Dear all, At the F2F meeting in Los Angeles it was agreed that: * No firm decisions are taken during any single meeting without the substance of those decisions having been articulated and open for review / consideration by those that may not have been present during the meeting At our conference call on October 22 there was support from those on the call for the proposed work structure (see details attached). In order to comply with our principles we hereby send the work structure to allow those of you that were not able to attend the meeting to provide any comments or concerns you may have. Please share those with the mailing list ahead of the next meeting. If no comments or concerns are expressed before the next meeting, we will consider the proposed work structure formally adopted and will reflect this as such on the meeting agenda. On behalf of the co-chairs Best regards, Lise
Hi James, The process for approving and submitting the final proposal to the ICG is outlined in section V of the CWG Charter (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/CWG-DT%20Draft%20 Charter%20-%2014%20August%202014%20Updated.doc?api=v2). Best regards, Marika On 26/10/14 12:42, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Hi Lise,
Do we need to include something on the structure of how we will select and present a finalised proposal to the ICG?
- James
On 26 Oct 2014, at 10:43, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> wrote:
<CWG-organizingworkV1.2[1][2].pdf>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Here are some comments and questions on the work structure from me and some colleagues from the RySG: 1. The plan should be a live document so that it can be updated as realities dictate. We should do everything possible to achieve the target dates but when it is not possible to do so, the plan should be updated accordingly. These points should be included in the plan. The format of the work structure and plan is not very conducive to ongoing management of the work plan; it shows the key elements and target dates and that is fine for initial approval of the contents but a more usable format should be implemented and used going forward. 2. Slide 6 - What does the term 'single chunk' mean? 3. Slide 7 (Section I - Description of Community's Use of IANA Functions, CWG-RFP1) says "Delivery Next Meeting"; this should say "Delivery of First Draft Next Meeting". The subgroup is still working on this and the first draft may need several iterations after full group feedback is received. 4. Slide 8 (Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements - A Policy Sources) a. CWG-RFP2A same comments as item 2 above. b. What happened to CWG-RFP2B? - Same comments as item 2 above. 5. Slide 12 (Transition Implications, CWG-RFP4) says "Week of November 10" a. How can this be possible if the CWG-RFP3 has the same due date and RFP4 is dependent on RFP3? b. Are CWG-RFP3 and CWG-RFP4 supposed to be handled by the same subgroup or two separate subgroups with coordination between the two? Are these two distinct stages or are implications being considered as a part of setting forth various proposals? 6. Why does the work plan end with the week of November 17? It is understood that the dates become much more fluid after that but as long as we understand that the work plan is dynamic and needs to be adjusted as needed, it seems that we should show a complete work plan, noting that further out dates are increasingly dependent on meeting earlier dates. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 6:44 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Acceptance of work structure Dear all, At the F2F meeting in Los Angeles it was agreed that: * No firm decisions are taken during any single meeting without the substance of those decisions having been articulated and open for review / consideration by those that may not have been present during the meeting At our conference call on October 22 there was support from those on the call for the proposed work structure (see details attached). In order to comply with our principles we hereby send the work structure to allow those of you that were not able to attend the meeting to provide any comments or concerns you may have. Please share those with the mailing list ahead of the next meeting. If no comments or concerns are expressed before the next meeting, we will consider the proposed work structure formally adopted and will reflect this as such on the meeting agenda. On behalf of the co-chairs Best regards, Lise
Hi Chuck, Thank you for this, and sorry for my late reply. Most of your comments are regarding the scheduling and I would like to address them as follows: . The dates presented in the work structure are initial suggestions to get us going and to encourage the group to start working. . Given the nature of this process, many aspects will remain as you say 'fluid' . ICANN staff will be tracking progress of the CWG work against the intended goal to have a proposal ready by the end-of january 2015, which will allow us to have a better view and understanding of the dynamics involved, and the need to adjust our planning. . I propose that we will review the schedule at each meeting of the CWG and adjust the work or our schedule accordingly. Unfortunately staff has not yet completed its work in mapping out the process so we will not have this view at this week's meeting but it will be available for our next meeting. Furthermore we would like to propose an additional amendment to the work structure of the CWG to better focus the efforts of CWG-RFP3 given the significant contributions to this sub-group to date. We suggest to break down the work in this sub-group along the lines of the NTIA responsibilities for oversight and accountability as described in the SSAC68 document i.e. . Contract Manager for the IANA Functions contractor . Root Zone Management. This will also be discussed at the meeting tomorrow. I hope you will find that these proposals properly address your points and that they will allow us to move forward more efficiently. Best regards, Lise Fra: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sendt: 27. oktober 2014 23:19 Til: Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Acceptance of work structure Here are some comments and questions on the work structure from me and some colleagues from the RySG: 1. The plan should be a live document so that it can be updated as realities dictate. We should do everything possible to achieve the target dates but when it is not possible to do so, the plan should be updated accordingly. These points should be included in the plan. The format of the work structure and plan is not very conducive to ongoing management of the work plan; it shows the key elements and target dates and that is fine for initial approval of the contents but a more usable format should be implemented and used going forward. 