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

[James M Galvin <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Since I won't be available for this next call, it was also proposed at 
the end of this meeting that the agenda for the next meeting will be as 
follows.

0. Steve Sheng will produce a revised, redlined document by Tuesday, 6 
September, so the working group has time to prepare for the next 
meeting.  He will do his best to draft as much remaining text as he can 
based on the discussion we have had to date.

Agenda:

1. Review Steve Sheng's editorial requests as documented in the draft 
final report.  Please be sure to review the final document and come 
prepared with suggestions it.  Priority and preference will be given to 
suggested changes submitted to the mailing list in advance of the 
meeting.
2. If time permits, discuss any questions or suggestions on any of the 
text.  Priority and preference will be given to questions and 
suggestions that are submitted to the mailing list in advance of the 
meeting.
3. We have the opportunity to be done and come to closure by 30 
September.  We should consider if we are on track to do this.  We don't 
have to make a decision about this meeting but it would be helpful to 
do a realistic self-assessment.
If we can meet the 30 September deadline then we will have the 
opportunity to move towards declaring success and requesting formal 
actions in Dakar.  Note that the next formal step for our work is to 
have it reviewed and accepted by both the GNSO and the SSAC, since they 
are the co-sponsoring SO/AC.

Thanks,

Jim






-- On August 29, 2011 9:10:44 AM -0700 Julie Hedlund 
<julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> wrote regarding [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD-WG Call 
29 August: Actions/Notes --
> 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):
>
>
>   • 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).
>   • 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).
>   • 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.