Hey Chuck, With regards to: "I am not sure that the Transition to Successor section is insufficiently developed. On the other hand, it is well known that the Separation Review is insufficiently developed. Should we say that we agree on the one and are not so sure on the other and make an action item to reach out to USCIB to find out specifically what they think needs more work with regard to the Framework?" I agree on the transition to successor contractor plan, I think one of the takeaways from the DT's work was that the level of detail needed was going to be extremely difficult for the CWG to develop, firstly because of the amount of work that will be required and secondly as access to detailed information was not going to be possible due to confidentiality and security concerns. Compared to the current status quo I think that the proposal puts some more detail on the requirements of that plan in order to be executable and defines a timeline for producing it as a deliverable. If we want to put some form of one line summary to that effect into the responses it might help alleviate some concerns. -James From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 11:00 PM To: Marika Konings; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review: updated public comment review tool I reviewed the latest version of the comment review tool and added 13 new comments. Note that I added a new comment at the beginning (comment 3). All the rest of my comments are added next to the blue highlighted text for the late comments that were added to the tool. Also note that I formatted the rows of the table so that they would not break across pages except in cases where the row was too wide to fit on one page. I made a sincere effort to make suggestion regarding the staff developed CWG responses in a neutral manner that reflects what I believe represent the CWG work to date. But I welcome all to review and critique them in case I have failed to do that. I will leave it to Jonathan and Lise along with staff to decide whether or not to follow my suggestions about the proposed CWG responses. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 6:10 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review: updated public comment review tool Dear All, Please find attached for your review the updated public comment review tool which now also includes those comments that were received after the deadline. For the record, 53 submissions have been received in total. As the comments from Chuck were received after staff had started work on the updated version, you'll find included a compare versions document that will highlight the comments included by Chuck on the 22 May version as well as the comments that were added in this updated version. Best regards, Marika From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Friday 22 May 2015 20:34 To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Cc: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review: public comment summary and review tool Dear all, Staff has compiled a summary overview of the pubic comment submissions and filled out a public comment review tool, noting responses and specific action items for the CWG-Stewardship to consider. Please review these documents and suggest edits based on your assessment of the public comment submissions. The proposed actions for the CWG-Stewardship are highlighted in blue in the response column (far right). The Public Comment Review Tool is very long and may be difficult to read. This is due to staff's approach in thorough and detailed review. We will provide a more digestible, action-focused, version of this tool for Tuesday's meeting. We are providing the long version to you today to demonstrate our work progress and preparation for next week's high-intensity meetings. While the Public Comment Review Tool is very detailed, the summary overview is presented in a presentation format and focuses more on the "bigger picture". Depending on your review-style, you may be inclined to start with one or the other document. Also, please note that these documents incorporate all (44) submissions received up until the deadline on 20 May at 23:59 UTC. As of 22 May at 16:00 UTC, there are (7) late submissions. These submissions have not yet been incorporated in this document but will be added in time for the high-intensity meetings (along with the submissions received based on the extension for those who are reliant on translations). As a reminder, Brenda kindly pulled all the submissions together on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/o5A0Aw. You can download all the files at once (like a zip file) by clicking on the "download all" button at the bottom left side of the macro. Have a good (submission-reading-filled) weekend, Grace