[gnso-whoissurvey-dt] Draft Final Report
WSWG, Please find attached the latest draft of the WSWG final report. I had hoped to finish the report in time for the GNSO Council to consider it at the Durban meeting, but I doubt there will be enough time for you to review and provide input to meet the deadline. Regardless, there is a 15 minute slot on the Saturday Council meeting to brief them where we stand with this effort. Because the Council is not meeting in August, we will have to target the 5 September Council meeting. A few notes about the report prior to your review: 1. The report is a condensed version of the survey results that includes charts showing a visual representation of the results. The text-only format we started with in version 1 became stale given the size of the survey. Importing the graphics is what took the most time in completing the compilation. 2. The report only refers to WHOIS instead of DNRD naming conventions as defined in SAC051 primarily because this survey effort was started prior to that reports release. Using DNRD also decreased continuity flipping between the terms. However, where we used the DNRD term in our original questions, I did not make the change as to not alter the original form of the question being asked. 3. The proposed recommendations in the report only request that the survey results be shared with the larger WHOIS efforts underway (EWG, IETF, Thick WHOIS) to inform their deliberations at their discretion. At this point it is difficult to determine how the Council could handle any specific technical requirement recommendations. However, I defer to the WG to provide input on any additional recommendations that may be necessary. 4. The report does not refer to a public comment period being opened on these results. Given the nature of the results and the proposed recommendations, it may not be necessary. However, I also defer to the WG to make the final determination. 5. Section 4.2 is a list of each technical requirement extracted from the original final report. Should we attempt to summarize the results of each question from each requirement section of the survey and provide a general observation that "yes" the overall requirement is supported, or "no" it was not supported based on the results of the survey? Given some of the results where no answer was provided could steer us to more subjective conclusions. 6. Lastly, should the report contain references to larger WHOIS efforts? For example, on the section regarding Thick WHOIS, should a reference be made that WG is aware of this initiative, or is it better to just only provide the results given that there is a recommendation to send the results of this survey to the Thick WHOIS WG (See p.52)? I look forward to your feedback and any input you may have. Please provide any edits within the Word doc itself, and I can import your suggested changes into a master Word document in preparation for the final version. Thank you. B Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735 mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx @berrycobb Attachment:
WSWG_Final_Report_v0.5.docx |