[CWG-Stewardship] Updated version of the Status Overview for the CWG DTs

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello Jonathan,

I also agree with your suggestion based on the rationale. That said, i came
in late during the call today (on audio only), during the AOB i noticed you
did not really address the suggestion raised by Avri about setting a
timeline for reports (you mentioned its desired but may not be reasonable).

Although i don't know if the reports referred to by Avri includes the DT
outcomes, but i think it will be good to set a deadline/timeline for the
emerging DTs. I understand that the CWG co-chairs may not be the best to
set such timeline since it does not depend on them, however i think they
should encourage the DT members to set an expected timeline for their
activity. It is just important we have that going forward...it will be good
for us to have an idea of fast when we said the "DTs are expected to be
agile in their work".

Cheers!

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
wrote:

> All,
>
>
>
> I have a detail suggestion on the membership of DTs. I suggest that we
> consider the lead as a member and not as an additional “neutral” chair.
>
> e.g. if the DT is nominally composed of a specific number of
> representatives from a particular group, then the lead will count as one of
> the representatives of his or her group.
>
>
>
> The rationale being that the lead is (almost by definition) someone who
> has an interest in the topic and therefore (possibly) a specific outcome.
>
> Whilst a degree of neutrality is required in order to ensure that the
> voices of the members are heard and accounted for, the lead is not *per
> se* neutral.
>
>
>
> As ever, any concerns or issues, flag them. Otherwise, we’ll run with this
> approach.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info]
> *Sent:* 09 March 2015 21:50
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Updated version of the Status Overview for the CWG DTs
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Please see attached for a status update on the Design Teams in preparation
> for our call tomorrow.
>
>
>
> Lise and I have reviewed the whole DT landscape and the current status is
> reflected in the document.
>
>
>
> Please note that it contains the following:
>
>
>
> ·         A status for each DT per the model of the step-by-step process
> which has been *referenced in Annex A*.
>
> ·         A note section as part of the index to provide additional
> comments as needed
>
> ·         New prospective DTs added
>
> o   L (IANA Function Separation Mechanism),
>
> o   M (Escalation mechanisms beyond CSC) and
>
> o   N (Periodic Review of IANA Functions).
>
> ·         An updated description for .INT DT to match description in
> draft transition proposal.
>
> ·         An ‘expression of interest field’, currently only in the
> Authorization Function DT-D
> (as other expression of interests come in, we’ll create the same for other
> DTs).
>
>
>
> Where a priority is set as final, that is the priority we have agreed.
> Where it is provisional, that is indicative pending further detail on the
> DT emerging.
>
>
>
> I look forward to reviewing this with you on the tomorrow.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150310/4f723d05/attachment.html>