August 2016 - CWG-Stewardship

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Process and the last mile
by Kavouss Arasteh Aug. 10, 2016

Aug. 10, 2016

2016-08-10 2:53 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>: > Dear Co Chairs, > > Dear CWG members and participants > > This the time that everybody come to the aid of the PART and demonstrate > the utmost level of tolerance, flexibility and highest degree of > collaboration . > > The reactions shown by one person to my comments were unfair, > inappropriate and outside the code of conduct .Perhaps its author was tired > and exhausted > > Dear Jonathan, > > Dear CWG members and > > There are structural and legal terms used in the draft which are > incoherent and incompatible with each other. This has been subject to > exchange of tens of mails among members. > > Having totally rejected the counter comments made by one participant, on > the one hand, and having understood that except one person, everybody else > agreed that the comments that I made are relevant and valid. > > Now, in reply to the comprehensive message and appeals made by various > distinguish colleagues on mailing list and off list and having carefully > considered the reasons given by our Chair Jonathan, and being always > supportive of reaching compromise, in the interest of transition process, I > joint the consensus emerged and have no objection to proceed with the > approval of the draft > > I hope this will put on record that we need to understand each other > problem and be collaborative to the maximum possible extent > > > > > > 2016-08-09 16:11 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>: > >> Dear Kavous and CWG Colleagues, >> >> >> >> The discussion over the past few days has suddenly become more >> challenging, especially around the IANA IPR. We have come a considerable >> distance together and produced a widely appreciated proposal. We are now >> under some time and logistical pressure to complete the task. In my >> capacity as co-chair, I decided to put down a some thoughts around where we >> are right now. These are my own thoughts although I am in almost daily >> contact with Lise on all matters relating to the CWG. >> >> >> >> As I understand it, our primary objective at the present time is to >> ensure that implementation of the CWG (“Names”) proposal is executed (by >> ICANN staff) in a manner which is consistent with the letter and spirit of >> our proposal. Since much of the implementation entails legal or legally >> oriented work undertaken by ICANN staff (including ICANN legal staff), we >> need to rely on lawyers to advise us in relation to that work. We are still >> using Sidley Austin (“Sidley”) for that purpose and have explicitly >> authorised Sidley (through the CWG Client Committee) to work directly with >> ICANN legal on our behalf, where appropriate. Timing constraints have meant >> that some of our feedback on ICANN staff’s implementation work is >> necessarily delivered during the public comment period on the relevant >> document/s. Again, we have leaned on Sidley to assist us with drafting the >> appropriate and complete form of response via the public comment (primarily >> mindful of the point relating to execution consistent with the CWG >> proposal). >> >> >> >> In addition to all the work described above, we have also had the need to >> resolve the open issue of the IANA IPR. This was not resolved in the CWG >> proposal and we explicitly committed to resolve how to deal with it as part >> of the implementation work. Moreover, Alissa Cooper has made it crystal >> clear on more than one occasion that the transfer of the IANA IPR to its >> post-IANA Transition home is a necessary condition for the IANA Transition. >> Therefore, we must get this issue resolved and we need to get it resolved >> to the mutual satisfaction of the three affected “operational communities”. >> To this extent, it is not a CWG issue as such but an issue of common >> interest. >> >> >> >> Lise and I held regular co-ordination meetings with the other OCs >> throughout our work. More recently, we (the CWG) formed a group comprising >> the co-chairs and Greg Shatan, to work in conjunction with the other two >> OCs on IANA IPR. That group successfully produced a set of principles for >> the transfer of the IANA IPR which the CWG has previously reviewed and >> supported. The most recent work has seen the CWG IANA IPR group come >> together with the other OCs as well as our respective legal advisors and to >> turn the principles into agreements. This was initially very challenging >> and common ground was not obvious. But, with the efforts of all and a >> reminder that this was a necessary condition for the IANA Transition, very >> good progress has been made. We have relied on Josh Hofheimer from Sidley >> who has managed to produce an excellent blend of firm advice and >> willingness to compromise. Many of the issues are specialist areas (e.g. >> trademark & trust law) and we need to rely on Sidley’s specialist expertise >> to guide us. >> >> >> >> I should note that Greg was put onto the IANA IPR group together with >> Lise & myself because this (IP Law) is his personal area of expertise. My >> experience of his work on the IANA IPR is that he has been exceptionally >> hard working and an excellent resource to the CWG. In my view, we owe him >> thanks for that and more! >> >> >> >> Now, looking ahead, we urgently need to get the IANA IPR documents posted >> for public comment so that they do not cause us a problem in the overall >> timing. We still have a key issue to resolve in that we need to agree on an >> entity sign the community agreement on behalf of the Names Community. >> Again, a suitable and appropriate compromise may be required. >> >> >> >> Please can we all remain together and focussed on only the essential, >> necessary and appropriate issues as we work through the “last mile” on our >> journey towards the successful IANA Transition. >> >> >> >> Thank-you. >> >> >> >> >> >> Jonathan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> >

