Hello all, First, thanks to Lise for taking us through the slide deck and making a complex proposal a lot more understandable. Now for my comments: - We have spent again around 30 minutes on the process reaching this point and a much smaller time on the contents of the proposal itself. I think that by this stage we should have a lot more detail in the actual explanation of the contents of the proposal, describing CSC, IFR, the PTI Board, SCWG, the escalation process (there is no slide showing all of the various levels of escalation and remedials) from the time a complaint starts and the various levels at which the complaint can be addressed. IMHO *this* should be the meat of the presentation. - Questions like "what happens to PTI if another IANA Functions Operator is selected after separation?" are bound to come up recurrently and we completely forgot to mention that this is just the Names and the Protocols & Numbers will likely remain with PTI through their contract with ICANN. This is not made clear at all that an IFR is only to do with Names. - We did not emphasize the technical nature of the whole ecosystem and it therefore feels like a lot of these processes are political - and this is not inspiring confidence. Emphasis on Service Level Expectations; emphasis on Operational Continuity; emphasis on Stability of the DNS. How are all of the processes and groups proposed contributing to this emphasis? I hope this helps. Kind regards, Olivier
Dear all,dear Olivier I would like to just add my voice on the first point - it is my assumption that these webinars are aimed mainly at people who are coming new to the material and who will be looking to understand what they will approve - or not approve - in BA. If that assumption is right, I do urge that the format be changed so that the focus is on the substance of the proposal. Taking time on the process does not seem to be the right focus at this stage, for the audience. bests, Jordan On 11 June 2015 at 19:42, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Hello all,
First, thanks to Lise for taking us through the slide deck and making a complex proposal a lot more understandable. Now for my comments:
- We have spent again around 30 minutes on the process reaching this point and a much smaller time on the contents of the proposal itself. I think that by this stage we should have a lot more detail in the actual explanation of the contents of the proposal, describing CSC, IFR, the PTI Board, SCWG, the escalation process (there is no slide showing all of the various levels of escalation and remedials) from the time a complaint starts and the various levels at which the complaint can be addressed. IMHO *this* should be the meat of the presentation. - Questions like "what happens to PTI if another IANA Functions Operator is selected after separation?" are bound to come up recurrently and we completely forgot to mention that this is just the Names and the Protocols & Numbers will likely remain with PTI through their contract with ICANN. This is not made clear at all that an IFR is only to do with Names. - We did not emphasize the technical nature of the whole ecosystem and it therefore feels like a lot of these processes are political - and this is not inspiring confidence. Emphasis on Service Level Expectations; emphasis on Operational Continuity; emphasis on Stability of the DNS. How are all of the processes and groups proposed contributing to this emphasis?
I hope this helps.
Kind regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *
Olivier & Jordan, This is food for thought and agreed, we should try to improve the materials ahead of BA if necessary. We are working flat-out and I am sure the presentation is not fully refined at this stage. That said, we in the CWG have all come on a journey to get to where we are now and many of those attending the webinar haven’t been alongside us all the way. Therefore, I think we do have to do some work to bring them along that journey in order to fully understand how and why we got to the current place which is a compromise for all of us. I think that there is a third and critical point. That is the role of members (and participants) to help communicate and explain the work – journey & output- of the group. Especially to those organisations that put appointed members onto the CWG. We need your help to communicate key points such as outlined by Olivier below. Please do assist in addition to helping us (chairs & staff) in our roles. Thanks, Jonathan From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: 11 June 2015 08:52 To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar Dear all,dear Olivier I would like to just add my voice on the first point - it is my assumption that these webinars are aimed mainly at people who are coming new to the material and who will be looking to understand what they will approve - or not approve - in BA. If that assumption is right, I do urge that the format be changed so that the focus is on the substance of the proposal. Taking time on the process does not seem to be the right focus at this stage, for the audience. bests, Jordan On 11 June 2015 at 19:42, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Hello all, First, thanks to Lise for taking us through the slide deck and making a complex proposal a lot more understandable. Now for my comments: - We have spent again around 30 minutes on the process reaching this point and a much smaller time on the contents of the proposal itself. I think that by this stage we should have a lot more detail in the actual explanation of the contents of the proposal, describing CSC, IFR, the PTI Board, SCWG, the escalation process (there is no slide showing all of the various levels of escalation and remedials) from the time a complaint starts and the various levels