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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Did we make substantive changes between the interim and final (I don't remember 
off hand)?  If so, I think doing another community review is warranted.  If 
not, I would leave it to the chartering organizations.  And of course there 
will be a community review before the Board considers any recommendations 
anyway.

a.

On 29 Aug 2011, at 11:09, Julie Hedlund wrote:

> 
> 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.
>> 
>> 
> 
>