[gnso-whoissurvey-dt] AC Chat transcript WSWG call 30th April 2012
- To: "gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-whoissurvey-dt] AC Chat transcript WSWG call 30th April 2012
- From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:34:51 -0700
Berry Cobb: Welcome to the 30 APR WSWG Call.
Cintra Sooknanan: Hi Everyone
Don Blumenthal: have to call back in on another line to fix echo
Nathalie Peregrine: Wendy Seltzer has joined the call
Berry Cobb: Michele Neylon - email@example.comBob Brasich -
Bob_Brasich@mpaa.orgDan Seymour - firstname.lastname@example.orgDon Blumenthal -
email@example.comJim GalvinNicolas Adam - nickolas.adam@GMAIL.COMSteve Sheng
- firstname.lastname@example.orgFrancisco Arias - email@example.comDave
Piscitello - dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx
Cintra Sooknanan: Also I'd like to add Evan Leibovitch evan@xxxxxxxxx
Cintra Sooknanan: and a couple others, I will get their information to you once
avri: for me, i just forwarded on Berry's message asking if anyone was
Berry Cobb: Thank you Avri
Berry Cobb: Dear Council.Initially in the WSWG charter we described a step in
our workflow that involved retaining a third party consulting resource to
review the WSWG WHOIS (RDDS) requirements survey and provide comments on the
structure on the questions in regards to general comprehension and structure.
Some time after the WSWG began executing the work items in its charter, the WG
decided to add a "beta test" of a draft candidate of the survey as well as post
the draft survey for public comment. We believe that these new activities
represent a more comprehensive form of feedback that we would garner from a
single consulting resource, making the consulting resource review a redundant
and unnecessary action. We therefore, respectfully, plan to not pursue the
consulting resource review, unless explicitly requested to do so by the
Council. Thank you.
Michael Young: note the commas are missing
Michael Young: :-)
Nathalie Peregrine: Wilson is showing as connected on the bridge
avri: i think R-2.2 may need some worksmithing.
Michael Young: can you send suggested edits?
avri: i thinkl we are either sking about benefits or affect, but having both in
the sentence confuses me.
Cintra Sooknanan: The question is in the positive
Cintra Sooknanan: so it is referring to benefits Only
Susan Prosser: also R-2.1 is first introduction to RDDS terms, may need
Cintra Sooknanan: should it be neutral or should we have a separate question
Cintra Sooknanan: ???
Cintra Sooknanan: okie :) thanks
Cintra Sooknanan: Yes
Cintra Sooknanan: Do you expect someone to do the survey in one sitting
Cintra Sooknanan: ?
Don Blumenthal: What about the ability to start online, quit, and resume later?
Don Blumenthal: Great, especially given the length
Steve Metalitz: As previously advised, I will have to drop off in a couple of
Michael Young: thanks steve
Cintra Sooknanan: Just one comment with the last section 7a, we should ask the
person to specify their optional time period
Michael Young: ah yes
Michael Young: good idea
Cintra Sooknanan: Sorry
Cintra Sooknanan: don't mean to regress
Cintra Sooknanan: Please specify, give reason
Cintra Sooknanan: Thanks Michael
Cintra Sooknanan: Lucky version 10 :)
Cintra Sooknanan: yes time is short to book a meeting
Cintra Sooknanan: Michael can you state the next steps when we can anticipate v
10 will be ready for the testers (beta)?
Michael Young: sure
Michael Young: we have some flexibility
Cintra Sooknanan: Can't hear very soft
Susan Prosser: Cintra: was asking about consistency in format
Susan Prosser: yes, no, indifferent, vs no, & capitalization
Susan Prosser: thanks Michael
Cintra Sooknanan: Good call, thanks and Bye
Cintra Sooknanan: lol