at which the complaint can be addressed. IMHO *this* should be the meat of the presentation. - Questions like "what happens to PTI if another IANA Functions Operator is selected after separation?" are bound to come up recurrently and we completely forgot to mention that this is just the Names and the Protocols & Numbers will likely remain with PTI through their contract with ICANN. This is not made clear at all that an IFR is only to do with Names. - We did not emphasize the technical nature of the whole ecosystem and it therefore feels like a lot of these processes are political - and this is not inspiring confidence. Emphasis on Service Level Expectations; emphasis on Operational Continuity; emphasis on Stability of the DNS. How are all of the processes and groups proposed contributing to this emphasis? I hope this helps. Kind regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet
Jonathan A bit of a late intervention and I am about to get on a plane to BA so it may be too late, but I think Olivier is quite right (and if Olivier and I agree on something in CWG we cannot fail to be right…;-) People who come to ICANN from the outside routinely tell me they are overwhelmed by process details and the acronyms associated with them, and it all seems quite meaningless to them or, at worse, a Kafkaesque devotion to process for its own sake. Whatever you do with the presentation, please highlight what the proposal _does_ above all else; people really do not care that the ICG was formed after consultations in Singapore, that the enhanced accountability process was divided into 2 workstreams in November 2014, etc., etc.. They want to know what we proposed and why. MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:58 AM To: 'Jordan Carter'; 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond' Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar Olivier & Jordan, This is food for thought and agreed, we should try to improve the materials ahead of BA if necessary. We are working flat-out and I am sure the presentation is not fully refined at this stage. That said, we in the CWG have all come on a journey to get to where we are now and many of those attending the webinar haven’t been alongside us all the way. Therefore, I think we do have to do some work to bring them along that journey in order to fully understand how and why we got to the current place which is a compromise for all of us. I think that there is a third and critical point. That is the role of members (and participants) to help communicate and explain the work – journey & output- of the group. Especially to those organisations that put appointed members onto the CWG. We need your help to communicate key points such as outlined by Olivier below. Please do assist in addition to helping us (chairs & staff) in our roles. Thanks, Jonathan From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: 11 June 2015 08:52 To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar Dear all,dear Olivier I would like to just add my voice on the first point - it is my assumption that these webinars are aimed mainly at people who are coming new to the material and who will be looking to understand what they will approve - or not approve - in BA. If that assumption is right, I do urge that the format be changed so that the focus is on the substance of the proposal. Taking time on the process does not seem to be the right focus at this stage, for the audience. bests, Jordan On 11 June 2015 at 19:42, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Hello all, First, thanks to Lise for taking us through the slide deck and making a complex proposal a lot more understandable. Now for my comments: - We have spent again around 30 minutes on the process reaching this point and a much smaller time on the contents of the proposal itself. I think that by this stage we should have a lot more detail in the actual explanation of the contents of the proposal, describing CSC, IFR, the PTI Board, SCWG, the escalation process (there is no slide showing all of the various levels of escalation and remedials) from the time a complaint starts and the various levels at which the complaint can be addressed. IMHO *this* should be the meat of the presentation. - Questions like "what happens to PTI if another IANA Functions Operator is selected after separation?" are bound to come up recurrently and we completely forgot to mention that this is just the Names and the Protocols & Numbers will likely remain with PTI through their contract with ICANN. This is not made clear at all that an IFR is only to do with Names. - We did not emphasize the technical nature of the whole ecosystem and it therefore feels like a lot of these processes are political - and this is not inspiring confidence. Emphasis on Service Level Expectations; emphasis on Operational Continuity; emphasis on Stability of the DNS. How are all of the processes and groups proposed contributing to this emphasis? I hope this helps. Kind regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet
