<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">In my review of the eight (8) possible requirements in the attached file, I think it is obvious that none of them are relevant to the RDS and hence should be
deleted from the v.4 of the triaged list of possible requirements. If anyone, disagrees with my assessment, please identify any of the possible requirements that you think are relevant to the RDS and explain why so that the WG can discuss. If not, I suggest
that in our next meeting that quickly finalize a decision to delete them all.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Lisa Phifer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:54 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all,<br>
<br>
With regard to action item #3 below, attached please find a small excerpt from draft 4 of the triaged possible requirements list, containing only those PRs marked "??" for review and possible deletion. During triage, we could not find a direct link between
these PRs and registration directory services and so were unable to assign them codes and keywords. WG members are therefore asked to consider if and how these flagged PRs are relevant to the RDS.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Lisa<br>
<br>
<br>
At 12:33 AM 9/21/2016, Marika Konings wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>3. Review Draft 4 of triaged possible requirements list<br>
</i>· Discuss possible deletion of flagged PRs (those marked "??")<br>
· Discuss WG feedback on phase, code, and keyword mappings<br>
· Identify essential missing inputs (if any) and plan to include them<br>
<br>
<b>Action item #2</b>: WG members to review latest version of triaged possible requirements, including specific questions identified, in order to commence deliberations.
<br>
<br>
<b>Action item #3</b>: Staff to circulate possible deletion of flagged PRs to mailing list to encourage input by WG members ahead of next week's meeting<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>