Agree absolutely!  Count me in
On 7 Mar 2016 18:05, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:

+1 I also support - and if I may add, I attended the session today and was very surprised that the stage was just populated by ICANN Staff. I have concerns that this kind of fumble is exactly the kind of thing that breeds lack of trust so I am pleased to see the proposal Jonathan has shared with us.

Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 07/03/2016 17:09, Greg Shatan wrote:

I support this as well.

Greg

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Lindeberg, Elise <elise.lindeberg@nkom.no > wrote:

Also in support !

 

Elise

 

 

Elise Lindeberg

Senior Legal Adviser

Norwegian GAC representative

Norwegian Communications Authority

Dir. +47 22 824607 Mob. +47 90190947

ekl@nkom.no

 

 

Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] PÃ¥ vegne av Jian C. Chang

Sendt: 7. mars 2016 17:06

Til: Eduardo Diaz; jrobinson@afilias.info; cwg-stewardship

Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Implementation

 

Agree and support Jonathan's proposal.

 

+1 to Mathew, not DT lead too, but will be happy to participate in the task force if necessary.

 

Jian Chang

KNET

 

 

From: Eduardo Diaz

Date: 2016-03-07 23:56

To: jrobinson; cwg-stewardship

Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Implementation

I do support this proposal.

 

Thanks for being so attentive to these details.

 

-ed

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:13 PM Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info > wrote:

All,

 

Lise and I today attended the session entitled:

 

https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-implementation

 

It became clear during the course of the session that material new details on the implementation of the CWG Stewardship proposal were being released for the first time.

 

This raises two issues:

 

1.      Process – How do we ensure that ICANN implementation staff do not get out of synchronisation with the CWG?

2.      Substance – Do we agree with the details presented in the session today?

 

Both Lise and I stood up and made points to this effect during the meeting as did some of the CWG Stewardship Members / Participants.

We also spoke with Akram & Trang afterwards. It does seem that this was an inadvertent oversight driven by a desire and need to make progress.

 

However, it is also evident that there is a need for the ICANN staff implementation team to have more rapid or agile reference to the CWG, in addition to our bi-weekly updates / meetings.

 

Therefore, in order to address this need, the co-chairs propose to form an implementation oversight task force comprising the CWG co-chairs and the DT leads. The outcomes will come back to the CWG in any case but we believe that we need a capability to track the implementation work as closely as possible and as it evolves.

 

Please can we have any comments or concerns with this proposal as soon as possible.

 

Thank-you,

 

 

Lise and Jonathan

Co-Chairs, CWG Stewardship

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list


CWG-Stewardship@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship