IANA Stewardship Implementation
All, Lise and I today attended the session entitled: https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-impl ementation 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? 2. Substance - Do we agree with the details presented in the session today? Both Lise and I stood up and made points to this effect during the meeting as did some of the CWG Stewardship Members / Participants. We also spoke with Akram & Trang afterwards. It does seem that this was an inadvertent oversight driven by a desire and need to make progress. 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. 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. Please can we have any comments or concerns with this proposal as soon as possible. Thank-you, Lise and Jonathan Co-Chairs, CWG Stewardship
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
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.
SO: I believe this is a workable approach. However i just like to suggest in terms of communication that we either: - Setup mailing list for this purpose with option for others to follow discussions of the task force in read only mode(similar to the legal council setup) OR - Ensure that all related document/communication be shared on the CWG list while the taskforce can follow-up accordingly (i will note that this is similar to the approach used in implementation of the numbers proposal). That said, i think the former may be neater considering the level of interest that exist within the names community.
Please can we have any comments or concerns with this proposal as soon as possible.
SO: Thanks for acting promptly on this. Regards
Thank-you,
Lise and Jonathan
Co-Chairs, CWG Stewardship
_______________________________________________ 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>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Thanks Jonathan. Agree with approach. Although not DT lead I am happy to participate in the task force if useful. Seun makes a couple of good suggestions below - support either approach. On 3/7/2016 2:31 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote:
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.
SO: I believe this is a workable approach. However i just like to suggest in terms of communication that we either:
- Setup mailing list for this purpose with option for others to follow discussions of the task force in read only mode(similar to the legal council setup) OR - Ensure that all related document/communication be shared on the CWG list while the taskforce can follow-up accordingly (i will note that this is similar to the approach used in implementation of the numbers proposal).
That said, i think the former may be neater considering the level of interest that exist within the names community.
Please can we have any comments or concerns with this proposal as soon as possible.
SO: Thanks for acting promptly on this.
Regards
Thank-you,
Lise and Jonathan
Co-Chairs, CWG Stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
/Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 //alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>/
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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
I do support this proposal. Thanks for being so attentive to these details. -ed On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:13 PM Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
All,
Lise and I today attended the session entitled:
https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-impl...
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?
2. Substance – Do we agree with the details presented in the session today?
Both Lise and I stood up and made points to this effect during the meeting as did some of the CWG Stewardship Members / Participants.
We also spoke with Akram & Trang afterwards. It does seem that this was an inadvertent oversight driven by a desire and need to make progress.
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.
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.
Please can we have any comments or concerns with this proposal as soon as possible.
Thank-you,
Lise and Jonathan
Co-Chairs, CWG Stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Agree and support Jonathan's proposal. +1 to Mathew, not DT lead too, but will be happy to participate in the task force if necessary. Jian Chang KNET From: Eduardo Diaz Date: 2016-03-07 23:56 To: jrobinson; cwg-stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Implementation I do support this proposal. Thanks for being so attentive to these details. -ed On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:13 PM Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote: All, Lise and I today attended the session entitled: https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-impl... 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? 2. Substance – Do we agree with the details presented in the session today? Both Lise and I stood up and made points to this effect during the meeting as did some of the CWG Stewardship Members / Participants. We also spoke with Akram & Trang afterwards. It does seem that this was an inadvertent oversight driven by a desire and need to make progress. 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. 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. Please can we have any comments or concerns with this proposal as soon as possible. Thank-you, Lise and Jonathan Co-Chairs, CWG Stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Also in support ! Elise Elise Lindeberg Senior Legal Adviser Norwegian GAC representative Norwegian Communications Authority Dir. +47 22 824607 Mob. +47 90190947 ekl@nkom.no<mailto:ekl@nkom.no> Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Jian C. Chang Sendt: 7. mars 2016 17:06 Til: Eduardo Diaz; jrobinson@afilias.info; cwg-stewardship Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Implementation Agree and support Jonathan's proposal. +1 to Mathew, not DT lead too, but will be happy to participate in the task force if necessary. Jian Chang KNET ________________________________ From: Eduardo Diaz<mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Date: 2016-03-07 23:56 To: jrobinson<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Implementation I do support this proposal. Thanks for being so attentive to these details. -ed On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:13 PM Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, Lise and I today attended the session entitled: https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-impl... 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? 2. Substance – Do we agree with the details presented in the session today? Both Lise and I stood up and made points to this effect during the meeting as did some of the CWG Stewardship Members / Participants. We also spoke with Akram & Trang afterwards. It does seem that this was an inadvertent oversight driven by a desire and need to make progress. 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. 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. Please can we have any comments or concerns with this proposal as soon as possible. Thank-you, Lise and Jonathan Co-Chairs, CWG Stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I support this as well. Greg On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Lindeberg, Elise <elise.lindeberg@nkom.no> wrote:
Also in support !