I find it very hard to argue the point that the primary focus needs to be on what is proposed and why instead of process and history so the majority of time should focus on the proposal. Where process and history can be helpful is to provide context so that the work of the WG doesn’t need to be negated and/or repeated. When we see people repeating steps that the WG already covered, we should try to help them understand that the WG carefully went down that path already and worked together to develop the solution proposed. Obviously, if someone raises an issue that the WG didn’t cover, that is a different situation. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 1:05 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info; 'Jordan Carter'; 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond' Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar Jonathan A bit of a late intervention and I am about to get on a plane to BA so it may be too late, but I think Olivier is quite right (and if Olivier and I agree on something in CWG we cannot fail to be right…;-) People who come to ICANN from the outside routinely tell me they are overwhelmed by process details and the acronyms associated with them, and it all seems quite meaningless to them or, at worse, a Kafkaesque devotion to process for its own sake. Whatever you do with the presentation, please highlight what the proposal _does_ above all else; people really do not care that the ICG was formed after consultations in Singapore, that the enhanced accountability process was divided into 2 workstreams in November 2014, etc., etc.. They want to know what we proposed and why. MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:58 AM To: 'Jordan Carter'; 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond' Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar Olivier & Jordan, This is food for thought and agreed, we should try to improve the materials ahead of BA if necessary. We are working flat-out and I am sure the presentation is not fully refined at this stage. That said, we in the CWG have all come on a journey to get to where we are now and many of those attending the webinar haven’t been alongside us all the way. Therefore, I think we do have to do some work to bring them along that journey in order to fully understand how and why we got to the current place which is a compromise for all of us. I think that there is a third and critical point. That is the role of members (and participants) to help communicate and explain the work – journey & output- of the group. Especially to those organisations that put appointed members onto the CWG. We need your help to communicate key points such as outlined by Olivier below. Please do assist in addition to helping us (chairs & staff) in our roles. Thanks, Jonathan From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: 11 June 2015 08:52 To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar Dear all,dear Olivier I would like to just add my voice on the first point - it is my assumption that these webinars are aimed mainly at people who are coming new to the material and who will be looking to understand what they will approve - or not approve - in BA. If that assumption is right, I do urge that the format be changed so that the focus is on the substance of the proposal. Taking time on the process does not seem to be the right focus at this stage, for the audience. bests, Jordan On 11 June 2015 at 19:42, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Hello all, First, thanks to Lise for taking us through the slide deck and making a complex proposal a lot more understandable. Now for my comments: - We have spent again around 30 minutes on the process reaching this point and a much smaller time on the contents of the proposal itself. I think that by this stage we should have a lot more detail in the actual explanation of the contents of the proposal, describing CSC, IFR, the PTI Board, SCWG, the escalation process (there is no slide showing all of the various levels of escalation and remedials) from the time a complaint starts and the various levels at which the complaint can be addressed. IMHO *this* should be the meat of the presentation. - Questions like "what happens to PTI if another IANA Functions Operator is selected after separation?" are bound to come up recurrently and we completely forgot to mention that this is just the Names and the Protocols & Numbers will likely remain with PTI through their contract with ICANN. This is not made clear at all that an IFR is only to do with Names. - We did not emphasize the technical nature of the whole ecosystem and it therefore feels like a lot of these processes are political - and this is not inspiring confidence. Emphasis on Service Level Expectations; emphasis on Operational Continuity; emphasis on Stability of the DNS. How are all of the processes and groups proposed contributing to this emphasis? I hope this helps. Kind regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet
MM "People who come to ICANN from the outside routinely tell me they are overwhelmed by process details and the acronyms associated with them, and it all seems quite meaningless to them or, at worse, a Kafkaesque devotion to process for its own sake." I would heartily second that. I can technically no longer claim to be an ICANN outsider, but I still cling to the vestiges of my former sanity...how the place functions, whose remit this is and what this or that committee has to do is enough to drive us nuts. Particularly because in this instance, the two committees are so logically interdependent and we don't want to hear why they were split....etc. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-06-16 13:05, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Jonathan
A bit of a late intervention and I am about to get on a plane to BA so it may be too late, but I think Olivier is quite right (and if Olivier and I agree on something in CWG we cannot fail to be right…;-)
People who come to ICANN from the outside routinely tell me they are overwhelmed by process details and the acronyms associated with them, and it all seems quite meaningless to them or, at worse, a Kafkaesque devotion to process for its own sake.
Whatever you do with the presentation, please highlight what the proposal _/does/_ above all else; people really do not care that the ICG was formed after consultations in Singapore, that the enhanced accountability process was divided into 2 workstreams in November 2014, etc., etc.. They want to know what we proposed and why.
MM
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:58 AM *To:* 'Jordan Carter'; 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond' *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar
Olivier & Jordan,
This is food for thought and agreed, we should try to improve the materials ahead of BA if necessary. We are working flat-out and I am sure the presentation is not fully refined at this stage.
That said, we in the CWG have all come on a journey to get to where we are now and many of those attending the webinar haven’t been alongside us all the way.
Therefore, I think we do have to do some work to bring them along that journey in order to fully understand how and why we got to the current place which is a compromise for all of us.
I think that there is a third and critical point. That is the role of members (and participants) to help communicate and explain the work – journey & output- of the group. Especially to those organisations that put appointed members onto the CWG.
We need your help to communicate key points such as outlined by Olivier below. Please do assist in addition to helping us (chairs & staff) in our roles.
Thanks,
Jonathan
*From:*Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] *Sent:* 11 June 2015 08:52 *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar
Dear all,dear Olivier
I would like to just add my voice on the first point - it is my assumption that these webinars are aimed mainly at people who are coming new to the material and who will be looking to understand what they will approve - or not approve - in BA.
If that assumption is right, I do urge that the format be changed so that the focus is on the substance of the proposal. Taking time on the process does not seem to be the right focus at this stage, for the audience.
bests,
Jordan
On 11 June 2015 at 19:42, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Hello all,
First, thanks to Lise for taking us through the slide deck and making a complex proposal a lot more understandable. Now for my comments:
- We have spent again around 30 minutes on the process reaching this point and a much smaller time on the contents of the proposal itself. I think that by this stage we should have a lot more detail in the actual explanation of the contents of the proposal, describing CSC, IFR, the PTI Board, SCWG, the escalation process (there is no slide showing all of the various levels of escalation and remedials) from the time a complaint starts and the various levels at which the complaint can be addressed. IMHO *this* should be the meat of the presentation. - Questions like "what happens to PTI if another IANA Functions Operator is selected after separation?" are bound to come up recurrently and we completely forgot to mention that this is just the Names and the Protocols & Numbers will likely remain with PTI through their contract with ICANN. This is not made clear at all that an IFR is only to do with Names. - We did not emphasize the technical nature of the whole ecosystem and it therefore feels like a lot of these processes are political - and this is not inspiring confidence. Emphasis on Service Level Expectations; emphasis on Operational Continuity; emphasis on Stability of the DNS. How are all of the processes and groups proposed contributing to this emphasis?
I hope this helps.
Kind regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi Milton Even though you addressed your feedback to Jonathan, I will reply since I presented the first webinar. I welcome your and others feedback - we are working with refining our presentations all the time so it is not too late to give feedback. I agree we should not get too deep into process details but it is also important to understand the process with NTIA, ICANN and ICG, so it is a balance of communicating both issues with emphasis on the actual proposal. We will do our best in BA and I hope as Jonathan said in his email, that all the participants and members of the CWG will be ambassadors for the proposal as this is a product of the CWG. Best, Lise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Milton L Mueller Sendt: 16. juni 2015 19:05 Til: jrobinson@afilias.info; 'Jordan Carter'; 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond' Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar Jonathan A bit of a late intervention and I am about to get on a plane to BA so it may be too late, but I think Olivier is quite right (and if Olivier and I agree on something in CWG we cannot fail to be right…;-) People who come to ICANN from the outside routinely tell me they are overwhelmed by process details and the acronyms associated with them, and it all seems quite meaningless to them or, at worse, a Kafkaesque devotion to process for its own sake. Whatever you do with the presentation, please highlight what the proposal _does_ above all else; people really do not care that the ICG was formed after consultations in Singapore, that the enhanced accountability process was divided into 2 workstreams in November 2014, etc., etc.. They want to know what we proposed and why. MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:58 AM To: 'Jordan Carter'; 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond' Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar Olivier & Jordan, This is food for thought and agreed, we should try to improve the materials ahead of BA if necessary. We are working flat-out and I am sure the presentation is not fully refined at this stage. That said, we in the CWG have all come on a journey to get to where we are now and many of those attending the webinar haven’t been alongside us all the way. Therefore, I think we do have to do some work to bring them along that journey in order to fully understand how and why we got to the current place which is a compromise