[CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar

Gomes, Chuck cgomes at verisign.com
Thu Jun 11 10:50:27 UTC 2015

I did not participate in the first webinar because of the time of day (or should I say night), but after looking at the slides yesterday, I do think that the process and background slides should be covered as quickly as possible in the second webinar and lots of time should be spent on the slides that describe the proposal.  As I said before, I think that the majority of time should be spent on Q&A, assuming of course that there are plenty of questions.  If there are not plenty of questions, we could go over our own Q&A document.

It may not be too hard to look at participant names in the webinar to determine how many look like newcomers and then gear the presentation accordingly.


From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 3:52 AM
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar

Dear all,dear Olivier

I would like to just add my voice on the first point - it is my assumption that these webinars are aimed mainly at people who are coming new to the material and who will be looking to understand what they will approve - or not approve - in BA.

If that assumption is right, I do urge that the format be changed so that the focus is on the substance of the proposal. Taking time on the process does not seem to be the right focus at this stage, for the audience.


On 11 June 2015 at 19:42, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
Hello all,

First, thanks to Lise for taking us through the slide deck and making a
complex proposal a lot more understandable.
Now for my comments:

- We have spent again around 30 minutes on the process reaching this
point and a much smaller time on the contents of the proposal itself. I
think that by this stage we should have a lot more detail in the actual
explanation of the contents of the proposal, describing CSC, IFR, the
PTI Board, SCWG, the escalation process (there is no slide showing all
of the various levels of escalation and remedials) from the time a
complaint starts and the various levels at which the complaint can be
addressed. IMHO *this* should be the meat of the presentation.
- Questions like "what happens to PTI if another IANA Functions Operator
is selected after separation?" are bound to come up recurrently and we
completely forgot to mention that this is just the Names and the
Protocols & Numbers will likely remain with PTI through their contract
with ICANN. This is not made clear at all that an IFR is only to do with
- We did not emphasize the technical nature of the whole ecosystem and
it therefore feels like a lot of these processes are political - and
this is not inspiring confidence. Emphasis on Service Level
Expectations; emphasis on Operational Continuity; emphasis on Stability
of the DNS. How are all of the processes and groups proposed
contributing to this emphasis?

I hope this helps.

Kind regards,

CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Skype: jordancarter

A better world through a better Internet
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150611/64ffa6c5/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list