Call for suggestions to design teams
Dear all, This is a call for suggestions to design teams. If you have any issues that you think are relevant for a design team please provide the group with a submission of name, a brief description of topic and scope and finally an indication of who should to be lead of the team. Included are an example of relevant design teams, the "Draft Working methods" and "Draft Design team Guidelines". Best regards, Jonathan and Lise
Hi, Are design team only for process issues? If not, perhaps a design team, contingent on how Tuesday goes - of course, to further work on the Integrated Model approach. But I am just not sure if this sort of topic fits the intent of the design teams. avri On 22-Feb-15 11:14, Lise Fuhr wrote:
Dear all,
This is a call for suggestions to design teams. If you have any issues that you think are relevant for a design team please provide the group with a submission of name, a brief description of topic and scope and finally an indication of who should to be lead of the team.
Included are an example of relevant design teams, the “Draft Working methods” and “Draft Design team Guidelines”.
Best regards,
Jonathan and Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Avri, The design teams (or task forces) are emphatically not only for process issues. For instance, in my view design teams need to be set up for issues such as the following: 1. Specifying and drafting service level documentation (specifying and drafting may be two different design teams, or just two different deliverables of one design team). 2. Specifying and drafting escalation documentation 3. Specifying and drafting reporting requirements documentation 4. IPR issues, including the IANA trademark and domain name 5. Replacing (or not) the NTIA validation/authorization function, and if replacing it, designing/documenting the function, and creating an implementation path (this may be 3 design teams) As such, a design team to explore the Integrated Model would certainly fit. As a final clarification, design teams are not decision teams; they are supposed to bring the draft deliverable(s) back to the full team for debate, discussion, revision and approval. Greg On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Are design team only for process issues?
If not, perhaps a design team, contingent on how Tuesday goes - of course, to further work on the Integrated Model approach.
But I am just not sure if this sort of topic fits the intent of the design teams.
avri
On 22-Feb-15 11:14, Lise Fuhr wrote:
Dear all,
This is a call for suggestions to design teams. If you have any issues that you think are relevant for a design team please provide the group with a submission of name, a brief description of topic and scope and finally an indication of who should to be lead of the team.
Included are an example of relevant design teams, the “Draft Working methods” and “Draft Design team Guidelines”.
Best regards,
Jonathan and Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing 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
-- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
Avri -- One more thing re the Integrated Model. While I believe it can be further discussed and refined in a design team, it is on the agenda for Tuesday's full CWG meeting. After that, it can probably be moved off into a design team for further refinement and then brought back to the full group. Greg On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri,
The design teams (or task forces) are emphatically not only for process issues. For instance, in my view design teams need to be set up for issues such as the following:
1. Specifying and drafting service level documentation (specifying and drafting may be two different design teams, or just two different deliverables of one design team). 2. Specifying and drafting escalation documentation 3. Specifying and drafting reporting requirements documentation 4. IPR issues, including the IANA trademark and domain name 5. Replacing (or not) the NTIA validation/authorization function, and if replacing it, designing/documenting the function, and creating an implementation path (this may be 3 design teams)
As such, a design team to explore the Integrated Model would certainly fit.
As a final clarification, design teams are not decision teams; they are supposed to bring the draft deliverable(s) back to the full team for debate, discussion, revision and approval.
Greg
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Are design team only for process issues?
If not, perhaps a design team, contingent on how Tuesday goes - of course, to further work on the Integrated Model approach.
But I am just not sure if this sort of topic fits the intent of the design teams.
avri
On 22-Feb-15 11:14, Lise Fuhr wrote:
Dear all,
This is a call for suggestions to design teams. If you have any issues that you think are relevant for a design team please provide the group with a submission of name, a brief description of topic and scope and finally an indication of who should to be lead of the team.
Included are an example of relevant design teams, the “Draft Working methods” and “Draft Design team Guidelines”.