for all of us. I think that there is a third and critical point. That is the role of members (and participants) to help communicate and explain the work – journey & output- of the group. Especially to those organisations that put appointed members onto the CWG. We need your help to communicate key points such as outlined by Olivier below. Please do assist in addition to helping us (chairs & staff) in our roles. Thanks, Jonathan From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: 11 June 2015 08:52 To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar Dear all,dear Olivier I would like to just add my voice on the first point - it is my assumption that these webinars are aimed mainly at people who are coming new to the material and who will be looking to understand what they will approve - or not approve - in BA. If that assumption is right, I do urge that the format be changed so that the focus is on the substance of the proposal. Taking time on the process does not seem to be the right focus at this stage, for the audience. bests, Jordan On 11 June 2015 at 19:42, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Hello all, First, thanks to Lise for taking us through the slide deck and making a complex proposal a lot more understandable. Now for my comments: - We have spent again around 30 minutes on the process reaching this point and a much smaller time on the contents of the proposal itself. I think that by this stage we should have a lot more detail in the actual explanation of the contents of the proposal, describing CSC, IFR, the PTI Board, SCWG, the escalation process (there is no slide showing all of the various levels of escalation and remedials) from the time a complaint starts and the various levels at which the complaint can be addressed. IMHO *this* should be the meat of the presentation. - Questions like "what happens to PTI if another IANA Functions Operator is selected after separation?" are bound to come up recurrently and we completely forgot to mention that this is just the Names and the Protocols & Numbers will likely remain with PTI through their contract with ICANN. This is not made clear at all that an IFR is only to do with Names. - We did not emphasize the technical nature of the whole ecosystem and it therefore feels like a lot of these processes are political - and this is not inspiring confidence. Emphasis on Service Level Expectations; emphasis on Operational Continuity; emphasis on Stability of the DNS. How are all of the processes and groups proposed contributing to this emphasis? I hope this helps. Kind regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet
Here are my personal suggestions with the caveat that I think for the most part they were followed in the webinars although some refinement may help: · Cover history and process as briefly as possible. · Spend the majority of time in presentations covering key details of the proposal and how they relate to the objectives. · Provide plenty of time for Q&A and, as questioners raise issues related to work done by the CWG, point out how the CWG covered those issues and explain why we ended up with relevant elements of the proposal to address the issues. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 1:40 PM To: 'Milton L Mueller'; jrobinson@afilias.info; 'Jordan Carter'; 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond' Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar Hi Milton Even though you addressed your feedback to Jonathan, I will reply since I presented the first webinar. I welcome your and others feedback - we are working with refining our presentations all the time so it is not too late to give feedback. I agree we should not get too deep into process details but it is also important to understand the process with NTIA, ICANN and ICG, so it is a balance of communicating both issues with emphasis on the actual proposal. We will do our best in BA and I hope as Jonathan said in his email, that all the participants and members of the CWG will be ambassadors for the proposal as this is a product of the CWG. Best, Lise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Milton L Mueller Sendt: 16. juni 2015 19:05 Til: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; 'Jordan Carter'; 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond' Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar Jonathan A bit of a late intervention and I am about to get on a plane to BA so it may be too late, but I think Olivier is quite right (and if Olivier and I agree on something in CWG we cannot fail to be right…;-) People who come to ICANN from the outside routinely tell me they are overwhelmed by process details and the acronyms associated with them, and it all seems quite meaningless to them or, at worse, a Kafkaesque devotion to process for its own sake. Whatever you do with the presentation, please highlight what the proposal _does_ above all else; people really do not care that the ICG was formed after consultations in Singapore, that the enhanced accountability process was divided into 2 workstreams in November 2014, etc., etc.. They want to know what we proposed and why. MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:58 AM To: 'Jordan Carter'; 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond' Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar Olivier & Jordan, This is food for thought and agreed, we should try to improve the materials ahead of BA if necessary. We are working flat-out and I am sure the presentation is not fully refined at this stage. That said, we in the CWG have all come on a journey to get to where we are now and many of those attending the webinar haven’t been alongside us all the way. Therefore, I think we do have to do some work to bring them along that journey in order to fully understand how and why we got to the current place which is a compromise for all of us. I think that there is a third and critical point. That is the role of members (and participants) to help communicate and explain the work – journey & output- of the group. Especially to those organisations that put appointed members onto the CWG. We need your help to communicate key points such as outlined by Olivier below. Please do assist in addition to helping us (chairs & staff) in our roles. Thanks, Jonathan From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: 11 June 2015 08:52 To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar Dear all,dear Olivier I would like to just add my voice on the first point - it is my assumption that these webinars are aimed mainly at people who are coming new to the material and who will be looking to understand what they will approve - or not approve - in BA. If that assumption is right, I do urge that the format be changed so that the focus is on the substance of the proposal. Taking time on the process does not seem to be the right focus at this stage, for the audience. bests, Jordan On 11 June 2015 at 19:42, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Hello all, First, thanks to Lise for taking us through the slide deck and making a complex proposal a lot more understandable. Now for my comments: - We have spent again around 30 minutes on the process reaching this point and a much smaller time on the contents of the proposal itself. I think that by this stage we should have a lot more detail in the actual explanation of the contents of the proposal, describing CSC, IFR, the PTI Board, SCWG, the escalation process (there is no slide showing all of the various levels of escalation and remedials) from the time a complaint starts and the various levels at which the complaint can be addressed. IMHO *this* should be the meat of the presentation. - Questions like "what happens to PTI if another IANA Functions Operator is selected after separation?" are bound to come up recurrently and we completely forgot to mention that this is just the Names and the Protocols & Numbers will likely remain with PTI through their contract with ICANN. This is not made clear at all that an IFR is only to do with Names. - We did not emphasize the technical nature of the whole ecosystem and it therefore feels like a lot of these processes are political - and this is not inspiring confidence. Emphasis on Service Level Expectations; emphasis on Operational Continuity; emphasis on Stability of the DNS. How are all of the processes and groups proposed contributing to this emphasis? I hope this helps. Kind regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> wrote:
Hi Milton
.......... that all the participants and members of the CWG will be ambassadors for the proposal as this is a product of the CWG.
+1 and i think this is quite important. Personally even though some part of our proposal is not what i would have preferred, i still made sure to explain the proposal as much as i can to any newbie/group of people that i present it to. Cheers!
Best,
Lise
*Fra:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *På vegne af *Milton L Mueller *Sendt:* 16. juni 2015 19:05 *Til:* jrobinson@afilias.info; 'Jordan Carter'; 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond' *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Emne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar
Jonathan
A bit of a late intervention and I am about to get on a plane to BA so it may be too late, but I think Olivier is quite right (and if Olivier and I agree on something in CWG we cannot fail to be right…;-)
People who come to ICANN from the outside routinely tell me they are overwhelmed by process details and the acronyms associated with them, and it all seems quite meaningless to them or, at worse, a Kafkaesque devotion to process for its own sake.
Whatever you do with the presentation, please highlight what the proposal _ *does*_ above all else; people really do not care that the ICG was formed after consultations in Singapore, that the enhanced accountability process was divided into 2 workstreams in November 2014, etc., etc.. They want to know what we proposed and why.
MM
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:58 AM *To:* 'Jordan Carter'; 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond' *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar
Olivier & Jordan,
This is food for thought and agreed, we should try to improve the materials ahead of BA if necessary. We are working flat-out and I am sure the presentation is not fully refined at this stage.
That said, we in the CWG have all come on a journey to get to where we are now and many of those attending the webinar haven’t been alongside us all the way.
Therefore, I think we do have to do some work to bring them along that journey in order to fully understand how and why we got to the current place which is a compromise for all of us.
I think that there is a third and critical point. That is the role of members (and participants) to help communicate and explain the work – journey & output- of the group. Especially to those organisations that put appointed members onto the CWG.
We need your help to communicate key points such as outlined by Olivier below. Please do assist in addition to helping us (chairs & staff) in our roles.
Thanks,
Jonathan
*From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>] *Sent:* 11 June 2015 08:52 *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar
Dear all,dear Olivier
I would like to just add my voice on the first point - it is my assumption that these webinars are aimed mainly at people who are coming new to the material and who will be looking to understand what they will approve - or not approve - in BA.
