[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [EWG-Process-WG] EP-WG Framework v5 for your review

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

I think this all looks pretty good, except for the suggestions and reasoning for different tracks being handled in parallel on slides 8 and 11, which is a really really bad thing. No matter how desirable this may seem to some, it will be very impractical for community members (including but not limited to the NCSG) to keep track of everything in scope running simultaneously.

We should insist on an alternative to this.

Those are my thoughts.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 10, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Somehow, I don't think this answers all our concerns...
> But be assured, more detailed comments will follow!
> Stephanie 
> And many thanks for forwarding.
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
> 
> From: Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 1:52 AM
> To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Reply To: avri at acm.org
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [EWG-Process-WG] EP-WG Framework v5 for your review
> 
> 
> fyi - advice welcome, as always.
> 
> avri
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:	[EWG-Process-WG] EP-WG Framework v5 for your review
> Date:	Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:36:32 -0600
> From:	Lisa Phifer <lisa at corecom.com>
> To:	ewg-process-wg at icann.org
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Per Susan's request, attached please find an updated draft of the EP-WG framework for your consideration and discussion during next week?s  EP-WG call.
> 
> This update attempts to address all questions raised in Singapore; you will find suggested new text highlighted in red. Three placeholders were also inserted for EP-WG members to answer unaddressed questions on cost assessment, input timing, and GNSO decision points.
> 
> In addition, the entire document has been reorganized to better decompose and explain complex steps and phases, presenting them more sequentially. This reorganization is not intended to add new material, except as highlighted in red. Rather, the reorganization moves and expands existing material to make the framework easier for the community to digest.
> 
> Please consider whether this updated draft covers questions raised in Singapore and does a sufficient job of communicating your proposed framework for an RDS PDP. Please also consider how to complete the three placeholders for unaddressed questions. Your feedback on this draft will be the subject of next week?s EP-WG call, along cost analysis input from James and Chris, and any other business that should addressed at this juncture. A meeting notice with agenda will follow from Charla.
> 
> Best, Lisa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150310/99c9e61e/attachment.html>