Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Actions/Discussion Points: 10 May Meeting

[Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>]

Another question to consider is "what is our goal for penetration or reach?"

If our primary purpose is to, for example, sustain and improve automation
and the relatively small population of "investigative" users, our solution
space might be different from enabling any user to be able to query and make
user of ("read") any registration record.


On 5/19/10 2:21 PM  May 19, 2010, "Steve Sheng" <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Hi Jiankang and all,
> 
>   Good point! I would think usage by regular users should be one of the
> primary reasons we discuss about different models. If we think from the user¹s
> perspective, transliteration would be of limited use for them. Translation is
> the best in this case, but it is expensive. Any middle ground we can think of?
> 
> Warmly, 
> Steve
> 
> 
> On 5/19/10 3:00 AM, "Jiankang YAO" <yaojk@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>  
>>  
>>>> Edmon noted that a more important question to address is what will the
>>>> purpose or use of the transliterated information. He emphasized that if we
>>> could
>>>> determine who will use the information then we could decide how the
>>> transliteration
>>>> could work.
>>  
>> I agree with Edmon that we should know that who will be the customers of the
>> transliterated information.
>>  
>> we should know why we do it and any benefits.
>>  
>> If the customers are the public users, I think that many user will not know
>> the other language's transliterated information.
>>  
>> for example, I am chinese and know chinese and english, If i check some
>> domain 
>> name information registered in Arabic characters
>>  in Sadi Arab and the domain names whois information are transliterated, I
>> don't know Arabic and the transliterated information.
>> so this transliterated information is no use to me.
>>  
>> the persontage of people who know english is larger than the persontage of
>> people who know the transliterated information of other language instead of
>> native language.
>>  
>> if the customers are the big organziations such as FBI, the transliterated
>> information is useful to them because they have enough resource to decode the
>> transliterated information. of course, even the domain name information is
>> not 
>> the transliterated information, they can also decode it.
>>  
>> if doing it without customers oriented, we may fall in "do it just because we
>> want to do it " even the ascii transliterated information is no use to most
>> of 
>> the public.
>>  
>>  
>> Jiankang Yao
>> CNNIC
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>>  
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>  
>>> From:  Julie  Hedlund <mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>  
>>> To: ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx
>>>  
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 11:22 PM
>>>  
>>> Subject: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Actions/Discussion  Points: 10 May Meeting
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Dear IRD-WG members,
>>> 
>>> Below and in the attached  document are the action items and main discussion
>>> points for the 10 May 2010  meeting of the IRD-WG.  These also are on the
>>> wiki at: 
>>> 
https://st.icann.org/int-reg-data-wg/index.cgi?internationalized_registratio>>>
n
>>> _data_working_group.    Please let me know if you have any changes or
>>> questions.   
>>> 
>>> Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday, 24 May at 1900 UTC,  12:00 PDT,
>>> 15:00 EDT, 20:00 London, 21:00 CEST, 03:00 Beijing, 04:00 Kyoto,  07:00 NZDT
>>> (Tues 25.05)
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Julie
>>> 
>>> Julie  Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
>>> 
>>> IRD-WG Meeting: 10 May 2010 at 1400  UTC
>>> 
>>> 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  attached file.
>>