If that assumption is right, I do urge that the format be changed so that the focus is on the substance of the proposal. Taking time on the process does not seem to be the right focus at this stage, for the audience.
bests,
Jordan
On 11 June 2015 at 19:42, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Hello all,
First, thanks to Lise for taking us through the slide deck and making a complex proposal a lot more understandable. Now for my comments:
- We have spent again around 30 minutes on the process reaching this point and a much smaller time on the contents of the proposal itself. I think that by this stage we should have a lot more detail in the actual explanation of the contents of the proposal, describing CSC, IFR, the PTI Board, SCWG, the escalation process (there is no slide showing all of the various levels of escalation and remedials) from the time a complaint starts and the various levels at which the complaint can be addressed. IMHO *this* should be the meat of the presentation. - Questions like "what happens to PTI if another IANA Functions Operator is selected after separation?" are bound to come up recurrently and we completely forgot to mention that this is just the Names and the Protocols & Numbers will likely remain with PTI through their contract with ICANN. This is not made clear at all that an IFR is only to do with Names. - We did not emphasize the technical nature of the whole ecosystem and it therefore feels like a lot of these processes are political - and this is not inspiring confidence. Emphasis on Service Level Expectations; emphasis on Operational Continuity; emphasis on Stability of the DNS. How are all of the processes and groups proposed contributing to this emphasis?
I hope this helps.
Kind regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
*A better world through a better Internet *
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Thanks Milton, Sorry for the delayed response. I agree that communication as to what we say and why is critical and will work with Lise to make sure we try to achieve that. I think there is something in the how we got there that explains the why but that does not take away from the essence of the point i.e. we need clear communications on what & why. You, and other members / participants can help by doing the same please. Success at this meeting will be defined by how well we can articulate the work we have done. I have already had some very good feedback from knowledgeable “insiders”. You are right, we need to reach beyond that inner circle. Jonathan From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: 16 June 2015 18:05 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; 'Jordan Carter'; 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond' Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar Jonathan A bit of a late intervention and I am about to get on a plane to BA so it may be too late, but I think Olivier is quite right (and if Olivier and I agree on something in CWG we cannot fail to be right…;-) People who come to ICANN from the outside routinely tell me they are overwhelmed by process details and the acronyms associated with them, and it all seems quite meaningless to them or, at worse, a Kafkaesque devotion to process for its own sake. Whatever you do with the presentation, please highlight what the proposal _does_ above all else; people really do not care that the ICG was formed after consultations in Singapore, that the enhanced accountability process was divided into 2 workstreams in November 2014, etc., etc.. They want to know what we proposed and why. MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:58 AM To: 'Jordan Carter'; 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond' Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar Olivier & Jordan, This is food for thought and agreed, we should try to improve the materials ahead of BA if necessary. We are working flat-out and I am sure the presentation is not fully refined at this stage. That said, we in the CWG have all come on a journey to get to where we are now and many of those attending the webinar haven’t been alongside us all the way. Therefore, I think we do have to do some work to bring them along that journey in order to fully understand how and why we got to the current place which is a compromise for all of us. I think that there is a third and critical point. That is the role of members (and participants) to help communicate and explain the work – journey & output- of the group. Especially to those organisations that put appointed members onto the CWG. We need your help to communicate key points such as outlined by Olivier below. Please do assist in addition to helping us (chairs & staff) in our roles. Thanks, Jonathan From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: 11 June 2015 08:52 To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar Dear all,dear Olivier I would like to just add my voice on the first point - it is my assumption that these webinars are aimed mainly at people who are coming new to the material and who will be looking to understand what they will approve - or not approve - in BA. If that assumption is right, I do urge that the format be changed so that the focus is on the substance of the proposal. Taking time on the process does not seem to be the right focus at this stage, for the audience. bests, Jordan On 11 June 2015 at 19:42, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Hello all, First, thanks to Lise for taking us through the slide deck and making a complex proposal a lot more understandable. Now for my comments: - We have spent again around 30 minutes on the process reaching this point and a much smaller time on the contents of the proposal itself. I think that by this stage we should have a lot more detail in the actual explanation of the contents of the proposal, describing CSC, IFR, the PTI Board, SCWG, the escalation process (there is no slide showing all of the various levels of escalation and remedials) from the time a complaint starts and the various levels at which the complaint can be addressed. IMHO *this* should be the meat of the presentation. - Questions like "what happens to PTI if another IANA Functions Operator is selected after separation?" are bound to come up recurrently and we completely forgot to mention that this is just the Names and the Protocols & Numbers will likely remain with PTI through their contract with ICANN. This is not made clear at all that an IFR is only to do with Names. - We did not emphasize the technical nature of the whole ecosystem and it therefore feels like a lot of these processes are political - and this is not inspiring confidence. Emphasis on Service Level Expectations; emphasis on Operational Continuity; emphasis on Stability of the DNS. How are all of the processes and groups proposed contributing to this emphasis? I hope this helps. Kind regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet
