Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Draft Presentation for Cartagena

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Steve.  

On slide 11: We thought that the WG wanted to include Model 4 because it was
discussed along with the other models, but not to suggest that there is
support for it (or any of the models for that matter -- which is why we are
asking for community input on them). Also, you are correct that in the slide
we erroneously refer to it as language translation -- not script -- we'll
make the correction.  Both Models 3 and 4 were included in the version of
the report that you suggested changes to, but we didn't see any comments
from you asking to have Model 4 removed.  Would it be helpful to clarify in
the slides (as we did in the report) the WG concerns with both Models 3 and
4 (costs, inaccuracies, etc.)? We also will make it clear on slide 11 who
provides the data in each case since you are right that in the slides it is
overly simplified. In addition we could include a statement at the top that
these were the models discussed by the WG, but that the WG does not endorse
a particular model and requests community input on them (which we do in a
later slide).  Of course, please suggest any other clarifications we should
include.

On slide 12: These are helpful and important distinctions.  I think what
happened was that in simplifying the tables for slides 12 and 13 to make
them easier to read we left out some of the information that clarifies the
distinctions between the models.  I'll put it back in.

We'll make the changes you suggest and provide a revised version Friday
prior to our meeting on Monday.

Julie


On 11/17/10 6:38 PM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> I have some concerns with slides 11 and 12.
> 
> On slide 11: I thought it was agreed that there was no support for model
> 4 as presented here, which is translation into the English language (not
> into a "script" -- lots of languages use basically the same script as
> English). 
> 
> Furthermore, this slide may be confusing because it does not say who
> "provides data" in any of the three models.  Do we mean "registrant
> provides data" in each case?
> 
> On slide 12, the model 1 examples present translation into a language
> (English), not just transliteration into a script (US ASCII).  In fact,
> Model 1 could look identical to model 3, the only difference being who
> is responsible for changing what the registrant provides (assuming the
> registrant is not providing data in US ASCII) into what is displayed in
> the directory service.  In model 1, that is the registrant's
> responsibility; in model 3, that is the registrar's responsibility.
> 
> I apologize if this is retreading old ground but I don't think we have
> been clear enough on what the differences are among these models.
> 
> Steve Metalitz   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Galvin
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 6:17 PM
> To: Julie Hedlund
> Cc: James M. Galvin; ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Draft Presentation
> for Cartagena
> 
> 
> One more important thing we need to include is to clearly change the
> vernacular.  On slide 3, Introduction, the phrase "in WHOIS services"
> is highlighted in red.  I assume that's because during the presentation
> you are going to introduce the phrase "directory service".  Further,
> you'll explain that WHOIS is used to refer to both a protocol and a data
> model.
> 
> With that, we need to be absolutely clear throughout the presentation to
> use the phrases "directory service" and "registration data", expressly
> not using the phrase WHOIS.
> 
> There is one use of directory services and the rest say WHOIS.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 17, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Julie Hedlund wrote:
> 
>> Dear IRD-WG members,
>> 
>> Here is the draft presentation for Cartagena for your review, which
>> includes the changes I received from Owen.  Please respond with any
>> changes by COB this Thursday, 18 November so that I can prepare a
>> revised draft for review prior to the discussion on our call on
>> Monday, 22 November at 1600 UTC (0800 PST/1100 EST).  Please feel free
> 
>> to enter changes directly into the document and I will reconcile them
>> with other comments received into one draft.
>> 
>> Thank you very much for your assistance.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Julie
>> 
>> <Internationalized Registration Data Interim Report Presentation Draft
> 
>> 15 Nov 2010.ppt>
> 
>