[Internal-cg] Draft webinar deck and outline

[Alissa Cooper]

Thanks Russ. Comments below.

On Jul 29, 2015, at 7:31 PM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:

> 
>>> 
>>> - The use of different colors for the different OC and combined proposals is excellent - I think that it would be good to use a similar background shading or a object fill color for the operational community proposals throughout the deck.
>> 
>> I’m not sure I understand. The objects already are color-coded throughout the deck. I.e., parameters are light blue, numbers are green, and names are purple.
> 
> What I had in mind was that the respective image shapes, e.g. black boxes on slide 3 all have the same black fill color with the ‘dots & dashes’ in the color of the respective groups indicated on slide 2 - my suggestion was to change the fill color to the ‘group color’ instead of using black for all of them.  An alternative would be to add another ‘background object’ such as a cloud or other shape that was the ‘group color’ behind each of the current respective black boxes.  An example would be on slide 7 to have all of the fonts, lines & circles for a particular OC be changed to the respective ‘group color’ or have a background object in the respective ‘group color’  In other words, a more dominant use of colors will help differentiate the OCs.
> 
> Alan (I think) also made some comments about color use being inconsistent so I looked again and now see that there is not consistent use of colors (fills, boarders of shapes, fonts, etc) in various parts of the slide deck.  E.g., in the Names section (slides 8 -16), the ICANN, IANA/PTI objects are all filled with the ‘group color’ but in other sections (except for slide 28), the ICANN/IANA objects have no (or white) fill color.  Although the ‘group color’ is present in objects representing the OCs activities, it is used differently in each one.  Also, the NTIA object in the different sections does not have consistent fill/boarder/font use.  I suspect that most of the inconsistencies came from the individual OCs reviewing their own sections but not the full set of slides.
> 
> I do not know if there is time to make fixes to these inconsistencies but I do think that doing so would avoid or eliminate some questions or comments that are just not relevant.  If there’s not enough time, I can live with the inconsistencies. 

I will include a general comment along the lines above back to the designers and see if they can improve the color usage.

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> - At some point, the deck should mention that IANA operations need to continue to operate stably, securely and resiliently through all transitiion activities.  Although it was not explicitly mentioned, it was inferred in the March 2014 announcement so perhaps slide 5 could add the following in the left column:
>>> 
>>> "The IANA functions must continue to operate securely, stably and resiliently through entire process of transition.”
>> 
>> I would not feel comfortable putting this text there because it does not actually appear in the NTIA announcement. I agree that this is important but I don’t think we should attribute it to NTIA in that way. Maybe we could write “Continued security, stability and resilience of the IANA functions” along the bottom of slide 6?
> 
> Good point - I’d fine with text on the bottom of slide 6.  How does “On-going secure, stable and resilient IANA functions” with an arrow from left to right under or behind the text?

Ok

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Secondly, some specific suggestions for individual slides.  I tried to minimize the structural changes to the slides so the suggestions would be straight forward to incorporate - or reject:
>>> 
>>> - Slide 3:  At the top of the slide, the Operational Communitees should be shown seperately - perhaps with a surrounding box indicating "IANA Customers".   Suggest using "Names Community" (also change Slide 10), "Numbers Community" (also change Slide 19) and "Protocol Parameters Community" (perhaps change Slide 25).
>> 
>> Since this is the very first substantive slide, I’m not sure it makes sense to dive right into that level of detail. Furthermore, this would be hard to depict for protocol parameters since lots of registries can be populated by anyone who wants to register something and those people may not really consider themselves part of the “protocol parameters community.” I’d rather opt for simplicity in slide 3.
> 
> I can see the point that simple is better but the problem I see in this case is that it would give the impression that all IANA customers are alike and ask for the same type of service which is clearly not the case - it might also motivate questions like “Why did you ask for three proposals?”.  I do think it would be better to show the separate communities but as a minimum, there should be three “talk boxes” (vice 4), i.e. one in each ‘group color’.

Ok

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> -- It's unclear what the three devices at the bottom of the slide represent but I think they are intended to indicate those that use information maintained and provided by IANA.  If this is a correct interpretation, suggest adding text under the devices that says (something like): "Consumbers = Any Internet User"  or something equivalent
>> 
>> I think this is something the speaker can explain, i.e., that the identifiers get used in software running on Internet users’ devices.
> 
> I found this part of the slide confusing in that it really wasn’t clear why the devices were on the slide.  I agree that the speaker can explain but I expect that the slides will be used by many people beyond the webinars and think that it would be good for them to stand on their own so having text like “Any Internet User” would be useful when the slides show up on some random web/blog site.

Ok, I’ll ask the designers to try to clarify this.

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> - Slide 5: see second general comment above.
>>> 
>>> - There should be a slide added between the current slide 8 and slide 9 that actually says what the IANA names functions are - the illustrations of current slides 9 and 10 are examples of data but do not show what is involved with maintenance of the DNS Root Zone.  I suggest that text list be derived from the recent ICANN publication "The IANA Functions - An Introduction to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions" from the lists on pages 14, 17 & 18  that is available at:
>>> 
>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-functions-15jun15-en.pdf
>>> 
>>> Other potential sources for the list of functions are the Names proposal paragraph P1.I.A. (1003)  or SSAC reports SAC-067 and SAC-068
>> 
>> Could you provide exactly the list of bullets you would want to see?
> 
> (built from Names proposal Annex A, some consolidation of that list)
> 
> Title:  What are the IANA functions related to names?
> 
> Root Zone Change Request Management
> 
> Root Zone WHOIS Change Request Management
> 
> Delegation and Redelegation of TLDs
> 
> Root DNSSEC Key Management
> 
> Management of Repository of IDN Practices
> 
> Other Root Zone Related activities

Thanks. I think this additional slide will flow more easily between 10 and 11 rather than between 8 and 9, if that is ok with you. At this point in the deck we won’t really have explained what the DNS is, so I’d rather not jump right into Root Zone Change Request Management, etc.

>> 
>>> 
>>> - Slide 28 provides an excellent overview of providing an overall illustration of the oversight and accountability aspects of the three operational communities.  However, it does not show any of the regular, on-going interactions of the OCs.  It is, in fact, a very different perspective on the IANA functions than is provided in Slide 3.  This could incorrectly infer that the OCs proposals and transition will result in massive changes from how things work today.  To avoid this incorrect inference, I would suggest that the section needs to either have two slides, one to illustrate how the regular, on-going functions are accomplished by replicating Slide 3 or add text to the current slide that says "this illustrates accountability and oversight" and points to Slide 3 as the illustration of the regular, on-going functions.
>> 
>> Per our discussion on the call, would it work for you if we title this slide “Oversight components in the combined proposal”?
> 
> Yes, that is a good change to the title.  I would like to see this slide also include the other changes made in paragraph 15 of the v7-JC.doc if that’s feasible.

Ok, I’ll see if the designers can add the additional sentence to the bottom of the slide.

Thanks,
Alissa