[ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD-WG Call 29 August: Actions/Notes

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear IRD-WG members,

Here are some brief notes from today’s meeting.  The full transcript and 
recording also will be provided.    Our next call will be Monday, 12 September 
at 1500 UTC/0800 PDT/1100 EDT.  The teleconference details will be sent with 
the reminder.

Best regards,

Julie

Attendees:  Scott Austin; Avri Doria, Jim Galvin, Rafik Dammak, Bob Hutchinson, 
Steve Metalitz, Owen Smigelski; Glen de Saint-Gery, Julie Hedlund, Steve Sheng, 
Dave Piscitello

Actions:  Steve Sheng will revised the draft report based on the discussion.  
(See below.)  Also fill in text where possible.  Produce a redlined document by 
Tuesday the 6th.

Notes

Recommendations (starting on page 15 of the document):


 1.  Develop a data model:  Aren’t some data elements already specified?  There 
isn’t total agreement on the elements.  We may not want to be overly 
prescriptive concerning what the baseline should be, but the WG could propose 
something.  In the last sentence change “tagging information” to “tagging 
elements”.  Like the phrase “ICANN staff should develop, in consultation with 
the entire ICANN community...”  (Add entire “ICANN” in the existing sentence.)  
Is the term “data model” confusing in the context of this document?  Look 
through the document to make sure we are consistent in how we use the term and 
define it when it is first used in the document.  We have discussed using XML 
as a representation language — should it be in this recommendation?  The choice 
of a representation language would more properly belong to the IETF.  Not sure 
the IETF should be involved in the formalization of the representation 
language, but would be interested in the protocol (versus the data).
 2.  Issues Report:  The GNSO Council requests an Issues Report (should be 
clear in this document).  The SSAC also can request an Issues Report, as can 
the ccNSO.  “The GNSO Council or the SSAC should request an Issues Report...”  
(See ICANN Bylaws at http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm.)  May want to 
include here some of the elements that should be included in an Issues Report.  
Although the WG should have given specific advice concerning how to approach 
transliteration/translation requirements, but it did not produce a consensus on 
how to proceed on these specification.  The question of who should provide 
transliteration/translation could be a policy issue, which is why there is a 
recommendation for an Issues Report.  Editorial note:  Make sure that the 
language in this recommendation meets the requirements in the Bylaws and also 
check it against the recommendations for changes to the PDP procedures from the 
PPSC-PDP work team (Policy Staff Support -- Marika).
 3.  Identify a directory service: Need clarification.  Make it clear that it 
is referencing a registration data directory service.  Draw an important 
distinction between the protocol and the service.  ICANN should define the 
service and separate it from the protocol that is currently in use.  We have 
identified a deficiency that the service definition doesn’t exist so we are 
saying that ICANN needs to specify the service definition.  Change “work with 
ICANN and the technical community” and “propose” not “identify” a “registration 
data directory service.”  This is one piece of a very large set of work at 
ICANN and in the community.  The recommendation should say specifically that 
this is part of other work.  Change the trailing phrase “meetings the 
needs...enumerated in this report AND (add this) the WHOIS Service 
Requirements.  Include language that says that internationalization should be 
part of that work.  Reference the Board’s specific request for this work.