Well said and my +1; Every effort to avoid increasing terminologies within ICANN should be intentionally pursued. New comers are really having a great deal of following terminologies before the substance.
Cheers!
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
I have no opposition to using Work Stream. I think it makes sense to have consistent terminology across working groups, so have no opposition to using a term that is easily understood.
The differentiation is that this will be the Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Streams, which I think is easily enough understood by most.
Work Step or Work Lane don’t really resonate with me.
Donna
Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc.
Policy and Industry Affairs ManagerCell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin@neustar.biz
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message.
Follow Neustar:
LinkedIn <image003.png> Twitter
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady (Policy) via Gnso-newgtld-wg
Sent: Friday, 25 March 2016 2:31 PM
To: 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda 28 March 1600 UTC
I like Work Step just fine! Thanks Kavouss.
Best,
Paul
From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 02:07 PM
To: Paul McGrady (Policy)
Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda 28 March 1600 UTC
Dear All
I agree with Paul that we need to be mindful to avoid using any terms which could eventually mislead or confuse the community.
I suggest alternative to " work stream" the terms" work step"
Regards
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 25 Mar 2016, at 19:03, Paul McGrady (Policy) via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Julie & Everyone:
I’m a bit concerned about our labeling. We are calling these “workstreams” which would make great sense if that term was not already enshrined in Transition work. I’m concerned that we could dilute the clarity that the term “Workstream 2” already has in the community and could lead to confusion as we do reporting to the Council on our work.
Could we, at this early stage, rename these Perhaps Work Lane 1, 2, 3, etc?
Best
Paul (speaking in role as Council liaison)
Paul McGrady
GNSO Councilor for the IPC
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund via Gnso-newgtld-wg
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 12:44 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda 28 March 1600 UTC
Dear WG Members,
Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 28 March 2016 at 16:00 UTC.
1. Review the Agenda
2. Roll Call/Statements of Interest
3. Walk Through of Subjects/Issues
1. Address any further clarifying questions on Work Streams 1 and 2.
2. Work Streams 3, 4, and 5
4. If time permits — Letter from Steve Crocker to the PDP WG and CCT RT Re: ALAC and GAC concerns regarding the effectiveness of the Public Interest Commitments (PICs) for sensitive new gTLDs (attached)
5. AOB
Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