Best regards,
Jonathan and Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing 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
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
All, Here are a few brief notes down as to how I see the working method from now on. My aim here is to ensure that we are aligned in understanding of the working method and, if not, that we work towards being aligned. I see it as follows: 1. We will work on and from a live and evolving draft proposal (outline and partial content in preparation) which seeks to address the full required scope of what is needed by the ICG and through the ICG, the NTIA. This draft to be in circulation with the CWG as soon as possible. 2. To the extent that the evolving draft in 1 above contains areas of detail that need developing, these will be picked off and dealt with by short-lived and focused design teams. The design teams will work according to the proposed mechanics (CWG-Guidelines for a Design Team-Final.docx) and their work should ideally always be able to be linked back to the draft proposal in 1 above (by direct reference to a specific section or sections in the draft proposal). 3. Another of the four attachments to Lise’s email at the start of this thread (CWG-DesignTeamList.xlsx) contained an initial “seed” list of 3 proposed design team topics (admittedly without the anchor of reference back to the draft proposal in 1 above but we felt it was important to get moving on this). 4. The overarching issue of how to deal with separability in extremis is a critical point but it should be undertaken in parallel with the work described in 1-3 above and in conjunction with any legal advice we receive over time. The work to be undertaken on this overarching issue may need to continue to be tackled by the whole CWG (but not to the point that it displaces all other necessary work) or it may be best moved forward by a design team. I don’t have a firm view on that. Perhaps the thinking around this process is already clear and you feel this content is repetitive but, in case not, I thought it worthwhile re-iterating it. Thanks, Jonathan From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: 22 February 2015 22:46 To: Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Call for suggestions to design teams Avri -- One more thing re the Integrated Model. While I believe it can be further discussed and refined in a design team, it is on the agenda for Tuesday's full CWG meeting. After that, it can probably be moved off into a design team for further refinement and then brought back to the full group. Greg On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Avri, The design teams (or task forces) are emphatically not only for process issues. For instance, in my view design teams need to be set up for issues such as the following: 1. Specifying and drafting service level documentation (specifying and drafting may be two different design teams, or just two different deliverables of one design team). 2. Specifying and drafting escalation documentation 3. Specifying and drafting reporting requirements documentation 4. IPR issues, including the IANA trademark and domain name 5. Replacing (or not) the NTIA validation/authorization function, and if replacing it, designing/documenting the function, and creating an implementation path (this may be 3 design teams) As such, a design team to explore the Integrated Model would certainly fit. As a final clarification, design teams are not decision teams; they are supposed to bring the draft deliverable(s) back to the full team for debate, discussion, revision and approval. Greg On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: Hi, Are design team only for process issues? If not, perhaps a design team, contingent on how Tuesday goes - of course, to further work on the Integrated Model approach. But I am just not sure if this sort of topic fits the intent of the design teams. avri On 22-Feb-15 11:14, Lise Fuhr wrote: Dear all, This is a call for suggestions to design teams. If you have any issues that you think are relevant for a design team please provide the group with a submission of name, a brief description of topic and scope and finally an indication of who should to be lead of the team. Included are an example of relevant design teams, the “Draft Working methods” and “Draft Design team Guidelines”. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/> -- Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>
Hi Johnathan, As I asked (remotely) at the Singapore meeting, how are we planning to work in this method while having two distinct (Possible 3 now) models on the table, Internal-External-Integrated, are all 3 models to be included in the live draft proposal? With the exclusion of some of the documentation teams that would be cross model I would wonder how we are going to work on multiple proposals at once. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 11:21 PM To: 'Greg Shatan'; 'Avri Doria' Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Call for suggestions to design teams All, Here are a few brief notes down as to how I see the working method from now on. My aim here is to ensure that we are aligned in understanding of the working method and, if not, that we work towards being aligned. I see it as follows: 1. We will work on and from a live and evolving draft proposal (outline and partial content in preparation) which seeks to address the full required scope of what is needed by the ICG and through the ICG, the NTIA. This draft to be in circulation with the CWG as soon as possible. 2. To the extent that the evolving draft in 1 above contains areas of detail that need developing, these will be picked off and dealt with by short-lived and focused design teams. The design teams will work according to the proposed mechanics (CWG-Guidelines for a Design Team-Final.docx) and their work should ideally always be able to be linked back to the draft proposal in 1 above (by direct reference to a specific section or sections in the draft proposal). 3. Another of the four attachments to Lise’s email at the start of this thread (CWG-DesignTeamList.xlsx) contained an initial “seed” list of 3 proposed design team topics (admittedly without the anchor of reference back to the draft proposal in 1 above but we felt it was important to get moving on this). 4. The overarching issue of how to deal with separability in extremis is a critical point but it should be undertaken in parallel with the work described in 1-3 above and in conjunction with any legal advice we receive over time. The work to be undertaken on this overarching issue may need to continue to be tackled by the whole CWG (but not to the point that it displaces all other necessary work) or it may be best moved forward by a design team. I don’t have a firm view on that. Perhaps the thinking around this process is already clear and you feel this content is repetitive but, in case not, I thought it worthwhile re-iterating it. Thanks, Jonathan From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: 22 February 2015 22:46 To: Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Call for suggestions to design teams Avri -- One more thing re the Integrated Model. While I believe it can be further discussed and refined in a design team, it is on the agenda for Tuesday's full CWG meeting. After that, it can probably be moved off into a design team for further refinement and then brought back to the full group. Greg On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Avri, The design teams (or task forces) are emphatically not only for process issues. For instance, in my view design teams need to be set up for issues such as the following: 1. Specifying and drafting service level documentation (specifying and drafting may be two different design teams, or just two different deliverables of one design team). 2. Specifying and drafting escalation documentation 3. Specifying and drafting reporting requirements documentation 4. IPR issues, including the IANA trademark and domain name 5. Replacing (or not) the NTIA validation/authorization function, and if replacing it, designing/documenting the function, and creating an implementation path (this may be 3 design teams) As such, a design team to explore the Integrated Model would certainly fit. As a final clarification, design teams are not decision teams; they are supposed to bring the draft deliverable(s) back to the full team for debate, discussion, revision and approval. Greg On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: Hi, Are design team only for process issues? If not, perhaps a design team, contingent on how Tuesday goes - of course, to further work on the Integrated Model approach. But I am just not sure if this sort of topic fits the intent of the design teams. avri On 22-Feb-15 11:14, Lise Fuhr wrote: Dear all, This is a call for suggestions to design teams. If you have any issues that you think are relevant for a design team please provide the group with a submission of name, a brief description of topic and scope and finally an indication of who should to be lead of the team. Included are an example of relevant design teams, the “Draft Working methods” and “Draft Design team Guidelines”. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<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 -- Gregory S. Shatan • Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> -- Gregory S. Shatan • Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>
Johnathan: I understand the way of moving forward by using "agile" teams to focus on specific areas of the final proposal but I am confused as to how these teams will help in tackling the questions of internal. vs. external (and now the "integrated") proposal. Is this issue (internal/external) going to be discussed during the full CWG meetings? -ed On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 8:14 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Hi Johnathan,
As I asked (remotely) at the Singapore meeting, how are we planning to work in this method while having two distinct (Possible 3 now) models on the table, Internal-External-Integrated, are all 3 models to be included in the live draft proposal? With the exclusion of some of the documentation teams that would be cross model I would wonder how we are going to work on multiple proposals at once.
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2015 11:21 PM *To:* 'Greg Shatan'; 'Avri Doria'
*Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Call for suggestions to design teams
All,
Here are a few brief notes down as to how I see the working method from now on. My aim here is to ensure that we are aligned in understanding of the working method and, if not, that we work towards being aligned.
I see it as follows:
1. We will work on and from a live and evolving draft proposal (outline and partial content in preparation) which seeks to address the full required scope of what is needed by the ICG and through the ICG, the NTIA. This draft to be in circulation with the CWG as soon as possible.
2. To the extent that the evolving draft in 1 above contains areas of detail that need developing, these will be picked off and dealt with by short-lived and focused design teams. The design teams will work according to the proposed mechanics (CWG-Guidelines for a Design Team-Final.docx) and their work should ideally always be able to be linked back to the draft proposal in 1 above (by direct reference to a specific section or sections in the draft proposal).
3. Another of the four attachments to Lise’s email at the start of this thread (CWG-DesignTeamList.xlsx) contained an initial “seed” list of 3 proposed design team topics (admittedly without the anchor of reference back to the draft proposal in 1 above but we felt it was important to get moving on this).
4. The overarching issue of how to deal with separability *in extremis* is a critical point but it should be undertaken in parallel with the work described in 1-3 above and in conjunction with any legal advice we receive over time. The work to be undertaken on this overarching issue may need to continue to be tackled by the whole CWG (but not to the point that it displaces all other necessary work) or it may be best moved forward by a design team. I don’t have a firm view on that.
Perhaps the thinking around this process is already clear and you feel this content is repetitive but, in case not, I thought it worthwhile re-iterating it.
Thanks,
Jonathan
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* 22 February 2015 22:46 *To:* Avri Doria *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Call for suggestions to design teams
Avri --
One more thing re the Integrated Model. While I believe it can be further discussed and refined in a design team, it is on the agenda for Tuesday's full CWG meeting. After that, it can probably be moved off into a design team for further refinement and then brought back to the full group.
Greg
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri,
The design teams (or task forces) are emphatically not only for process issues. For instance, in my view design teams need to be set up for issues such as the following:
1. Specifying and drafting service level documentation (specifying and drafting may be two different design teams, or just two different deliverables of one design team).