2. Slide 6 - What does the term 'single chunk' mean? 3. Slide 7 (Section I - Description of Community's Use of IANA Functions, CWG-RFP1) says "Delivery Next Meeting"; this should say "Delivery of First Draft Next Meeting". The subgroup is still working on this and the first draft may need several iterations after full group feedback is received. 4. Slide 8 (Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements - A Policy Sources) a. CWG-RFP2A same comments as item 2 above. b. What happened to CWG-RFP2B? - Same comments as item 2 above. 5. Slide 12 (Transition Implications, CWG-RFP4) says "Week of November 10" a. How can this be possible if the CWG-RFP3 has the same due date and RFP4 is dependent on RFP3? b. Are CWG-RFP3 and CWG-RFP4 supposed to be handled by the same subgroup or two separate subgroups with coordination between the two? Are these two distinct stages or are implications being considered as a part of setting forth various proposals? 6. Why does the work plan end with the week of November 17? It is understood that the dates become much more fluid after that but as long as we understand that the work plan is dynamic and needs to be adjusted as needed, it seems that we should show a complete work plan, noting that further out dates are increasingly dependent on meeting earlier dates. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 6:44 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Acceptance of work structure Dear all, At the F2F meeting in Los Angeles it was agreed that: * No firm decisions are taken during any single meeting without the substance of those decisions having been articulated and open for review / consideration by those that may not have been present during the meeting At our conference call on October 22 there was support from those on the call for the proposed work structure (see details attached). In order to comply with our principles we hereby send the work structure to allow those of you that were not able to attend the meeting to provide any comments or concerns you may have. Please share those with the mailing list ahead of the next meeting. If no comments or concerns are expressed before the next meeting, we will consider the proposed work structure formally adopted and will reflect this as such on the meeting agenda. On behalf of the co-chairs Best regards, Lise
Thanks Lise. It's not immediately clear that the breakup of RFP3 will accomplish what is desired but I probably need to understand it better. Chuck From: Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 2:53 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: SV: [CWG-Stewardship] Acceptance of work structure Hi Chuck, Thank you for this, and sorry for my late reply. Most of your comments are regarding the scheduling and I would like to address them as follows: * The dates presented in the work structure are initial suggestions to get us going and to encourage the group to start working. * Given the nature of this process, many aspects will remain as you say 'fluid' * ICANN staff will be tracking progress of the CWG work against the intended goal to have a proposal ready by the end-of january 2015, which will allow us to have a better view and understanding of the dynamics involved, and the need to adjust our planning. * I propose that we will review the schedule at each meeting of the CWG and adjust the work or our schedule accordingly. Unfortunately staff has not yet completed its work in mapping out the process so we will not have this view at this week's meeting but it will be available for our next meeting. Furthermore we would like to propose an additional amendment to the work structure of the CWG to better focus the efforts of CWG-RFP3 given the significant contributions to this sub-group to date. We suggest to break down the work in this sub-group along the lines of the NTIA responsibilities for oversight and accountability as described in the SSAC68 document i.e. * Contract Manager for the IANA Functions contractor * Root Zone Management. This will also be discussed at the meeting tomorrow. I hope you will find that these proposals properly address your points and that they will allow us to move forward more efficiently. Best regards, Lise Fra: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]<mailto:[mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]> Sendt: 27. oktober 2014 23:19 Til: Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Emne: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Acceptance of work structure Here are some comments and questions on the work structure from me and some colleagues from the RySG: 1. The plan should be a live document so that it can be updated as realities dictate. We should do everything possible to achieve the target dates but when it is not possible to do so, the plan should be updated accordingly. These points should be included in the plan. The format of the work structure and plan is not very conducive to ongoing management of the work plan; it shows the key elements and target dates and that is fine for initial approval of the contents but a more usable format should be implemented and used going forward. 2. Slide 6 - What does the term 'single chunk' mean? 3. Slide 7 (Section I - Description of Community's Use of IANA Functions, CWG-RFP1) says "Delivery Next Meeting"; this should say "Delivery of First Draft Next Meeting". The subgroup is still working on this and the first draft may need several iterations after full group feedback is received. 4. Slide 8 (Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements - A Policy Sources) a. CWG-RFP2A same comments as item 2 above. b. What happened to CWG-RFP2B? - Same comments as item 2 above. 5. Slide 12 (Transition Implications, CWG-RFP4) says "Week of November 10" a. How can this be possible if the CWG-RFP3 has the same due date and RFP4 is dependent on RFP3? b. Are CWG-RFP3 and CWG-RFP4 supposed to be handled by the same subgroup or two separate subgroups with coordination between the two? Are these two distinct stages or are implications being considered as a part of setting forth various proposals? 