[CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Implementation

[Greg Shatan]

I support this as well.

Greg

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Lindeberg, Elise <elise.lindeberg at nkom.no>
wrote:

> Also in support !
>
>
>
> Elise
>
>
>
>
>
> Elise Lindeberg
>
> Senior Legal Adviser
>
> Norwegian GAC representative
>
> Norwegian Communications Authority
>
> Dir. +47 22 824607 Mob. +47 90190947
>
> ekl at nkom.no
>
>
>
>
>
> *Fra:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *På vegne av* Jian C. Chang
> *Sendt:* 7. mars 2016 17:06
> *Til:* Eduardo Diaz; jrobinson at afilias.info; cwg-stewardship
> *Emne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Implementation
>
>
>
> Agree and support Jonathan's proposal.
>
>
>
> +1 to Mathew, not DT lead too, but will be happy to participate in the
> task force if necessary.
>
>
>
> Jian Chang
>
> KNET
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> *From:* Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>
>
> *Date:* 2016-03-07 23:56
>
> *To:* jrobinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship
> <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Implementation
>
> I do support this proposal.
>
>
>
> Thanks for being so attentive to these details.
>
>
>
> -ed
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:13 PM Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Lise and I today attended the session entitled:
>
>
>
>
> https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-implementation
>
>
>
> It became clear during the course of the session that material new details
> on the implementation of the CWG Stewardship proposal were being released
> for the first time.
>
>
>
> This raises two issues:
>
>
>
> 1.      Process – How do we ensure that ICANN implementation staff do not
> get out of synchronisation with the CWG?
>
> 2.      Substance – Do we agree with the details presented in the session
> today?
>
>
>
> Both Lise and I stood up and made points to this effect during the meeting
> as did some of the CWG Stewardship Members / Participants.
>
> We also spoke with Akram & Trang afterwards. It does seem that this was an
> inadvertent oversight driven by a desire and need to make progress.
>
>
>
> However, it is also evident that there is a need for the ICANN staff
> implementation team to have more rapid or agile reference to the CWG, in
> addition to our bi-weekly updates / meetings.
>
>
>
> Therefore, in order to address this need, the co-chairs propose to form an *implementation
> oversight task force* comprising the CWG co-chairs and the DT leads. The
> outcomes will come back to the CWG in any case but we believe that we need
> a capability to track the implementation work as closely as possible and as
> it evolves.
>
>
>
> Please can we have any comments or concerns with this proposal as soon as
> possible.
>
>
>
> Thank-you,
>
>
>
>
>
> Lise and Jonathan
>
> Co-Chairs, CWG Stewardship
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160307/7cdae751/attachment.html>