2. Specifying and drafting escalation documentation
3. Specifying and drafting reporting requirements documentation
4. IPR issues, including the IANA trademark and domain name
5. Replacing (or not) the NTIA validation/authorization function, and if replacing it, designing/documenting the function, and creating an implementation path (this may be 3 design teams)
As such, a design team to explore the Integrated Model would certainly fit.
As a final clarification, design teams are not decision teams; they are supposed to bring the draft deliverable(s) back to the full team for debate, discussion, revision and approval.
Greg
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Are design team only for process issues?
If not, perhaps a design team, contingent on how Tuesday goes - of course, to further work on the Integrated Model approach.
But I am just not sure if this sort of topic fits the intent of the design teams.
avri
On 22-Feb-15 11:14, Lise Fuhr wrote:
Dear all,
This is a call for suggestions to design teams. If you have any issues that you think are relevant for a design team please provide the group with a submission of name, a brief description of topic and scope and finally an indication of who should to be lead of the team.
Included are an example of relevant design teams, the “Draft Working methods” and “Draft Design team Guidelines”.
Best regards,
Jonathan and Lise
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
Ed, Thanks for raising this. In my view, the question (of Internal / External) remains to be dealt with and possibly in the full CWG. But … to date it has significantly occupied the attention of the group and we are, to some extent, at an impasse until we are assisted with legal expertise. Therefore, and in response to questions asking what we are doing about dealing with key operational aspects of the IANA function in the post NTIA stewardship world, the design teams are primarily intended to assist in the interim with fleshing out key (operationally oriented) aspects of the draft proposal. We will have to continue with / revert to questions of internal and external but not at the expense of dealing with everything else. I trust that helps. Jonathan From: Eduardo Diaz [mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com] Sent: 23 February 2015 16:57 To: James Gannon Cc: jrobinson@afilias.info; Greg Shatan; Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Call for suggestions to design teams Johnathan: I understand the way of moving forward by using "agile" teams to focus on specific areas of the final proposal but I am confused as to how these teams will help in tackling the questions of internal. vs. external (and now the "integrated") proposal. Is this issue (internal/external) going to be discussed during the full CWG meetings? -ed On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 8:14 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote: Hi Johnathan, As I asked (remotely) at the Singapore meeting, how are we planning to work in this method while having two distinct (Possible 3 now) models on the table, Internal-External-Integrated, are all 3 models to be included in the live draft proposal? With the exclusion of some of the documentation teams that would be cross model I would wonder how we are going to work on multiple proposals at once. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 11:21 PM To: 'Greg Shatan'; 'Avri Doria' Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Call for suggestions to design teams All, Here are a few brief notes down as to how I see the working method from now on. My aim here is to ensure that we are aligned in understanding of the working method and, if not, that we work towards being aligned. I see it as follows: 1. We will work on and from a live and evolving draft proposal (outline and partial content in preparation) which seeks to address the full required scope of what is needed by the ICG and through the ICG, the NTIA. This draft to be in circulation with the CWG as soon as possible. 2. To the extent that the evolving draft in 1 above contains areas of detail that need developing, these will be picked off and dealt with by short-lived and focused design teams. The design teams will work according to the proposed mechanics (CWG-Guidelines for a Design Team-Final.docx) and their work should ideally always be able to be linked back to the draft proposal in 1 above (by direct reference to a specific section or sections in the draft proposal). 3. Another of the four attachments to Lise’s email at the start of this thread (CWG-DesignTeamList.xlsx) contained an initial “seed” list of 3 proposed design team topics (admittedly without the anchor of reference back to the draft proposal in 1 above but we felt it was important to get moving on this). 4. The overarching issue of how to deal with separability in extremis is a critical point but it should be undertaken in parallel with the work described in 1-3 above and in conjunction with any legal advice we receive over time. The work to be undertaken on this overarching issue may need to continue to be tackled by the whole CWG (but not to the point that it displaces all other necessary work) or it may be best moved forward by a design team. I don’t have a firm view on that. Perhaps the thinking around this process is already clear and you feel this content is repetitive but, in case not, I thought it worthwhile re-iterating it. Thanks, Jonathan From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: 22 February 2015 22:46 To: Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Call for suggestions to design teams Avri -- One more thing re the Integrated Model. While I believe it can be further discussed and refined in a design team, it is on the agenda for Tuesday's full CWG meeting. After that, it can probably be moved off into a design team for further refinement and then brought back to the full group. Greg On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Avri, The design teams (or task forces) are emphatically not only for process issues. For instance, in my view design teams need to be set up for issues such as the following: 1. Specifying and drafting service level documentation (specifying and drafting may be two different design teams, or just two different deliverables of one design team). 