6. Why does the work plan end with the week of November 17? It is understood that the dates become much more fluid after that but as long as we understand that the work plan is dynamic and needs to be adjusted as needed, it seems that we should show a complete work plan, noting that further out dates are increasingly dependent on meeting earlier dates. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 6:44 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Acceptance of work structure Dear all, At the F2F meeting in Los Angeles it was agreed that: * No firm decisions are taken during any single meeting without the substance of those decisions having been articulated and open for review / consideration by those that may not have been present during the meeting At our conference call on October 22 there was support from those on the call for the proposed work structure (see details attached). In order to comply with our principles we hereby send the work structure to allow those of you that were not able to attend the meeting to provide any comments or concerns you may have. Please share those with the mailing list ahead of the next meeting. If no comments or concerns are expressed before the next meeting, we will consider the proposed work structure formally adopted and will reflect this as such on the meeting agenda. On behalf of the co-chairs Best regards, Lise
I have to say that I share Chuck's observations. I would not want to separate these two functions in terms of getting the work done. Allan From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: October-29-14 8:54 PM To: Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Acceptance of work structure Thanks Lise. It's not immediately clear that the breakup of RFP3 will accomplish what is desired but I probably need to understand it better. Chuck From: Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 2:53 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: SV: [CWG-Stewardship] Acceptance of work structure Hi Chuck, Thank you for this, and sorry for my late reply. Most of your comments are regarding the scheduling and I would like to address them as follows: * The dates presented in the work structure are initial suggestions to get us going and to encourage the group to start working. * Given the nature of this process, many aspects will remain as you say 'fluid' * ICANN staff will be tracking progress of the CWG work against the intended goal to have a proposal ready by the end-of january 2015, which will allow us to have a better view and understanding of the dynamics involved, and the need to adjust our planning. * I propose that we will review the schedule at each meeting of the CWG and adjust the work or our schedule accordingly. Unfortunately staff has not yet completed its work in mapping out the process so we will not have this view at this week's meeting but it will be available for our next meeting. Furthermore we would like to propose an additional amendment to the work structure of the CWG to better focus the efforts of CWG-RFP3 given the significant contributions to this sub-group to date. We suggest to break down the work in this sub-group along the lines of the NTIA responsibilities for oversight and accountability as described in the SSAC68 document i.e. * Contract Manager for the IANA Functions contractor * Root Zone Management. This will also be discussed at the meeting tomorrow. I hope you will find that these proposals properly address your points and that they will allow us to move forward more efficiently. Best regards, Lise Fra: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]<mailto:[mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]> Sendt: 27. oktober 2014 23:19 Til: Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Emne: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Acceptance of work structure Here are some comments and questions on the work structure from me and some colleagues from the RySG: 1. The plan should be a live document so that it can be updated as realities dictate. We should do everything possible to achieve the target dates but when it is not possible to do so, the plan should be updated accordingly. These points should be included in the plan. The format of the work structure and plan is not very conducive to ongoing management of the work plan; it shows the key elements and target dates and that is fine for initial approval of the contents but a more usable format should be implemented and used going forward. 2. Slide 6 - What does the term 'single chunk' mean? 3. Slide 7 (Section I - Description of Community's Use of IANA Functions, CWG-RFP1) says "Delivery Next Meeting"; this should say "Delivery of First Draft Next Meeting". The subgroup is still working on this and the first draft may need several iterations after full group feedback is received. 4. Slide 8 (Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements - A Policy Sources) a. CWG-RFP2A same comments as item 2 above. b. What happened to CWG-RFP2B? - Same comments as item 2 above. 5. Slide 12 (Transition Implications, CWG-RFP4) says "Week of November 10" a. How can this be possible if the CWG-RFP3 has the same due date and RFP4 is dependent on RFP3? b. Are CWG-RFP3 and CWG-RFP4 supposed to be handled by the same subgroup or two separate subgroups with coordination between the two? Are these two distinct stages or are implications being considered as a part of setting forth various proposals? 6. Why does the work plan end with the week of November 17? It is understood that the dates become much more fluid after that but as long as we understand that the work plan is dynamic and needs to be adjusted as needed, it seems that we should show a complete work plan, noting that further out dates are increasingly dependent on meeting earlier dates. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 6:44 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Acceptance of work structure Dear all, At the F2F meeting in Los Angeles it was agreed that: * No firm decisions are taken during any single meeting without the substance of those decisions having been articulated and open for review / consideration by those that may not have been present during the meeting At our conference call on October 22 there was support from those on the call for the proposed work structure (see details attached). In order to comply with our principles we hereby send the work structure to allow those of you that were not able to attend the meeting to provide any comments or concerns you may have. Please share those with the mailing list ahead of the next meeting. If no comments or concerns are expressed before the next meeting, we will consider the proposed work structure formally adopted and will reflect this as such on the meeting agenda. On behalf of the co-chairs Best regards, Lise
