[CWG-Stewardship] My concerns with the draft proposal and an alternative option

[Alan Greenberg]

At 01/12/2014 06:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

>On 01-Dec-14 19:22, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>I fail to understand to how it can take action on problems if it is 
>>not an ongoing entity.
>>
>>
>>GS:  I think that it is fairly clear that the PRT has to be in a 
>>state of readiness in order to deal with "non-periodic" events. On 
>>the other hand, we don't want the PRT to feel the need to justify 
>>its existence or fill monthly meeting agendas or expand its 
>>scope.  These can be controlled by the PRT's organizing documents 
>>(perhaps a charter).
>
>I very much agree with the sentiment.
>
>While  I beleive that it can be called into service rather quickly, 
>look at how quickly the ICG was constituted, this does not not need 
>to be a deal killer.  There could be condition put in its charter 
>that restricts the ability of the  MRT to give itself further powers 
>or scope, with clauses saying that while it is constituted on, lets 
>say, a yearly basis and on call should the CSC raise an alert, it 
>does not meet unless it is there is an issue.
>
>avri

I guess "quickly", like many things, is in the eye of the beholder. A 
group that exists but does not meet is fine with me. My personal 
recommendation would be to have it schedule meetings and then cancel 
if there is nothing on the agenda, but that is fine tuning.

Alan 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141201/8359fc18/attachment.html>