2. Specifying and drafting escalation documentation 3. Specifying and drafting reporting requirements documentation 4. IPR issues, including the IANA trademark and domain name 5. Replacing (or not) the NTIA validation/authorization function, and if replacing it, designing/documenting the function, and creating an implementation path (this may be 3 design teams) As such, a design team to explore the Integrated Model would certainly fit. As a final clarification, design teams are not decision teams; they are supposed to bring the draft deliverable(s) back to the full team for debate, discussion, revision and approval. Greg On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: Hi, Are design team only for process issues? If not, perhaps a design team, contingent on how Tuesday goes - of course, to further work on the Integrated Model approach. But I am just not sure if this sort of topic fits the intent of the design teams. avri On 22-Feb-15 11:14, Lise Fuhr wrote: Dear all, This is a call for suggestions to design teams. If you have any issues that you think are relevant for a design team please provide the group with a submission of name, a brief description of topic and scope and finally an indication of who should to be lead of the team. Included are an example of relevant design teams, the “Draft Working methods” and “Draft Design team Guidelines”. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/> -- Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
Jonathan: I hope we can get the legal advice way in advance to the proposed F2F meeting. Looking forward to a healthy discussion. Thanks for the explanation. -ed On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Ed,
Thanks for raising this.
In my view, the question (of Internal / External) remains to be dealt with and possibly in the full CWG. But … to date it has significantly occupied the attention of the group and we are, to some extent, at an impasse until we are assisted with legal expertise.
Therefore, and in response to questions asking what we are doing about dealing with key operational aspects of the IANA function in the post NTIA stewardship world, the design teams are primarily intended to assist in the interim with fleshing out key (operationally oriented) aspects of the draft proposal.
We will have to continue with / revert to questions of internal and external but not at the expense of dealing with everything else.
I trust that helps.
Jonathan
*From:* Eduardo Diaz [mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com] *Sent:* 23 February 2015 16:57 *To:* James Gannon *Cc:* jrobinson@afilias.info; Greg Shatan; Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Call for suggestions to design teams
Johnathan:
I understand the way of moving forward by using "agile" teams to focus on specific areas of the final proposal but I am confused as to how these teams will help in tackling the questions of internal. vs. external (and now the "integrated") proposal. Is this issue (internal/external) going to be discussed during the full CWG meetings?
-ed
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 8:14 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Hi Johnathan,
As I asked (remotely) at the Singapore meeting, how are we planning to work in this method while having two distinct (Possible 3 now) models on the table, Internal-External-Integrated, are all 3 models to be included in the live draft proposal? With the exclusion of some of the documentation teams that would be cross model I would wonder how we are going to work on multiple proposals at once.
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2015 11:21 PM *To:* 'Greg Shatan'; 'Avri Doria'
*Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Call for suggestions to design teams
All,
Here are a few brief notes down as to how I see the working method from now on. My aim here is to ensure that we are aligned in understanding of the working method and, if not, that we work towards being aligned.
I see it as follows:
1. We will work on and from a live and evolving draft proposal (outline and partial content in preparation) which seeks to address the full required scope of what is needed by the ICG and through the ICG, the NTIA. This draft to be in circulation with the CWG as soon as possible.
2. To the extent that the evolving draft in 1 above contains areas of detail that need developing, these will be picked off and dealt with by short-lived and focused design teams. The design teams will work according to the proposed mechanics (CWG-Guidelines for a Design Team-Final.docx) and their work should ideally always be able to be linked back to the draft proposal in 1 above (by direct reference to a specific section or sections in the draft proposal).
3. Another of the four attachments to Lise’s email at the start of this thread (CWG-DesignTeamList.xlsx) contained an initial “seed” list of 3 proposed design team topics (admittedly without the anchor of reference back to the draft proposal in 1 above but we felt it was important to get moving on this).
4. The overarching issue of how to deal with separability *in extremis* is a critical point but it should be undertaken in parallel with the work described in 1-3 above and in conjunction with any legal advice we receive over time. The work to be undertaken on this overarching issue may need to continue to be tackled by the whole CWG (but not to the point that it displaces all other necessary work) or it may be best moved forward by a design team. I don’t have a firm view on that.
Perhaps the thinking around this process is already clear and you feel this content is repetitive but, in case not, I thought it worthwhile re-iterating it.
