Page History
...
Participants:
Observers and experts: Jaap Akkerhuis
Staff: Bart Boswinkel, Kim Carlson
...
- Mind Map version 2 retirement process.pdf
- Outline retirement document version 2.pdf
- Overview stakeholder analysis.pdf
- retirementprocess.2018-05-03.pdf
- Stakeholder analysis mind map update.pdf
- stakeholder.2018-05-03.pdf
Recordings:
Transcript: EN
Chat Transcript:
15:50:00 From Kimberly Carlson : Hi all, welcome
15:52:48 From nickw : Hi
15:53:10 From martin boyle : Hi
15:55:50 From Danko Jevtović : h
15:56:09 From sveta : Hello!
15:59:14 From Danko Jevtović : I have updated to the latest Win10, and now I dont have mic anymore (nor webcam)
16:00:03 From Kimberly Carlson : we're not using the webcams, you can type any comments in chat - are you able to hear the room?
16:00:04 From Allan MacGillivray : Hello everyone.
16:00:15 From Danko Jevtović : yes, no problem
16:00:22 From Kimberly Carlson : great
16:00:57 From lizwilliams : hi everyone…
16:03:43 From jaap : Temporary care take was also used for problems with .TK
16:04:01 From lizwilliams : @Stephen…in AOB could we have a timeline of the deliverables and what has to be written by when…
16:05:10 From Eberhard Lisse : there is no fixed timeline for deliverables as far as I see this, and we should perhaps do one step after the other
16:07:16 From Eberhard Lisse : We should put them on separate mind maps
16:08:45 From lizwilliams : I would like indicative timings attached to our work. We have to deliver something against a project and a timeline.
16:09:05 From Eberhard Lisse : No, we don’t
16:11:03 From lizwilliams : @Bart…is it proposed that there is a cost associated with the retirement of a cc? Could you add into your mind map a consideration of budget impacts on a) IANA and b) anyone else?
16:14:00 From Eberhard Lisse : Liz, IANA is a function, not an entity (as per FoI Terminology) and the entity concerned is PTI, so we also need to change this in the MindMap
16:19:15 From Eberhard Lisse : As lo g as we don’t mistake function for entity it’s fine
16:20:00 From lizwilliams : @ Bart — can’t hear your connection…
16:20:13 From Eberhard Lisse : bart we’can’t hear you
16:21:45 From lizwilliams : @Bart so could you put a little something somewhere to remind us that there is a financial implication.
16:22:36 From martin boyle : Agree with Eberhard
16:23:00 From Danko Jevtović : +1 O wouldnt go into budget
16:23:15 From lizwilliams : Thanks everyone…these are only questions to raise and it will be silly not to raise questions without understanding the implications…
16:24:01 From Debbie : yes, agree with Eberhard
16:24:31 From tom barrett : the mind map is an impressive piece of work!
16:24:47 From Danko Jevtović : it is essential to have questions :)
16:26:00 From nickw : bart is sounding a bit like stephen Hawkin tonight!
16:26:55 From Nenad Orlić : sound scrambled
16:33:08 From Peter Koch : line 40-42 still suggest that the ‘exceptionally reserved’ list was part of the standard
16:33:31 From Peter Koch : line 55: is this TLDs or code elements? maybe drop the “.” from “.YU”
16:34:43 From Peter Koch : line 57: “SSxit” is not a commonly used term, also the scenario is different from EU/UK for a variety of reasons, one being that neither EU nor UK are officially assigned code elements
16:34:48 From jaap : Note that AI (Afar and Issas) was never delegated. ISO stopped in 77
16:37:01 From jaap : NT was also never delegated
16:38:26 From jaap : Assigned is defined in ISO 3166; Unassigned is mentioned but not defined
16:39:59 From Barrack Otieno : ok
16:41:36 From Eberhard Lisse : Barrack, welcome :-)-O
16:46:58 From Nigel Roberts : If we are going to refer to "Brexit and SSxit" in this document, might I suggest we use the right names for the the relevant country.
...
