I am relatively ambivalent as to whether we should group our action items. It might be helpful to have them in categories. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 1:25 PM To: cwg-Stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Implementation Action Items List Importance: High Dear all, Per the call notes/actions from the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Tuesday<https://community.icann.org/x/IZ1YAw>, I have revised the implementation action items list for the Chairs to send to the ICG. The Chairs also intend to share this implementation action items list with the ICANN staff working on implementation planning. The major change was formatting to match the style of the ICG list. The only addition I made was a parenthesis in the second to last row to clarify that Sidley documents on drafts Bylaws were "to be provided" since we do not have that documentation yet. There were no comments on the CWG-Stewardship mailing list for additional action items, but I have a suggestion for your consideration. If you look at the document, it looks like the CWG-Stewardship has more action items than the other communities. While it's true that the names community is probably going to see the most change through the transition, I also think the way we developed our action items is different from the ICG. We could, for example, group our actions items in bigger categories such as SLAs, PTI, RZMS, etc and detail the individual items within (as the other two communities seem to have done). Please let me know if you'd like for me to take a stab at redesigning the list to match that format. With this, we've completed all the actions items assigned to date. Talk to you on Tuesday at 17:00 UTC. Best, Grace