Thanks,
Jonathan
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* 22 February 2015 22:46 *To:* Avri Doria *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Call for suggestions to design teams
Avri --
One more thing re the Integrated Model. While I believe it can be further discussed and refined in a design team, it is on the agenda for Tuesday's full CWG meeting. After that, it can probably be moved off into a design team for further refinement and then brought back to the full group.
Greg
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri,
The design teams (or task forces) are emphatically not only for process issues. For instance, in my view design teams need to be set up for issues such as the following:
1. Specifying and drafting service level documentation (specifying and drafting may be two different design teams, or just two different deliverables of one design team).
2. Specifying and drafting escalation documentation
3. Specifying and drafting reporting requirements documentation
4. IPR issues, including the IANA trademark and domain name
5. Replacing (or not) the NTIA validation/authorization function, and if replacing it, designing/documenting the function, and creating an implementation path (this may be 3 design teams)
As such, a design team to explore the Integrated Model would certainly fit.
As a final clarification, design teams are not decision teams; they are supposed to bring the draft deliverable(s) back to the full team for debate, discussion, revision and approval.
Greg
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Are design team only for process issues?
If not, perhaps a design team, contingent on how Tuesday goes - of course, to further work on the Integrated Model approach.
But I am just not sure if this sort of topic fits the intent of the design teams.
avri
On 22-Feb-15 11:14, Lise Fuhr wrote:
Dear all,
This is a call for suggestions to design teams. If you have any issues that you think are relevant for a design team please provide the group with a submission of name, a brief description of topic and scope and finally an indication of who should to be lead of the team.
Included are an example of relevant design teams, the “Draft Working methods” and “Draft Design team Guidelines”.
Best regards,
Jonathan and Lise
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
Hi, While I agree that the legal information is necessary, I do not see how it will solve the Internal-External conundrum. I expect that both side of the coin, i.e. that all of the solutions, perhaps with tweaks, are all legally viable. The legal info is necessary for fine tuning, but can someone explain how it will possibly resolve the diametrically opposed opinions about the best CWG proposal. Even if one of the solutions is deemed legally problematic, do we expect those who insist on an External solution to all of a sudden accept an Internal solution? Or vice-versa? Or will they just adjust the legal aspects of their favored solution to continue supporting their postion? The Integrated proposal we will be discussing tomorrow is an attempt to bridge that gap, that is certainly its intended goal The Integrated model and its various configurations may or may not be helpful in bridging the gap, we think it might be. I believe, though, that it is essential for us to bridge that gap somehow if we expect to arrive at a solution that is at least acceptable to most. To my mind, at least, that is one of our most critical tasks. Note: we do not consider it so much a new solution as one that builds on aspects of both of the existing solution paths and tries to find mechanisms that support the dual nature, internal & external, of the solution. I do agree that we should finalize work on CSC and IAP as those seem to figure into all corners of the current solution space. But waiting until the legal experts tell us which of the solutions paths is the right one, may not be an optimal use of our time. avri On 24-Feb-15 06:48, Eduardo Diaz wrote:
Jonathan:
I hope we can get the legal advice way in advance to the proposed F2F meeting. Looking forward to a healthy discussion.
Thanks for the explanation.
-ed
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote:
Ed,
Thanks for raising this.
In my view, the question (of Internal / External) remains to be dealt with and possibly in the full CWG. But … to date it has significantly occupied the attention of the group and we are, to some extent, at an impasse until we are assisted with legal expertise.
Therefore, and in response to questions asking what we are doing about dealing with key operational aspects of the IANA function in the post NTIA stewardship world, the design teams are primarily intended to assist in the interim with fleshing out key (operationally oriented) aspects of the draft proposal.
We will have to continue with / revert to questions of internal and external but not at the expense of dealing with everything else.
I trust that helps.
Jonathan
*From:*Eduardo Diaz [mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com <mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>] *Sent:* 23 February 2015 16:57 *To:* James Gannon *Cc:* jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; Greg Shatan; Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Call for suggestions to design teams
Johnathan:
I understand the way of moving forward by using "agile" teams to focus on specific areas of the final proposal but I am confused as to how these teams will help in tackling the questions of internal. vs. external (and now the "integrated") proposal. Is this issue (internal/external) going to be discussed during the full CWG meetings?
-ed
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 8:14 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
Hi Johnathan,
As I asked (remotely) at the Singapore meeting, how are we planning to work in this method while having two distinct (Possible 3 now) models on the table, Internal-External-Integrated, are all 3 models to be included in the live draft proposal? With the exclusion of some of the documentation teams that would be cross model I would wonder how we are going to work on multiple proposals at once.
