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

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jim,

Just a note for the WG to consider.  As you may recall, our Interim Report
was published for Public Comment.  The WG should decide whether the Final
Report also will be published for Public Comment for 30 days before it is
finalized.  I should have mentioned that in today's meeting.  So, what this
would mean, if the WG agrees, is that the Report (if it is ready) could be
published for Public Comment on 30 September and there could be a public
session in Dakar that could be part of the public comment process.  Then,
based on the comments the WG to decide if the Report needs to be modified.
If not, it can go directly to the GNSO Council and the SSAC to consider and
approve.

Thanks,
Julie


On 8/29/11 1:51 PM, "Jim Galvin" <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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 today¹s 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:  Aren¹t some data elements already
>> specified?  There isn¹t 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 ³tagging information² to ³tagging elements².  Like the
>> phrase ³ICANN staff should develop, in consultation with the entire
>> ICANN community...²  (Add entire ³ICANN² in the existing
>> sentence.)  Is the term ³data model² 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.  ³The GNSO Council or the SSAC
>> should request an Issues Report...²  (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 doesn¹t exist so we are saying that ICANN needs
>> to specify the service definition.  Change ³work with ICANN and the
>> technical community² and ³propose² not ³identify² a
>> ³registration data directory service.²  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 ³meetings 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 Board¹s specific request for this work.
> 
>