose it would be option 1. Working on a strawman policy may give us a different (holistic) perspective of the issue at hand. -Dennis From: <translationtransliterationirt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of James Galvin <jgalvin@afilias.info> Date: Monday, July 31, 2017 at 8:53 AM To: Brian Aitchison <brian.aitchison@icann.org> Cc: "translationtransliterationirt@icann.org" <translationtransliterationirt@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Translationtransliterationirt] Ways Forward for T/T I don’t feel strongly about which path is best. While I like the idea of having something tangible to show for our efforts, I also like the idea of moving quickly. I will defer to your best advice, or whatever consensus turns out to be. Jim On 28 Jul 2017, at 13:14, Brian Aitchison wrote: Dear T/T IRT, Thank you for your patience as we work on our end to consolidate and analyze the input we’ve received from you over the course of this implementation. We’ve come to the conclusion that we have two paths available to us, which we’d like your input on: 1. Draft a strawman policy document based on all the input we’ve gathered so far, recognizing that all the aims and intents of the original T/T recommendations may not be fulfilled given the vagueness of some of the language within the Recommendations, and the technical obstacles inherent to implementing them. This option may still take us back to the GNSO for input, but will give us something tangible to circulate within our group and with relevant stakeholders for input and critique before pursuing the GNSO path. 2. Continue discussion on the meaning of “easy identification” in the context of the T/T recommendations, as well as guidelines for identifying languages. This option will likely lead us to the GNSO for input quite quickly given the difficulties we’ve had answering questions on the meaning of “easy identification”, language identification, and how to collect and validate language data. We’re gravitating toward option 1 as it would give us a tangible work product to show from our efforts, as well as provide a basis for further work and improvements. Of course, we’re open to your suggestions on these or other potential paths. Please let us know what you think by the end of next week. As always, thank you for your valuable contributions to this effort. Best, Brian -- Brian Aitchison, MRes, PhD Lead Researcher Operations & Policy Research Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office: +1 310 578 8688 Mobile: +1 424 353 9041 brian.aitchison@icann.org<mailto:eleeza.agopian@icann.org> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contain information that may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this communication by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. _______________________________________________ Translationtransliterationirt mailing list Translationtransliterationirt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/translationtransliterationirt