[gnso-whoissurvey-dt] RE: Draft Final Report

["Berry Cobb" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

WSWG Members,

 

This is a reminder for the WG to provide feedback and/or proposed changes to
the draft Final Report, which outlines the survey results and proposed
recommendations (see thread below).  If possible, please document any
proposed changes directly into the Word document and I can compile all
requests into a master version of the report.  Also, if WG members feel we
should conduct a conference call to discuss the report in more detail,
please advise and I can setup a doodle poll and conference logistics based
upon an agreed date and time.

 

Ideally, we should target the 5 September 2013 GNSO Council meeting to
conclude this effort in the absence of substantial changes to the Final
Report.  Documents and motions are due 26 August 2013.  If we can submit the
final report to the Council no later than 19 August that should give Council
members adequate time to review the results and recommendations to
adequately consider the motion in time for the September meeting.  I have
also attached a draft motion for the WG to consider.

 

I welcome your feedback and suggestions.

 

Thank you.  B

 

Berry Cobb

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

720.839.5735

 <mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

@berrycobb

 

 

From: Berry Cobb [mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 21:33
To: gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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_Draft_Motion_v0.1.docx
Description: Microsoft Office

Attachment: WSWG_Final_Report_v0.5.docx
Description: Microsoft Office