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2015 11:21 PM *To:* 'Greg Shatan'; 'Avri Doria'
*Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Call for suggestions to design teams
All,
Here are a few brief notes down as to how I see the working method from now on. My aim here is to ensure that we are aligned in understanding of the working method and, if not, that we work towards being aligned.
I see it as follows:
1. We will work on and from a live and evolving draft proposal (outline and partial content in preparation) which seeks to address the full required scope of what is needed by the ICG and through the ICG, the NTIA. This draft to be in circulation with the CWG as soon as possible.
2. To the extent that the evolving draft in 1 above contains areas of detail that need developing, these will be picked off and dealt with by short-lived and focused design teams. The design teams will work according to the proposed mechanics (CWG-Guidelines for a Design Team-Final.docx) and their work should ideally always be able to be linked back to the draft proposal in 1 above (by direct reference to a specific section or sections in the draft proposal).
3. Another of the four attachments to Lise’s email at the start of this thread (CWG-DesignTeamList.xlsx) contained an initial “seed” list of 3 proposed design team topics (admittedly without the anchor of reference back to the draft proposal in 1 above but we felt it was important to get moving on this).
4. The overarching issue of how to deal with separability /in extremis/ is a critical point but it should be undertaken in parallel with the work described in 1-3 above and in conjunction with any legal advice we receive over time. The work to be undertaken on this overarching issue may need to continue to be tackled by the whole CWG (but not to the point that it displaces all other necessary work) or it may be best moved forward by a design team. I don’t have a firm view on that.
Perhaps the thinking around this process is already clear and you feel this content is repetitive but, in case not, I thought it worthwhile re-iterating it.
Thanks,
Jonathan
*From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* 22 February 2015 22:46 *To:* Avri Doria *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Call for suggestions to design teams
Avri --
One more thing re the Integrated Model. While I believe it can be further discussed and refined in a design team, it is on the agenda for Tuesday's full CWG meeting. After that, it can probably be moved off into a design team for further refinement and then brought back to the full group.
Greg
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Avri,
The design teams (or task forces) are emphatically not only for process issues. For instance, in my view design teams need to be set up for issues such as the following:
1. Specifying and drafting service level documentation (specifying and drafting may be two different design teams, or just two different deliverables of one design team).
2. Specifying and drafting escalation documentation
3. Specifying and drafting reporting requirements documentation
4. IPR issues, including the IANA trademark and domain name
5. Replacing (or not) the NTIA validation/authorization function, and if replacing it, designing/documenting the function, and creating an implementation path (this may be 3 design teams)
As such, a design team to explore the Integrated Model would certainly fit.
As a final clarification, design teams are not decision teams; they are supposed to bring the draft deliverable(s) back to the full team for debate, discussion, revision and approval.
Greg
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Are design team only for process issues?
If not, perhaps a design team, contingent on how Tuesday goes - of course, to further work on the Integrated Model approach.
But I am just not sure if this sort of topic fits the intent of the design teams.
avri
On 22-Feb-15 11:14, Lise Fuhr wrote:
Dear all,
This is a call for suggestions to design teams. If you have any issues that you think are relevant for a design team please provide the group with a submission of name, a brief description of topic and scope and finally an indication of who should to be lead of the team.
Included are an example of relevant design teams, the “Draft Working methods” and “Draft Design team Guidelines”.
Best regards,
Jonathan and Lise
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <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
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï** **Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 <tel:212-885-9253> *| **Main* 212-949-9022 <tel:212-949-9022>
*Fax* 212-949-9190 <tel:212-949-9190> *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 <tel:917-816-6428>
*/gsshatan@lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>/*
*ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>/*
*/www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>/*
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï** **Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 <tel:212-885-9253> *| **Main* 212-949-9022 <tel:212-949-9022>
*Fax* 212-949-9190 <tel:212-949-9190> *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 <tel:917-816-6428>
*/gsshatan@lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>/*
*ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>/*
*/www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>/*
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
I agree Andrew, I think it would be useful to use Bernie's list as the starting point. Thanks, Donna DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne | Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 P +61 3 9866 3710 E donna.austin@ariservices.com W www.ariservices.com Follow us on Twitter The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Monday, 23 February 2015 3:51 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Call for suggestions to design teams On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Lise Fuhr wrote:
Dear all,
This is a call for suggestions to design teams.
