Page History

...

1. Welcome
2. Roll Call
3. Statements of Interest
4. Responses From SO/ACs (IPC and any others received at: 13 Community Input )
5. Review Work Plan and Consider Next Steps
6. AOB

...

Actions: 1

.  Responses from SOs/ACs: Extended the deadline to the end of March.  Rudi will speak to Michele Neylon as a reminder (Chair, Registrar SG)

2.  Review Work Plan and consider next steps.  Staff will create a table/matrix to summarize responses.

3.  Review reports re: Verification & Validation: Look at the relevant section of the RAA; page 23 of EWG Nov Update Document; Margie Milam's blog entry.

4.  Consider Requesting F2F Meetings in London: Registrars, ALAC, others?

...

Review the attached chart of community input (attached and on the wiki) and provide comments via email in the format provided below.  Staff will revise the chart in advance of the next meeting.

Format for comments:

WG Response:

Recommended Action:

Answer (Y/N/NA):

...

For Review:

1. Public comment review tool T&T - 09 May2014.doc
2. Summary of Current Status/Next Steps (Stock Taking) 17 April 2014
   
3. A Model for Exploring WHOIS Accuracy (by Margie Milam)
4. Interim Report from the Expert Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data 10 April 2014
5. Status update report from the EWG on gTLD Directory Services 11 November 2013
6. WHOIS Accuracy Program Specification part of the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement

...

1.  What is contact information (review and expand on the taxonomies)?
2. Why are we doing this?; is this particular feature necessary?
3. Who gets access to what?
4. Who are the stakeholders?; who is affected? and what do they want (linking back to What)?
5. How much would a particular feature cost and how to weigh the costs versus the benefits?
6. When would policy come into effect?
7. What should be mandatory?
8. What is the difference between verification and validation?

Main questions (from the charter)

1. Whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script.
2. Who should decide who should bear the burden [of] translating contact information to a single common language or transliterating contact information to a single common script.

Other questions (in the charter)

• What exactly the benefits to the community are of translating and/or transliterating contact data, especially in light of the costs that may be connected to translation and or transliteration?
• Should translation and/or transliteration of contact data be mandatory for all gTLDs?
• Should translation and/or transliteration of contact data be mandatory for all registrants or only those based in certain countries and/or using specific non-ASCII scripts?
• What impact will translation/transliteration of contact data have on the WHOIS validation as set out under the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement?
• When should any new policy relating to translation and transliteration of contact information come into effect?

...