Thanks Jonathan Quoting Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>:
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?
I am impressed with how the staff are trying to address our concerns, but we must ensure that nothing gets lost in the cracks (or smoke).... so I am in favour of your proposal for an agile CWG group to lead the implementation and for staff to execute. If things get out of synchronisation - or there is confusion, the CWG group shine a light on the matter and expose/resolve the confusion.
2. Substance - Do we agree with the details presented in the session today?
I did not see it.... but guided by you.
Both Lise and I stood up and made points to this effect during the meeting as did some of the CWG Stewardship Members / Participants.
Thanks to all.
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.
Sure... but we need to ensure that things are not moving at such a pace that folks trip over. Getting it done right the first time is better than having to stall and revisit.
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.
Sure .... that works. Best Paul
Please can we have any comments or concerns with this proposal as soon as possible.
Thank-you,
Lise and Jonathan
Co-Chairs, CWG Stewardship