Elise
Elise Lindeberg
Senior Legal Adviser
Norwegian GAC representative
Norwegian Communications Authority
Dir. +47 22 824607 Mob. +47 90190947
ekl@nkom.no
*Fra:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *På vegne av* Jian C. Chang *Sendt:* 7. mars 2016 17:06 *Til:* Eduardo Diaz; jrobinson@afilias.info; cwg-stewardship *Emne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Implementation
Agree and support Jonathan's proposal.
+1 to Mathew, not DT lead too, but will be happy to participate in the task force if necessary.
Jian Chang
KNET
------------------------------
*From:* Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>
*Date:* 2016-03-07 23:56
*To:* jrobinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Implementation
I do support this proposal.
Thanks for being so attentive to these details.
-ed
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:13 PM Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
All,
Lise and I today attended the session entitled:
https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-impl...
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?
2. Substance – Do we agree with the details presented in the session today?
Both Lise and I stood up and made points to this effect during the meeting as did some of the CWG Stewardship Members / Participants.
We also spoke with Akram & Trang afterwards. It does seem that this was an inadvertent oversight driven by a desire and need to make progress.
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.
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.
Please can we have any comments or concerns with this proposal as soon as possible.
Thank-you,
Lise and Jonathan
Co-Chairs, CWG Stewardship
_______________________________________________ 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
+1 I also support - and if I may add, I attended the session today and was very surprised that the stage was just populated by ICANN Staff. I have concerns that this kind of fumble is exactly the kind of thing that breeds lack of trust so I am pleased to see the proposal Jonathan has shared with us. Kindest regards, Olivier On 07/03/2016 17:09, Greg Shatan wrote:
I support this as well.
Greg
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Lindeberg, Elise <elise.lindeberg@nkom.no <mailto:elise.lindeberg@nkom.no>> wrote:
Also in support !
Elise
Elise Lindeberg
Senior Legal Adviser
Norwegian GAC representative
Norwegian Communications Authority
Dir. +47 22 824607 <tel:%2B47%2022%20824607> Mob. +47 90190947 <tel:%2B47%2090190947>
ekl@nkom.no <mailto:ekl@nkom.no>
*Fra:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *På vegne av* Jian C. Chang *Sendt:* 7. mars 2016 17:06 *Til:* Eduardo Diaz; jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship *Emne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Implementation
Agree and support Jonathan's proposal.
+1 to Mathew, not DT lead too, but will be happy to participate in the task force if necessary.
Jian Chang
KNET
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Eduardo Diaz <mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>
*Date:* 2016-03-07 23:56
*To:* jrobinson <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Implementation
I do support this proposal.
Thanks for being so attentive to these details.
-ed
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:13 PM Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote:
All,
Lise and I today attended the session entitled:
https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-impl...
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?
2. Substance – Do we agree with the details presented in the session today?
Both Lise and I stood up and made points to this effect during the meeting as did some of the CWG Stewardship Members / Participants.
We also spoke with Akram & Trang afterwards. It does seem that this was an inadvertent oversight driven by a desire and need to make progress.
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.
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.
Please can we have any comments or concerns with this proposal as soon as possible.
Thank-you,
Lise and Jonathan
Co-Chairs, CWG Stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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
Olivier, I had the exact same reaction!!!! Greg On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
+1 I also support - and if I may add, I attended the session today and was very surprised that the stage was just populated by ICANN Staff. I have concerns that this kind of fumble is exactly the kind of thing that breeds lack of trust so I am pleased to see the proposal Jonathan has shared with us. Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 07/03/2016 17:09, Greg Shatan wrote:
I support this as well.
Greg
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Lindeberg, Elise < <elise.lindeberg@nkom.no>elise.lindeberg@nkom.no> wrote:
Also in support !
Elise
Elise Lindeberg
Senior Legal Adviser
Norwegian GAC representative
Norwegian Communications Authority
Dir. +47 22 824607 Mob. +47 90190947
<ekl@nkom.no>ekl@nkom.no
*Fra:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *På vegne av* Jian C. Chang *Sendt:* 7. mars 2016 17:06 *Til:* Eduardo Diaz; <jrobinson@afilias.info>jrobinson@afilias.info; cwg-stewardship *Emne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Implementation
Agree and support Jonathan's proposal.