I did not participate in the first webinar because of the time of day (or should I say night), but after looking at the slides yesterday, I do think that the process and background slides should be covered as quickly as possible in the second webinar and lots of time should be spent on the slides that describe the proposal. As I said before, I think that the majority of time should be spent on Q&A, assuming of course that there are plenty of questions. If there are not plenty of questions, we could go over our own Q&A document. It may not be too hard to look at participant names in the webinar to determine how many look like newcomers and then gear the presentation accordingly. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 3:52 AM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar Dear all,dear Olivier I would like to just add my voice on the first point - it is my assumption that these webinars are aimed mainly at people who are coming new to the material and who will be looking to understand what they will approve - or not approve - in BA. If that assumption is right, I do urge that the format be changed so that the focus is on the substance of the proposal. Taking time on the process does not seem to be the right focus at this stage, for the audience. bests, Jordan On 11 June 2015 at 19:42, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Hello all, First, thanks to Lise for taking us through the slide deck and making a complex proposal a lot more understandable. Now for my comments: - We have spent again around 30 minutes on the process reaching this point and a much smaller time on the contents of the proposal itself. I think that by this stage we should have a lot more detail in the actual explanation of the contents of the proposal, describing CSC, IFR, the PTI Board, SCWG, the escalation process (there is no slide showing all of the various levels of escalation and remedials) from the time a complaint starts and the various levels at which the complaint can be addressed. IMHO *this* should be the meat of the presentation. - Questions like "what happens to PTI if another IANA Functions Operator is selected after separation?" are bound to come up recurrently and we completely forgot to mention that this is just the Names and the Protocols & Numbers will likely remain with PTI through their contract with ICANN. This is not made clear at all that an IFR is only to do with Names. - We did not emphasize the technical nature of the whole ecosystem and it therefore feels like a lot of these processes are political - and this is not inspiring confidence. Emphasis on Service Level Expectations; emphasis on Operational Continuity; emphasis on Stability of the DNS. How are all of the processes and groups proposed contributing to this emphasis? I hope this helps. Kind regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet
I totally agree on and support point 1 and 3 of Olivier's comments. Actually I have spent at least 90 minutes on listening the process and the number of email, telephones and meetings, etc. for the preparation of this proposal. Maybe there were a small number of new comers, but my impression over the last three meetings was that the majority of the participants have been involved in CWG, CCWG, or ICG to some extent. So, there is no need to repeat procedural issues over and over again. Focus should be on substantial matters. Let's focus more on technical and operational nature of the transition, leaving the political sides alone. Best regards Jian Chang From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Date: 2015-06-11 15:42 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar Hello all, First, thanks to Lise for taking us through the slide deck and making a complex proposal a lot more understandable. Now for my comments: - We have spent again around 30 minutes on the process reaching this point and a much smaller time on the contents of the proposal itself. I think that by this stage we should have a lot more detail in the actual explanation of the contents of the proposal, describing CSC, IFR, the PTI Board, SCWG, the escalation process (there is no slide showing all of the various levels of escalation and remedials) from the time a complaint starts and the various levels at which the complaint can be addressed. IMHO *this* should be the meat of the presentation. - Questions like "what happens to PTI if another IANA Functions Operator is selected after separation?" are bound to come up recurrently and we completely forgot to mention that this is just the Names and the Protocols & Numbers will likely remain with PTI through their contract with ICANN. This is not made clear at all that an IFR is only to do with Names. - We did not emphasize the technical nature of the whole ecosystem and it therefore feels like a lot of these processes are political - and this is not inspiring confidence. Emphasis on Service Level Expectations; emphasis on Operational Continuity; emphasis on Stability of the DNS. How are all of the processes and groups proposed contributing to this emphasis? I hope this helps. Kind regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (9)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
jczhang＠knet.cn -
Jonathan Robinson -
Jordan Carter -
Lise Fuhr -
Milton L Mueller -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Seun Ojedeji -
Stephanie Perrin