[CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar

Gomes, Chuck cgomes at verisign.com
Tue Jun 16 17:32:19 UTC 2015

I find it very hard to argue the point that the primary focus needs to be on what is proposed and why instead of process and history so the majority of time should focus on the proposal.  Where process and history can be helpful is to provide context so that the work of the WG doesn’t need to be negated and/or repeated.  When we see people repeating steps that the WG already covered, we should try to help them understand that the WG carefully went down that path already and worked together to develop the solution proposed.  Obviously, if someone raises an issue that the WG didn’t cover, that is a different situation.


From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 1:05 PM
To: jrobinson at afilias.info; 'Jordan Carter'; 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond'
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar

A bit of a late intervention and I am about to get on a plane to BA so it may be too late, but I think Olivier is quite right (and if Olivier and I agree on something in CWG we cannot fail to be right…;-)

People who come to ICANN from the outside routinely tell me they are overwhelmed by process details and the acronyms associated with them, and it all seems quite meaningless to them or, at worse, a Kafkaesque devotion to process for its own sake.

Whatever you do with the presentation, please highlight what the proposal _does_ above all else; people really do not care that the ICG was formed after consultations in Singapore, that the enhanced accountability process was divided into 2 workstreams in November 2014, etc., etc.. They want to know what we proposed and why.


From: 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: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:58 AM
To: 'Jordan Carter'; 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond'
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Feedback on First Webinar

Olivier & Jordan,

This is food for thought and agreed, we should try to improve the materials ahead of BA if necessary. We are working flat-out and I am sure the presentation is not fully refined at this stage.

That said, we in the CWG  have all come on a journey to get to where we are now and many of those attending the webinar haven’t been alongside us all the way.
Therefore, I think we do have to do some work to bring them along that journey in order to fully understand how and why we got to the current place which is a compromise for all of us.

I think that there is a third and critical point. That is the role of members (and participants) to help communicate and explain the work – journey & output- of the group. Especially to those organisations that put appointed members onto the CWG.
We need your help to communicate key points such as outlined by Olivier below. Please do assist in addition to helping us (chairs & staff) in our roles.



From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz]
Sent: 11 June 2015 08:52
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/20150616/43ea7b09/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list