[CWG-Stewardship] Call for suggestions to design teams
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Mon Feb 23 11:33:56 UTC 2015
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 at afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson at 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 at gmail.com
> <mailto:eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* 23 February 2015 16:57
> *To:* James Gannon
> *Cc:* jrobinson at afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>; Greg
> Shatan; Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at 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 at cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james at 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 at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of
> *Jonathan Robinson
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2015 11:21 PM
> *To:* 'Greg Shatan'; 'Avri Doria'
>
>
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at 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 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 22 February 2015 22:46
> *To:* Avri Doria
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at 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 at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at 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 at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at 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 at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at 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 at lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>/*
>
> *ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at 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 at lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>/*
>
> *ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>/*
>
> */www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>/*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150223/60575d6b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list