1 0

IANA-WG-SLE-Approved
by Paul M Kane - CWG Aug. 9, 2016

Aug. 9, 2016

Dear all I am delighted to advise that during our IANA Service Level Expectation call with IANA and ICANN staff present the post transition SLE was unanimously agreed. A copy is attached for your reference and I propose to introduce this to the whole CWG group during our call on Thursday for ratification by the CWG. I'd like to thank all members of the DTA, as well as Adam Smith (my staff), Kim Davies and Elise Gerich for their active participation in this group. Warmest regards Paul

4 3

Agenda for CWG meeting #87 - 11 August @ 14:00 UTC
by Yuko Green Aug. 9, 2016

Aug. 9, 2016

Dear all, Below, please find the agenda for this week's CWG meeting #87 (11 August @ 14:00 UTC). 1. Status Update (Chairs) 2. Implementation Update * Staff update * DT-A/ Names SLEs update (Paul Kane) * DT-O update on PTI budget (Chuck Gomes or Xavier) 3. Key Issues (with Sidley) * Naming Functions Agreement * PTI Bylaws * Services Agreement * IANA IPR 4. Client Committee 5. AOB Here are the action items captured from last week's CWG meeting: * ACTION (Nathalie): schedule next DT-A call (COMPLETED) * ACTION (DT-O): provide suggested changes to Section 9.2 and 9.3 of the PTI bylaws (IN PROGRESS) * ACTION (CWG): work on the ANNEX C - CWG proposal for adequate inclusion in the Naming function contract * ACTION (CWG): PTI Bylaws - 10 items to be reviewed by the group. * ACTION (CWG): IANA IPR agreements - CWG to identify the signing party representing CWG as well as the representatives who will serve on the CCG. Regards, Yuko Green Strategic Programs Manager Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693 Mobile: +1 310 745 1517 E-mail: yuko.green(a)icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

Comments on Draft Agreement
by Kavouss Arasteh Aug. 9, 2016

Aug. 9, 2016

Jonathan, Thank you very much for your comprehensive reply. I can only reply to your kind message exactly as I replied to Chuke. An individual categorically objecting me and repeatedly referred to a certain country ' law and certain country court s and referred to past practices of that country and / or those courts of that country This is not acceptable I do not know what we are doing here at all in this process. Let him brings whatever he decides as corresponding to past practices ?????? and Court opinion ???? Why we ask the people to comment when no comment is accepted? We have been doing this works always with rush and rush. We have been ignoring comments of participants .My comments were openly and publicly ignored and rejected during several CWG meetings in the name of time constrains. It seems that some people wish to do the work among /between themselves in a private manner and no one else is allowed to talk .If he talks he is told that his comments does not comply with past practice nor is it compatible with decision , opinion or order of certain courts Everything seems to purely formalistic This is not an open, democratic, transparent, fair button-up multistakeholder approach. It is a dictated approach via past practices and court opinion, practices of some particular country style When i am told that the draft shall be considered as final and definitive even if it is being sent for comments there is no opportunity at all to make any farther comments ,what so ever, because our top high qualify man does speak for every body and no comments is accepted is it not non democratic ? With his sharp criticism he pushed me from commenting by imposing his interoperation and his views of legal text on me. I still does not understand what is the legal meaning of “collectively and unanimously " as the term " unanimously also includes collectively" Nor I am in agreement with «breaching repeatedly" as breaching itself is breaching even if not repeated it is breaching and contravene the agreement I also do not agree with the term “jointly and severally”. I also disagree saying X will do an action as «will is a deterministic verb and no one could guarantee that anyone else will something. The proper term is shall (mandatory) or should (optional / quasi mandatory) There are many. Other parts that I have commented on What you all saying in the name of «time constrain" that I must ignore all this and blindly agree with what you are dictating me You have decided to reject my comments You then need to acknowledge that all comments that I have made are valid but due to time constrains you are not able to take them into account nor discuss and analyses them Best Regards Kavouss

2 1

Comments on Comments
by Kavouss Arasteh Aug. 9, 2016

Aug. 9, 2016

Grec Here is my reply I am re-sending these responses to Kavouss's comments to the list with two notes: 1. The use of "unanimous" in the preamble was discussed. The reason for this use is to make it clear that the RIRs must act unanimously as the "numbers community" "party" to the agreement. This is language the numbers community feels comfortable with, and it apparently tracks language used in the IANA numbers MoU (but I haven't checked). This verbiage may change as other alternatives are considered, but the concept remains the same. Comments Read my comments in regard with the use of the term Unanimously. If you want to introduce some thing more than of and in addition to Collective , at the maximum use " and by consensus " instead of UNANIMOUSLY 2 2. In response to the comment on Section 6.5 regarding "joint and several liability," in which Kavouss commented that "joint cannot be associated with several." "Joint and several liability" is a fundamental legal concept and well-understood term, at least under U.S. law. Here is a definition from the Cornell Legal Information Institute https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/joint_and_several_liability (one of many available on the web): COMMENTS Once again jointly and severally are incompatible. You refer to US Court are different at different cases and can change- Thus There no single agreed opinion ,decision or order of a court in this regard which could be applied to all cases.MOREOVER, IT DEPENDS WHICH COURT ( DISTRICT PREMIER INSTANCE, Appeal , or Federal ONES ) Select another term instead of " severally" I have had many other comments I spent three hours of omy time of unday I do expect that people do not insist on their wrong vision please kindly reconsider the matter and accept two of my recent alternative proposal plus my other proposal Regards Kavouss

4 10

Fwd: FW: Draft IANA License Agreement
by Greg Shatan Aug. 9, 2016

Aug. 9, 2016

All, Please see below and attached regarding the latest draft of the IANA IPR license agreement. Please read the cover email from Josh Hofheimer (CWG counsel from Sidley) carefully. Please note that this form will be used to create 3 parallel licenses, one for each IANA Service, each of which will run between the IETF Trust and the IANA Operator (currently, ICANN). Please review and reply with any comments you may have. Best regards, Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com> Date: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 6:18 PM Subject: FW: Draft IANA License Agreement To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, Jonathan Robinson < jrobinson(a)afilias.info>, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan(a)sidley.com>, "Gregory, Holly" < holly.gregory(a)sidley.com>, "Grapsas, Rebecca" <rebecca.grapsas(a)sidley.com>, "Resnick, Yael" <yresnick(a)sidley.com> Dear Client Committee, Attached is a clean working draft of the IPR License Agreement. As with the Community Agreement, this is an iterative version prepared jointly by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust to reflect the 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is an ongoing work in progress, but we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. This is intended to be released for public comment on Thursday, August 11, along with a revised draft of the Community Agreement. Two redlines are attached, plus the clean: · PDF marked against the ICANN draft on August 2. · Redline Track Changes marked against the IETF Trust draft on July 30 · Clean draft, August 8 The redlines appear heavily marked as they predate the 7-Point discussion items reviewed with CWG previously. The main changes here are to cut back any independent discretion the IETF Trust might have exerted over the performance and quality of the IANA Services. This license agreement along with the Community Agreement, makes clear the oversight of the IANA Services is reserved to the applicable Operational Community – Names, Number or Protocols, as applicable. Otherwise, we believe this draft effectively implements the compromises reached and reflected in the 7-Point discussion items. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. Cheers, Josh *Joshua Hofheimer* *Sidley Austin LLP* *jhofheimer(a)sidley.com <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com>* *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* *From:* iana-ipr-bounces(a)nro.net [mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras *Sent:* Monday, August 08, 2016 2:44 PM *To:* iana-ipr(a)nro.net *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Draft IANA License Agreement All – attached is a revised draft of the IANA IPR License Agreement template, reflecting substantial discussions among the legal team over the last several days, as well as input from various communities. A clean version with a few comments for your consideration is attached, as well as a version marked against ICANN’s version of Aug. 2. Please feel free to send any comments, corrections or discussion by email in advance of our Wednesday call. Best regards Jorge Jorge L. Contreras Contreras Legal Strategy LLC 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 Washington, DC 20036 contreraslegal(a)att.net The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message immediately. ************************************************************ **************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ************************************************************ ****************************************

