Page History
Monday, 21 February 2011 (See Transcript and MP3)
Monday, 07 February 2011 (See Transcript and MP3)
Monday, 24 January 2011 (See Transcript and MP3.)
Monday, 20 December 2010 (See MP3 and Summary.)
Thursday, 09 December 2010 -- Public Session on Interim Report (See Audiocast and Summary.)
Monday, 22 November 2010 (See Transcript and MP3.)
...
Monday, 01 November 2010 (See Transcript and MP3.)
Monday, 25 October 2010 (See Transcript, MP3 and
...
Summary.)
Monday, 11 October 2010 (See Transcript, MP3, and
...
Summary.)
Monday, 27 September 2010 (See Transcript, MP3, and
...
Summary.)
...
Monday, 20 September 2010 at 1400 UTC (See Transcript, MP3, and
...
Summary)
Monday, 30 August 2010 at 1400 UTC (See Transcript and MP3
...
and Summary)
Monday, 16 August 2010 at 1400 UTC (See Transcript, MP3, and
...
Summary
...
)
Monday, 02 August 2010 at 1400 UTC (See Transcript
...
and MP3)
Monday, 12 July 2010 at 1400 UTC (See Transcript and MP3.)
...
Brief Notes: The WG members discussed a very rough draft of slides for a presentation in Brussels on Thursday, 24 June in the public session. It was noted that the slides should include a description of the four models, as suggested by Jim Galvin, along with other changes. Steve Sheng and Julie Hedlund noted suggested changes and agreed to draft a revised set of slides. Jeremy Hitchcock agreed to give the presentation in Brussels.
Monday, 24 May 2010 at 1900 UTC (See Transcript
...
, MP3, and
...
Summary.)
Attendees: Rafik Dammak, Avri Doria, Jim Galvin, Jeremy Hitchcock, and Bob Hutchinson, Ram Mohan, and Owen Smigelski; from staff: Julie Hedlund and Steve Sheng.
Action Items: Staff will develop a draft preliminary approach for Working Group consideration as a basis for a public session in Brussels.Discussion Summary: See IRD-WG Notes 24 May 2010 Meeting
Monday, 10 May 2010 at 1400 UTC (See Transcript, MP3, and
...
Summary.)
Attendees: Edmon Chung, Rafik Dammak, Jim Galvin, Jeremy Hitchcock, and Bob Hutchinson; from staff: Julie Hedlund, Dave Piscitello, and Steve Sheng.
Action Items: 1) Staff will outline a Model 4 along the lines suggested by Jim Galvin with assistance from Jim; 2) Staff will develop a draft preliminary approach for Working Group consideration as a basis for a Public Forum in Brussels.
Discussion Summary: See IRD-WG Notes 10 May 2010 Meeting
...
Monday, 26 April 2010 at 1900 UTC (See Transcript, MP3, and Summary.)
Attendees: Edmon Chung, Bob Hutchinson, Owen Smigelski; from staff: Francisco Arias, Gisella Gruber-White, Julie Hedlund, Dave Piscitello, and Steve Sheng.
Action Items: 1) Edmon will send out a question concerning how transliteration will be handled; 2) staff will provide an example of what a WHOIS reply might look like if the Working Group recommended that both an ASCII-7 and UTF-8 (IRD) version of a record be returned (Done); 2) staff will assist the Working Group in developing a set of preliminary recommendations for a Public Forum at the ICANN meeting in Brussels.Discussion Summary: See "IRD-WG Notes 26 April 2010 Meeting" IRD-WG Notes 26 April 2010 Meeting.pdf
Monday, 12 April 2010 at 1400 UTC (See Transcript, MP3, and
...
Summary.)
Attendees: Rafik Dammak, Avri Doria, Bob Hutchinson, Andrei Kolesnikov, and Steve Metalitz; from staff: Dave Piscitello and Julie Hedlund.
Action Items: Based on the working group members’ comments the staff will revise the matrix and send an updated matrix for further review. See Revised Matrix 14 April 2010Discussion Summary: See IRD-WG Notes 12 April 2010 Meeting.https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/int-reg-data-wg/attachments/ird_wg_meeting_notes:20100422174607-0-17508/original/matrix-draft-revised%20414.xls
Monday, 29 March 2010 at 1900 UTC (See Transcript, MP3, and
...
Summary.)
Attendees: Edmon Chung, Co-Chair, Ram Mohan, Rafik Dammak, Avri Doria, Bob Hutchinson, Andrei Kolesnikov, and Owen Smigelski; from staff: Dave Piscitello, Julie Hedlund, and Steve Sheng.
Action Items: Based on the working group members’ comment as well as the comment received in the email list, the staff will revise the matrix, and send an updated matrix for further review.further review.
https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/int-reg-data-wg/attachments/ird_wg_meeting_notes:20100405184333-0-617/original/IRD-WG%20Notes%2029%20March%202010%20Meeting.pdfDiscussion Summary: See IRD-WG Notes 29 March 2010 Meeting
Monday, 15 March 2010 at 1400 UTC (See Transcript, MP3, and
...
Summary.)
Attendees: Jeremy Hitchcock, Co-Chair, James Galvin, Ram Mohan, Steve Metalitz, Jiankang Yao, Avri Dora; from staff: Dave Piscitello, Glen de Saint Gery, Francisco Aries, Steve Sheng.
...
1. Action Items: WG members should consider on the list possible requirements that could form part of a check list to decide what is, or is not, in the scope of the work of the WG.
2. Main Discussion Points: The Charter calls for co-chairs from the GNSO and SSAC. The WG approved Jeremy Hitchcock as co-chair from SSAC. Edmon Chung suggested that to help further define the scope/mission/goals the WG could begin by looking at requirements for registration data. Dave Piscitello noted that based on the survey he conducted one possible requirement could be that in addition to collecting and displaying data in ASCII/roman script, if it was beneficial data also could be displayed in local script. Bob Hutchinson asked whether there was any sense of the degree of difficulty for adding data display in local script. He wondered whether it would be helpful to formulate a set of specific questions that could form a larger survey of ccTLDs. Edmon noted that a survey could be a good idea, particularly in understanding how registries currently receive and display data, although he noted that the goals of the ccTLDs would likely be different from those of the gTLDs. Dave suggested that one requirement could be to tag each piece of data and Mark Kosters asked whether such a requirement would be in the scope of the WG. Dave noted that the requirement would not have to change what data is collected today. He also noted that ICANN staff are studying Whois service requirements at the request of the GNSO Council (the “May 7 request of the GNSO Council”) and this study considers a data schema for registration data in the context of a broad set of service requirements including IRD. Edmon suggested that it might be useful to prepare a checklist of possible requirements for receiving and displaying internationalized registration data and use the list to decide what is, or is not, in the scope of the WG. Bob questioned whether there was a consensus on a recommendation for structure data and didn’t know if displaying in a local language would require a significant amount of work. Steve Sheng, Edmon, and Yao Jiankang all noted that there could be challenges for translation of an address into Chinese. Edmon suggesting using the summary provided by Dave of the survey of 16 ccTLDs as a basis to produce an initial checklist of requirements to decide what is in scope. Dave noted that the WG would not have to recommend a specific format, but could use the United Postal Union (UPU) standard as an analog for how data could be represented using Roman characters and additionally represented for a recipient or viewer of the data. In the UPU example, the recipient is both the addressee and the postal workers in the destination country; in the Whois case, the recipient/viewer could be an application (that already assumes USASCII7) or a viewer who may or may not understand roman characters but does understand characters of his local language.