For my own part, I will say that I thought the list Bernard proposed looked like a pretty good starting point. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Andrew/Donna: I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "starting point." Clearly, none of the topics mentioned is completely off topic (with the possible exception of .int and .arpa). On the other hand, I recall a number of concerns raised on the last call about how the topics were carved up on this initial list (which I believe was only intended to be a rough draft). Do you think that any (or all) of these groups is/are well scoped and specified to the point where a team could begin work and return a deliverable back to the CWG in 1-2 weeks? I tend to think they need some re-scoping and clarification before they are ready for action, and I believe that was the decision made on Friday's call -- hence the call for suggestions. Greg On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> wrote:
I agree Andrew, I think it would be useful to use Bernie's list as the starting point.
Thanks,
Donna
DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne | Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 P +61 3 9866 3710 E donna.austin@ariservices.com W www.ariservices.com
Follow us on Twitter
The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Monday, 23 February 2015 3:51 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Call for suggestions to design teams
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Lise Fuhr wrote:
Dear all,
This is a call for suggestions to design teams.
For my own part, I will say that I thought the list Bernard proposed looked like a pretty good starting point.
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 04:22:54PM -0500, Greg Shatan wrote:
of .int and .arpa). On the other hand, I recall a number of concerns raised on the last call about how the topics were carved up on this initial list (which I believe was only intended to be a rough draft).
I recall that too, but I didn't have those objections, so I think those who had worries ought to propose changes or different groups or something. (I mostly feel that getting the desire to get delineation exactly right is a distraction from trying to make some progress.) A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Andrew, I don't think is an issue of trying to get something "exactly right." I tend to believe "done is better than perfect" (though I have to remind myself of that, sometimes). I think it was more an issue of getting it "good enough to go," and there were concerns raised at that level. So this is not an issue of distraction, it's an issue of not wasting time by launching teams that are not scoped well enough to work well. Greg. On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 04:22:54PM -0500, Greg Shatan wrote:
of .int and .arpa). On the other hand, I recall a number of concerns raised on the last call about how the topics were carved up on this initial list (which I believe was only intended to be a rough draft).
I recall that too, but I didn't have those objections, so I think those who had worries ought to propose changes or different groups or something.
(I mostly feel that getting the desire to get delineation exactly right is a distraction from trying to make some progress.)
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
Hi Lise, Thanks for the share, 2 minors from my end; I do recall mentioning IPR relating to "iana domain and trademarks" as an issue that may need to be included but i don't see that yet on the list. Secondly the content does not contain information about how design team will be selected (it only says co-chairs will oversee creation) Overall looks good from my end. Cheers! On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> wrote:
Dear all,
This is a call for suggestions to design teams. If you have any issues that you think are relevant for a design team please provide the group with a submission of name, a brief description of topic and scope and finally an indication of who should to be lead of the team.
Included are an example of relevant design teams, the “Draft Working methods” and “Draft Design team Guidelines”.
Best regards,
Jonathan and Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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 !
Hi Lise/Jonathan, I observe my questions has not been responded to. However I note that Greg has picked up the IPR part and provided more details. I also noticed some people has started volunteering to be design team member so is that the process to submitting new issues and volunteering? That process is not documented anywhere yet, otherwise it will be helpful if I can be referred to it. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 22 Feb 2015 18:52, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Lise,
Thanks for the share, 2 minors from my end; I do recall mentioning IPR relating to "iana domain and trademarks" as an issue that may need to be included but i don't see that yet on the list. Secondly the content does not contain information about how design team will be selected (it only says co-chairs will oversee creation)
Overall looks good from my end.
Cheers!
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> wrote:
Dear all,
This is a call for suggestions to design teams. If you have any issues that you think are relevant for a design team please provide the group with a submission of name, a brief description of topic and scope and finally an indication of who should to be lead of the team.
Included are an example of relevant design teams, the “Draft Working methods” and “Draft Design team Guidelines”.
Best regards,
Jonathan and Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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 !
Dear all, This Sunday we sent out the guidelines for a CWG design team. Here is revised version that will be discussed at our meeting today. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Lise Fuhr Sendt: 22. februar 2015 17:15 Til: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: [CWG-Stewardship] Call for suggestions to design teams Dear all, This is a call for suggestions to design teams. If you have any issues that you think are relevant for a design team please provide the group with a submission of name, a brief description of topic and scope and finally an indication of who should to be lead of the team. Included are an example of relevant design teams, the Draft Working methods and Draft Design team Guidelines. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise
participants (9)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Avri Doria -
Donna Austin -
Eduardo Diaz -
Greg Shatan -
James Gannon -
Jonathan Robinson -
Lise Fuhr -
Seun Ojedeji