<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><style>body { line-height: 1.5; }blockquote { margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.5em; }body { font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Segoe UI'; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 1.5; }</style></head><body>
<div><span></span>I totally agree on and support point 1 and 3 of Olivier's comments. </div><div><br></div><div>Actually I have spent at least 90 minutes on listening the process and the number of email, telephones and meetings, etc. for the preparation of this proposal. Maybe there were a small number of new comers, but my impression over the last three meetings was that the majority of the participants have been involved in CWG, CCWG, or ICG to some extent. So, there is no need to repeat procedural issues over and over again. Focus should be on substantial matters. </div><div><br></div><div>Let's focus more on technical and operational nature of the transition, leaving the political sides alone. </div><div><br></div><div>Best regards</div><div><br></div><div>Jian Chang</div>
<div><br></div><hr style="width: 210px; height: 1px; display: none;" color="#b5c4df" size="1" align="left">
<div><span></span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.5em;"><div> </div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"><div style="PADDING-RIGHT: 8px; PADDING-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 12px;FONT-FAMILY:tahoma;COLOR:#000000; BACKGROUND: #efefef; PADDING-BOTTOM: 8px; PADDING-TOP: 8px"><div><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com">Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond</a></div><div><b>Date:</b> 2015-06-11 15:42</div><div><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a></div><div><b>Subject:</b> [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar</div></div></div><div><div>Hello all,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>First, thanks to Lise for taking us through the slide deck and making a</div>
<div>complex proposal a lot more understandable.</div>
<div>Now for my comments:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>- We have spent again around 30 minutes on the process reaching this</div>
<div>point and a much smaller time on the contents of the proposal itself. I</div>
<div>think that by this stage we should have a lot more detail in the actual</div>
<div>explanation of the contents of the proposal, describing CSC, IFR, the</div>
<div>PTI Board, SCWG, the escalation process (there is no slide showing all</div>
<div>of the various levels of escalation and remedials) from the time a</div>
<div>complaint starts and the various levels at which the complaint can be</div>
<div>addressed. IMHO *this* should be the meat of the presentation.</div>
<div>- Questions like "what happens to PTI if another IANA Functions Operator</div>
<div>is selected after separation?" are bound to come up recurrently and we</div>
<div>completely forgot to mention that this is just the Names and the</div>
<div>Protocols & Numbers will likely remain with PTI through their contract</div>
<div>with ICANN. This is not made clear at all that an IFR is only to do with</div>
<div>Names.</div>
<div>- We did not emphasize the technical nature of the whole ecosystem and</div>
<div>it therefore feels like a lot of these processes are political - and</div>
<div>this is not inspiring confidence. Emphasis on Service Level</div>
<div>Expectations; emphasis on Operational Continuity; emphasis on Stability</div>
<div>of the DNS. How are all of the processes and groups proposed</div>
<div>contributing to this emphasis?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I hope this helps.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Kind regards,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Olivier</div>
<div>_______________________________________________</div>
<div>CWG-Stewardship mailing list</div>
<div>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</div>
<div>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</div>
</div></blockquote>
</body></html>