+1 to Mathew, not DT lead too, but will be happy to participate in the task force if necessary.
Jian Chang
KNET
------------------------------
*From:* Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>
*Date:* 2016-03-07 23:56
*To:* jrobinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Implementation
I do support this proposal.
Thanks for being so attentive to these details.
-ed
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:13 PM Jonathan Robinson < <jrobinson@afilias.info>jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
All,
Lise and I today attended the session entitled:
<https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-impl...> https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-impl...
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?
2. Substance – Do we agree with the details presented in the session today?
Both Lise and I stood up and made points to this effect during the meeting as did some of the CWG Stewardship Members / Participants.
We also spoke with Akram & Trang afterwards. It does seem that this was an inadvertent oversight driven by a desire and need to make progress.
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.
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.
Please can we have any comments or concerns with this proposal as soon as possible.
Thank-you,
Lise and Jonathan
Co-Chairs, CWG Stewardship
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Agree absolutely! Count me in On 7 Mar 2016 18:05, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
+1 I also support - and if I may add, I attended the session today and was very surprised that the stage was just populated by ICANN Staff. I have concerns that this kind of fumble is exactly the kind of thing that breeds lack of trust so I am pleased to see the proposal Jonathan has shared with us. Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 07/03/2016 17:09, Greg Shatan wrote:
I support this as well.
Greg
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Lindeberg, Elise <elise.lindeberg@nkom.no
wrote:
Also in support !
Elise
Elise Lindeberg
Senior Legal Adviser
Norwegian GAC representative
Norwegian Communications Authority
Dir. +47 22 824607 Mob. +47 90190947
ekl@nkom.no
*Fra:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *På vegne av* Jian C. Chang *Sendt:* 7. mars 2016 17:06 *Til:* Eduardo Diaz; jrobinson@afilias.info; cwg-stewardship *Emne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Implementation
Agree and support Jonathan's proposal.
+1 to Mathew, not DT lead too, but will be happy to participate in the task force if necessary.
Jian Chang
KNET
------------------------------
*From:* Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>
*Date:* 2016-03-07 23:56
*To:* jrobinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Implementation
I do support this proposal.
Thanks for being so attentive to these details.
-ed
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:13 PM Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
All,
Lise and I today attended the session entitled:
https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-impl...
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?
2. Substance – Do we agree with the details presented in the session today?
Both Lise and I stood up and made points to this effect during the meeting as did some of the CWG Stewardship Members / Participants.
We also spoke with Akram & Trang afterwards. It does seem that this was an inadvertent oversight driven by a desire and need to make progress.
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.
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.
Please can we have any comments or concerns with this proposal as soon as possible.
Thank-you,
Lise and Jonathan
Co-Chairs, CWG Stewardship
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Fully support your proposal Jonathan. Rudi Vansnick Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/> rudi.vansnick@npoc.org Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
Op 7 mrt. 2016, om 14:11 heeft Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> het volgende geschreven:
All,
Lise and I today attended the session entitled:
https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-impl... <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-impl...>
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? 2. Substance – Do we agree with the details presented in the session today?
Both Lise and I stood up and made points to this effect during the meeting as did some of the CWG Stewardship Members / Participants. We also spoke with Akram & Trang afterwards. It does seem that this was an inadvertent oversight driven by a desire and need to make progress.
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.
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.
Please can we have any comments or concerns with this proposal as soon as possible.
Thank-you,
Lise and Jonathan Co-Chairs, CWG Stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
I support this plan. avri On 07-Mar-16 14:11, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
Lise and I today attended the session entitled:
https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-impl...
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?
2. Substance – Do we agree with the details presented in the session today?
Both Lise and I stood up and made points to this effect during the meeting as did some of the CWG Stewardship Members / Participants.
We also spoke with Akram & Trang afterwards. It does seem that this was an inadvertent oversight driven by a desire and need to make progress.
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.
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.
Please can we have any comments or concerns with this proposal as soon as possible.
Thank-you,
Lise and Jonathan
Co-Chairs, CWG Stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
participants (12)
-
avri doria -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Eduardo Diaz -
Greg Shatan -
Jian C. Chang -
Jonathan Robinson -
Lindeberg, Elise -
Matthew Shears -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Paul M Kane - CWG -
Rudi Vansnick (NPOC) -
Seun Ojedeji