Johnathan: I understand the way of moving forward by using "agile" teams to focus on specific areas of the final proposal but I am confused as to how these teams will help in tackling the questions of internal. vs. external (and now the "integrated") proposal. Is this issue (internal/external) going to be discussed during the full CWG meetings? -ed On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 8:14 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Hi Johnathan,
As I asked (remotely) at the Singapore meeting, how are we planning to work in this method while having two distinct (Possible 3 now) models on the table, Internal-External-Integrated, are all 3 models to be included in the live draft proposal? With the exclusion of some of the documentation teams that would be cross model I would wonder how we are going to work on multiple proposals at once.
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2015 11:21 PM *To:* 'Greg Shatan'; 'Avri Doria'
*Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Call for suggestions to design teams
All,
Here are a few brief notes down as to how I see the working method from now on. My aim here is to ensure that we are aligned in understanding of the working method and, if not, that we work towards being aligned.
I see it as follows:
1. We will work on and from a live and evolving draft proposal (outline and partial content in preparation) which seeks to address the full required scope of what is needed by the ICG and through the ICG, the NTIA. This draft to be in circulation with the CWG as soon as possible.
2. To the extent that the evolving draft in 1 above contains areas of detail that need developing, these will be picked off and dealt with by short-lived and focused design teams. The design teams will work according to the proposed mechanics (CWG-Guidelines for a Design Team-Final.docx) and their work should ideally always be able to be linked back to the draft proposal in 1 above (by direct reference to a specific section or sections in the draft proposal).
3. Another of the four attachments to Lise’s email at the start of this thread (CWG-DesignTeamList.xlsx) contained an initial “seed” list of 3 proposed design team topics (admittedly without the anchor of reference back to the draft proposal in 1 above but we felt it was important to get moving on this).
4. The overarching issue of how to deal with separability *in extremis* is a critical point but it should be undertaken in parallel with the work described in 1-3 above and in conjunction with any legal advice we receive over time. The work to be undertaken on this overarching issue may need to continue to be tackled by the whole CWG (but not to the point that it displaces all other necessary work) or it may be best moved forward by a design team. I don’t have a firm view on that.
Perhaps the thinking around this process is already clear and you feel this content is repetitive but, in case not, I thought it worthwhile re-iterating it.
Thanks,
Jonathan
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* 22 February 2015 22:46 *To:* Avri Doria *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Call for suggestions to design teams
Avri --
One more thing re the Integrated Model. While I believe it can be further discussed and refined in a design team, it is on the agenda for Tuesday's full CWG meeting. After that, it can probably be moved off into a design team for further refinement and then brought back to the full group.
Greg
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri,
The design teams (or task forces) are emphatically not only for process issues. For instance, in my view design teams need to be set up for issues such as the following:
1. Specifying and drafting service level documentation (specifying and drafting may be two different design teams, or just two different deliverables of one design team).
2. Specifying and drafting escalation documentation
3. Specifying and drafting reporting requirements documentation
4. IPR issues, including the IANA trademark and domain name
5. Replacing (or not) the NTIA validation/authorization function, and if replacing it, designing/documenting the function, and creating an implementation path (this may be 3 design teams)
As such, a design team to explore the Integrated Model would certainly fit.
As a final clarification, design teams are not decision teams; they are supposed to bring the draft deliverable(s) back to the full team for debate, discussion, revision and approval.
Greg
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Are design team only for process issues?
If not, perhaps a design team, contingent on how Tuesday goes - of course, to further work on the Integrated Model approach.
But I am just not sure if this sort of topic fits the intent of the design teams.
avri
On 22-Feb-15 11:14, Lise Fuhr wrote:
Dear all,
This is a call for suggestions to design teams. If you have any issues that you think are relevant for a design team please provide the group with a submission of name, a brief description of topic and scope and finally an indication of who should to be lead of the team.
Included are an example of relevant design teams, the “Draft Working methods” and “Draft Design team Guidelines”.
Best regards,
Jonathan and Lise
_______________________________________________
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
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.