RE: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD-WG Call 29 August: Actions/Notes
Attached please find a few redlines/comments on the sections of the draft report we did not discuss this morning. All are minor/editorial in nature. Steve Metalitz -----Original Message----- From: owner-ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M Galvin Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 4:41 PM To: Avri Doria; Ird Subject: Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD-WG Call 29 August: Actions/Notes 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. > >> > >> > > > > > > Attachment:
24 August Draft IRD Report - v00 (4055635).DOC
|