Page History
...
Action Items: Staff will revise slides and send them to the WG for review. Done. See Draft IRD-WG Preliminary Approach Slides for ICANN Brussels Meeting
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.
...
Action Items: Based on the working group members’ comments the staff will revise the matrix and send an updated matrix for further review.https://stcommunity.icann.org/data/workspaces/int-reg-data-wg/attachments/ird_wg_meeting_notes:20100422174607-0-17508/original/download/attachments/11995194/Copy+of+matrix-draft-revised%20414revised+414.xls?version=1&modificationDate=1302025996000
Monday, 29 March 2010 at 1900 UTC (See Transcript, MP3, and Summary.)
...
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.
https://stcommunity.icann.org/data/workspaces/int-reg-data-wgdownload/attachments/ird_wg_meeting_notes:20100405184333-0-617/original/IRD-WG%20Notes%2029%20March%202010%20Meeting.pdf11995199/IRD-WG+Notes+29+March+2010+Meeting.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1302026209000
Monday, 15 March 2010 at 1400 UTC (See Transcript, MP3, and Summary.)
...
Monday, 07 December 2009 at 1400 UTC (See MP3, Transcript IRD WG 07 December 2009)
Attendees: WG Members: Edmon Chung, Steve Crocker, Rafik Dammak, Bob Hutchinson, Yao Jiankang, Mark Kosters, June Seo (absent apologies: Avri Doria and Jeremy Hitchcock); ICANN Staff: Francisco Arias, Gisella Gruber-White, Julie Hedlund, and Dave Piscitello.
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.
https://stcommunity.icann.org/data/workspaces/int-reg-data-wg/attachments/ird_wg_meeting_notes:20100422174702-1-17508/original/IRD-WG%20Notes%2012%20April%202010%20Meeting.pdfdownload/attachments/11995205/IRD-WG+Notes+12+April+2010+Meeting.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1302026628000