I don't think the proposal is a separation of the subjects within CWG-RFP3 as a group - the intention is to ensure that the subjects are dealt with as two functions. We will discuss this at our meeting today. Best, Lise Fra: Allan MacGillivray [mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca] Sendt: 30. oktober 2014 01:58 Til: Gomes, Chuck; Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Acceptance of work structure I have to say that I share Chuck's observations. I would not want to separate these two functions in terms of getting the work done. Allan From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: October-29-14 8:54 PM To: Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Acceptance of work structure Thanks Lise. It's not immediately clear that the breakup of RFP3 will accomplish what is desired but I probably need to understand it better. Chuck From: Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 2:53 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: SV: [CWG-Stewardship] Acceptance of work structure Hi Chuck, Thank you for this, and sorry for my late reply. Most of your comments are regarding the scheduling and I would like to address them as follows: . The dates presented in the work structure are initial suggestions to get us going and to encourage the group to start working. . Given the nature of this process, many aspects will remain as you say 'fluid' . ICANN staff will be tracking progress of the CWG work against the intended goal to have a proposal ready by the end-of january 2015, which will allow us to have a better view and understanding of the dynamics involved, and the need to adjust our planning. . I propose that we will review the schedule at each meeting of the CWG and adjust the work or our schedule accordingly. Unfortunately staff has not yet completed its work in mapping out the process so we will not have this view at this week's meeting but it will be available for our next meeting. Furthermore we would like to propose an additional amendment to the work structure of the CWG to better focus the efforts of CWG-RFP3 given the significant contributions to this sub-group to date. We suggest to break down the work in this sub-group along the lines of the NTIA responsibilities for oversight and accountability as described in the SSAC68 document i.e. . Contract Manager for the IANA Functions contractor . Root Zone Management. This will also be discussed at the meeting tomorrow. I hope you will find that these proposals properly address your points and that they will allow us to move forward more efficiently. Best regards, Lise Fra: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sendt: 27. oktober 2014 23:19 Til: Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Acceptance of work structure Here are some comments and questions on the work structure from me and some colleagues from the RySG: 1. The plan should be a live document so that it can be updated as realities dictate. We should do everything possible to achieve the target dates but when it is not possible to do so, the plan should be updated accordingly. These points should be included in the plan. The format of the work structure and plan is not very conducive to ongoing management of the work plan; it shows the key elements and target dates and that is fine for initial approval of the contents but a more usable format should be implemented and used going forward. 2. Slide 6 - What does the term 'single chunk' mean? 3. Slide 7 (Section I - Description of Community's Use of IANA Functions, CWG-RFP1) says "Delivery Next Meeting"; this should say "Delivery of First Draft Next Meeting". The subgroup is still working on this and the first draft may need several iterations after full group feedback is received. 4. Slide 8 (Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements - A Policy Sources) a. CWG-RFP2A same comments as item 2 above. b. What happened to CWG-RFP2B? - Same comments as item 2 above. 5. Slide 12 (Transition Implications, CWG-RFP4) says "Week of November 10" a. How can this be possible if the CWG-RFP3 has the same due date and RFP4 is dependent on RFP3? b. Are CWG-RFP3 and CWG-RFP4 supposed to be handled by the same subgroup or two separate subgroups with coordination between the two? Are these two distinct stages or are implications being considered as a part of setting forth various proposals? 6. Why does the work plan end with the week of November 17? It is understood that the dates become much more fluid after that but as long as we understand that the work plan is dynamic and needs to be adjusted as needed, it seems that we should show a complete work plan, noting that further out dates are increasingly dependent on meeting earlier dates. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 6:44 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Acceptance of work structure Dear all, At the F2F meeting in Los Angeles it was agreed that: * No firm decisions are taken during any single meeting without the substance of those decisions having been articulated and open for review / consideration by those that may not have been present during the meeting At our conference call on October 22 there was support from those on the call for the proposed work structure (see details attached). In order to comply with our principles we hereby send the work structure to allow those of you that were not able to attend the meeting to provide any comments or concerns you may have. Please share those with the mailing list ahead of the next meeting. If no comments or concerns are expressed before the next meeting, we will consider the proposed work structure formally adopted and will reflect this as such on the meeting agenda. On behalf of the co-chairs Best regards, Lise
participants (5)
-
Allan MacGillivray -
Gomes, Chuck -
James Gannon -
Lise Fuhr -
Marika Konings