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

[James M Galvin <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think that one could interpret the change away from the 4 models to a 
specific recommendation for future work to be a substantive change.
Personally, I could go either way on it, so I'm interested in the 
opinions of others.
Jim




-- On August 29, 2011 12:15:51 PM -0700 Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote 
regarding Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD-WG Call 29 August: Actions/Notes --
> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >