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

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Steve et al.,

I think that Steve Sheng's comments trump mine.  I didn't realize he had
responded while I was still writing my comments.  I think he did a better
job of clarifying.

Thanks,
Julie


On 11/17/10 7:14 PM, "Julie Hedlund" <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 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>
>> 
>> 
> 
>