All, I have a detail suggestion on the membership of DTs. I suggest that we consider the lead as a member and not as an additional "neutral" chair. e.g. if the DT is nominally composed of a specific number of representatives from a particular group, then the lead will count as one of the representatives of his or her group. The rationale being that the lead is (almost by definition) someone who has an interest in the topic and therefore (possibly) a specific outcome. Whilst a degree of neutrality is required in order to ensure that the voices of the members are heard and accounted for, the lead is not per se neutral. As ever, any concerns or issues, flag them. Otherwise, we'll run with this approach. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 09 March 2015 21:50 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Updated version of the Status Overview for the CWG DTs All, Please see attached for a status update on the Design Teams in preparation for our call tomorrow. Lise and I have reviewed the whole DT landscape and the current status is reflected in the document. Please note that it contains the following: . A status for each DT per the model of the step-by-step process which has been referenced in Annex A. . A note section as part of the index to provide additional comments as needed . New prospective DTs added o L (IANA Function Separation Mechanism), o M (Escalation mechanisms beyond CSC) and o N (Periodic Review of IANA Functions). . An updated description for .INT DT to match description in draft transition proposal. . An 'expression of interest field', currently only in the Authorization Function DT-D (as other expression of interests come in, we'll create the same for other DTs). Where a priority is set as final, that is the priority we have agreed. Where it is provisional, that is indicative pending further detail on the DT emerging. I look forward to reviewing this with you on the tomorrow. Thanks, Jonathan