TPR - Group 1A Recommendation Reorder Proposal and Updated Swimlane
Dear TPR WG, Please find attached a proposal from staff to reorder the Group 1A recommendations for the full Initial Report. You’ll recall this being discussed at our last working group call on May 21st. Staff have compiled all of the proposed recommendations into the draft report including the charter questions, WG responses, recommendation text, and rationale. It made the core body of the report around 100 pages (140+ total). To help reduce the length for the core part of the report, staff had the idea to place the charter questions and WG deliberation summaries (required for transparency) into an annex and create forward and backward navigation links within the document should the reader choose to dive deeper to better understand a proposed recommendation. However, what we encountered was the current order of the recommendation text lost its context to its corresponding charter question and as a result the recommendation text seemed illogical. It’s staff view, even with the charter questions and WG responses and its current order of recommendations, it is still very confusing in addition to being lengthy. Our goal is make this report as easy to understand as possible given that most consumers will not be as intimate with the proposed recommendations as the WG. Thus, the idea was to find a more logical order of the recommendations matching the flow we’ve been using alongside the TPR Group 1A swimlane. Within the .DOCX, you will see the new proposed order with redlines of the prior recommendation number along with the new recommendation number. Note, this document is not to be referenced as authoritative recommendation text. It is only for the purpose to illustrate the proposed reordering. The second attachment (PDF) is an updated swimlane that you all should be familiar with. This latest version includes an update to the post transfer restriction exception procedure (formerly rec #17) and updated recommendation labels where a recommendation in the report is directly represented on the swimlane. Disclaimers about the swimlane: 1. The swimlane is only a conceptual representation of a proposed transfer process only acting as a guide to easily understand the proposed Group 1A recommendations. It is NOT a policy requirements document. 2. The swimlane it constructed as a very high-level. It does not account for all variations of possible transfer transactions given the varying business models and business procedures across contracted parties. 3. Where a process step box does not have a recommendation label, it is NOT specific to any proposed recommendation or a policy requirement. These process steps are only used to maintain logical continuity of a transfer transaction from beginning to end. 4. A deficiency of the swimlane model is it does NOT accurately represent time scales. This conceptual model blends system processes that occur in seconds, vs business procedures that can vary from near seconds to several days vs. proposed durations based on the policy recommendations. Finally, this is only a proposal. The ultimate decision to reorder the Group 1A recommendations is for the WG and Chair. If we have time on our 4 June conference call, we can make this an AoB item. Thank you. B Berry Cobb Policy Development – Senior Program Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 424 443 8960 Phone: +1 202 570 7240 Fax: +1 202 789 0104 Twitter: @berrycobb www.icann.org<https://www.icann.org/>
Hi all! The new recommendation order (which I reviewed in the .docx version) seems logical and like a helpful change. Thanks, *Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E* Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld@tucows.com On 2024-06-02 9:31 a.m., Berry Cobb via GNSO-TPR wrote:
Dear TPR WG,
Please find attached a proposal from staff to reorder the Group 1A recommendations for the full Initial Report. You’ll recall this being discussed at our last working group call on May 21^st . Staff have compiled all of the proposed recommendations into the draft report including the charter questions, WG responses, recommendation text, and rationale. It made the core body of the report around 100 pages (140+ total).
To help reduce the length for the core part of the report, staff had the idea to place the charter questions and WG deliberation summaries (required for transparency) into an annex and create forward and backward navigation links within the document should the reader choose to dive deeper to better understand a proposed recommendation. However, what we encountered was the current order of the recommendation text lost its context to its corresponding charter question and as a result the recommendation text seemed illogical. It’s staff view, even with the charter questions and WG responses and its current order of recommendations, it is still very confusing in addition to being lengthy. Our goal is make this report as easy to understand as possible given that most consumers will not be as intimate with the proposed recommendations as the WG.
Thus, the idea was to find a more logical order of the recommendations matching the flow we’ve been using alongside the TPR Group 1A swimlane. Within the .DOCX, you will see the new proposed order with redlines of the prior recommendation number along with the new recommendation number. Note, this document is not to be referenced as authoritative recommendation text. It is only for the purpose to illustrate the proposed reordering. The second attachment (PDF) is an updated swimlane that you all should be familiar with. This latest version includes an update to the post transfer restriction exception procedure (formerly rec #17) and updated recommendation labels where a recommendation in the report is directly represented on the swimlane.
Disclaimers about the swimlane:
1. The swimlane is only a conceptual representation of a proposed transfer process only acting as a guide to easily understand the proposed Group 1A recommendations. It is NOT a policy requirements document. 2. The swimlane it constructed as a very high-level. It does not account for all variations of possible transfer transactions given the varying business models and business procedures across contracted parties. 3. Where a process step box does not have a recommendation label, it is NOT specific to any proposed recommendation or a policy requirement. These process steps are only used to maintain logical continuity of a transfer transaction from beginning to end. 4. A deficiency of the swimlane model is it does NOT accurately represent time scales. This conceptual model blends system processes that occur in seconds, vs business procedures that can vary from near seconds to several days vs. proposed durations based on the policy recommendations.
Finally, this is only a proposal. The ultimate decision to reorder the Group 1A recommendations is for the WG and Chair. If we have time on our 4 June conference call, we can make this an AoB item.
Thank you.
B
Berry Cobb
Policy Development – Senior Program Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 424 443 8960
Phone: +1 202 570 7240 Fax: +1 202 789 0104
Twitter: @berrycobb
www.icann.org <https://www.icann.org/>
_______________________________________________ GNSO-TPR mailing list --gnso-tpr@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email tognso-tpr-leave@icann.org %(web_page_url)slistinfo/%(_internal_name)s
participants (2)
-
Berry Cobb -
Sarah Wyld