2 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
by Seun Ojedeji Aug. 8, 2016

Aug. 8, 2016

Hello Greg, Comments on the points below: 1. For me, it all comes down to who bears the liability ultimately. If ICANN would still agree to bear the liability by having the empowered community signs then that would be fine. 2. Sure that would work as well, my intent is just for the 3 OCs to be in sync on happenings. 3. Actually you did not indicate in your initial mail that the draft was put up with the Trust lawyers in sync. Since they have also confirmed the text not to be limiting in the way I posited then that is fine. 4. 2d does not allow that Greg. Here is relevant text. "....Trust shall not be required to make any additional inquiry regarding the authority or validity of instructions....." Anyway I will not fret on this as addressing point 2 would also make my concern in 4 more impossible to happen. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Aug 2016 10:26 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: Seun, To respond to your numbered points below: 1. *Signatory*. There are actually quite good reasons to consider an entity other than ICANN and thus significant doubts as to the suitability of ICANN for the role. First, ICANN is not controlled by the names community. Second, while ICANN is (or will be) accountable (to an extent) to the global multistakeholder community after the Transition, that accountability is very much a work-in-progress (as the two-year work of the CCWG-Accountability and the many WS2 tasks amply evidence). Third, ICANN will be signing the License Agreement as the IANA operator; it would be rather peculiar for the same entity to sign the Community Agreement as the names community, given the interrelated nature of the two agreements, and particularly considering that one of the roles of the names community in this whole relationship is oversight of the IANA operator. Fourth, the names community would need to figure out a method and process to cause ICANN to act on its behalf (and not on ICANN's own behalf) if any actions were required as party to the Community Agreement. A reasonable candidate for this role is the Empowered Community entity. It does not raise any of these concerns, and should be seriously considered as the signatory to the Community Agreement. I'm not preempting discussion of ICANN as a possible candidate (indeed, it could be the better candidate on balance, and there could be "fixes" for these problems), but clearly there is a substantive discussion that must be had here. 2. *Notice to other Co-Chairs of Communications by a Co-Chair to the IETF Trust*. This is a fair point; however, I would suggest that there should not be a requirement that the other Co-Chairs know about such a communication *before* the IETF Trust does. A requirement for notice at the same time should be sufficient (of course, the Co-Chair could choose to communicate with the other Co-Chairs earlier, but that should be left to their discretion (and that of their community)). 3. *Delegation of Authority to the CCG*. The delegation of authority here is very narrow. The only authority being delegated is the authority "to determine if the IANA Services provided under the IANA Trademarks are consistent with the standards set forth by the Operational Communities." Since these are standards set by the OCs, it's only logical that this authority should rest with the OCs and not the Trust. The reason that this delegation is needed at all rest in U.S. legal requirements that the owner/licensor of a trademark to exercise (or cause to be exercised) "quality control" over the licensee's goods and services. Since the OCs are already exercise oversight over the IANA Operator's provision of services (e.g., through the CSC and related processes), there's no need for any other active "quality control" to be exercised by the IETF Trust. 4. *Ability of IETF Trust to Make an Additional Inquiry in Reponse to an Instruction from CCG Co-Chair(s)*. The IETF Trust absolutely has the option to make additional inquiries regarding the authority or validity of instructions or requests made by a co-chair. It's just not *required* to do so. I think this is clear from the current language of 2.3(d). Greg On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the share Greg, it just amazes me the level of back and forth > between CCG and the Trust that has been formalised by this agreement. This > IPR thing is not a bone of contention at moment yet everything functioned > well. Over 18 pages just feels too unnecessarily "robust" for a task that > has been far from being noticed so far and IMO continues to diminish the > concept of "trust" that has made the Internet flourish thus far. Anyway > it's okay if the Trust and the two other OCs are fine. > > That said, quick few points that I like to raise: > > 1. There is no doubt that the signatory for names would be ICANN. I don't > see any reason to consider any other entity for this purpose. > > 2. While I understand that the agreement is implementing the notion of > separation of the functions already implied in respective community > proposal, I think the OCs should try as much as possible to be in sync > hence I suggest communications from a OC chair should be known to other > members of CCG before transmission to the Trust(re: 2.3d). Ofcourse that > could be included in operating principles of CCG. > > 3. I am not a lawyer but reading section 3.1, it seem that section > technically seeds authority to CCG(which represents the respective > communities). Particularly the section below: > > ".....Accordingly, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, the > IETF Trust hereby delegates to the Operational Communities the IETF Trust’s > authority, as the record-owner of the IANA Trademarks,......" > > It will be good to know that is not the case. > > 4. I hope the authority implied in 2c,d does not mean that the Trust > cannot ask questions; While I recognise that it's rare and unlikely for a > co-chair to use the power accrued to them without consulting their > community. I feel not giving the Trust option to authenticate/validate > communication, opens room for hack. ;-) > > Regards > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On 6 Aug 2016 11:24 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > CWG, > > I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement > relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments you may have, > I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email below: (1) > identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) providing a > brief description of the IANA Services used by the names community (*see* > Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other communities). > > This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR collaborative > group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public comment > period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on Thursday. > > Greg > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com> > Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM > Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 > To: Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org> > > > Dear Client Committee, > > > > Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement > for your review and comment. This is an iterative version prepared jointly > by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust to reflect the > 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in progress, but > we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. > > > > Two important issues to highlight: > > 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the signatory party, > acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the Community Agreement. For > your information, the attached draft has the organizations put forward to > represent the Numbers and Protocols Communities; and > > 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be provided on > behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level description was > included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If this is > acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we ask the Client > Committee to provide a sufficient description): > > > > The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: > > (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone Management* > ”); > > (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; > > (c) Maintenance of a repository of internationalized domain > name tables and label generation rule sets; and > > (d) Provision of other services related to the management of > .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and at ICANN’s > expense. > > Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, as we are > trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various stakeholders and > release for public comment by Thursday. > > > > Thank you in advance. > > > > Cheers, > > Josh > > > > *Joshua Hofheimer* > > *Sidley Austin LLP* > > *jhofheimer(a)sidley.com <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com>* > > *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* > > *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* > > *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* > > > > *From:* iana-ipr-bounces(a)nro.net [mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On > Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras > *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM > *To:* iana-ipr(a)nro.net > *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 > > > > All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh and I have > collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that it reflects the > current requirements of the parties, and submit it for your review and > discussion. > > > > A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft of 07-30-16 > (in PDF format) are attached. > > > > Please note a few items that still need to be completed, including the > description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the CCG > representatives, etc. > > > > Best regards, > > Jorge > > > > Jorge L. Contreras > > Contreras Legal Strategy LLC > > 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 > > Washington, DC 20036 > > contreraslegal(a)att.net > > > > The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and > confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this > message immediately. > > > > > > ************************************************************ > **************************************** > This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is > privileged or confidential. > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any > attachments and notify us > immediately. > > ************************************************************ > **************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Cwg-client mailing list > Cwg-client(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client > > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > >

2 3

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
by Kavouss Arasteh Aug. 8, 2016

Aug. 8, 2016

Seun, I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a clean Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see what was the changes introduced by Greg I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. Regards Kavouss 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>: > A word version was included in Greg's mail > > Regards > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Grec, >> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with some of them >> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, pls provide >> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>: >> >>> CWG, >>> >>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement >>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments you may have, >>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email below: (1) >>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) providing a >>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names community ( >>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other communities). >>> >>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR collaborative >>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public comment >>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on Thursday. >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com> >>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 >>> To: Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org> >>> >>> >>> Dear Client Committee, >>> >>> >>> >>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement >>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version prepared jointly >>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust to reflect the >>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in progress, but >>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>> >>> >>> >>> Two important issues to highlight: >>> >>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the signatory >>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the Community >>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the organizations >>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols Communities; and >>> >>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be provided on >>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level description was >>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If this is >>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we ask the Client >>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>> >>> >>> >>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>> >>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone Management* >>> ”); >>> >>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>> >>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of internationalized >>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>> >>> (d) Provision of other services related to the management >>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and at ICANN’s >>> expense. >>> >>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, as we are >>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various stakeholders and >>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you in advance. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Josh >>> >>> >>> >>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>> >>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>> >>> *jhofheimer(a)sidley.com <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com>* >>> >>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>> >>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>> >>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces(a)nro.net [mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On >>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>> *To:* iana-ipr(a)nro.net >>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 >>> >>> >>> >>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh and I >>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that it reflects >>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for your review and >>> discussion. >>> >>> >>> >>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft of >>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, including the >>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the CCG >>> representatives, etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jorge >>> >>> >>> >>> Jorge L. Contreras >>> >>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>> >>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>> >>> Washington, DC 20036 >>> >>> contreraslegal(a)att.net >>> >>> >>> >>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and >>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this >>> message immediately. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ************************************************************ >>> **************************************** >>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is >>> privileged or confidential. >>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any >>> attachments and notify us >>> immediately. >>> >>> ************************************************************ >>> **************************************** >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cwg-client mailing list >>> Cwg-client(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >>

9 37

Use of ICG site for IANA IPR public comment
by Alissa Cooper Aug. 8, 2016

Aug. 8, 2016

Hi all, Last week I sent the note below to the ICG. The ICG has confirmed its support for using the ICG site to run the IANA IPR public comment period. In the cover note accompanying the documents for comment we will make it clear that the ICG as a body is not involved in this work. Some ICG folks asked me to let the CWG know about this, thus this email. Thanks, Alissa > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> > Subject: [Internal-cg] Use of ICG site for IANA IPR public comment > Date: August 5, 2016 at 11:16:30 AM PDT > To: ICG Group <internal-cg(a)ianacg.org> > > Hi all, > > Collectively, the OCs, ICANN, and the IETF Trust have been working on a set of contractual agreements to implement the requirement from the IANA stewardship transition proposal that the IANA-related IPR be held by an entity independent from the IANA functions operator. Those agreements are due to go out for public comment next Thursday, August 11. The group would like to know if we could use the ICG web site and secretariat services to host the call for public comment on these documents. Because these agreements impact all of the communities, and because ICANN and the IETF Trust are parties to the agreements themselves, we were looking for a “neutral” place to host the call for public comment and the ICG site seemed like a logical solution. This would not require any work or input from the ICG as a body, just some resources from the secretariat. The group working on the IPR agreements will sort out how to process and analyze the comments, and that too will not require any work from the ICG. > > Because time is short, we need to make a conclusion about where this call for public comment will be hosted by Monday, Aug 8. I realize this is very much a last-minute request and I apologize for that, but if anyone objects to using the ICG site and secretariat for this purpose, please say so on the list before 15:00 UTC on August 8. > > I have already been in touch with Jennifer about what would be required here and she is looking into the details with her team. > > Many thanks, > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

1 0

INPUT NEEDED: Community Agreement (3 points)
by Greg Shatan Aug. 8, 2016

Aug. 8, 2016

As mentioned in my prior email, there are two points where CWG input is required: 1. Entity entering into Community Agreement as the "Names Community." There's been some discussion of this point between Seun and myself, but that's it so far. Without recapping the discussion, the viable candidates identified so far are ICANN and the Empowered Community. We don't need to decide this point this week, but we need it done well before the agreement is going to be signed. 2. Description of IANA Naming Services. Josh suggested that the descriptive language used in the Naming Functions Agreement could be modified for use here. Any comments on that point? Also, a third point occurs to me, which needs to be dealt with before the agreement is signed: We need to figure out how the 3 "names community" representatives to the CCG will be selected. Greg

1 0