September 2016 - CWG-Stewardship

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Representative Appointment Letters
by Greg Shatan Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

Lise and Jonathan, I have attached hereto my executed letter of appointment as a Names Community representative to the Community Coordination Group (CCG) and as a Co-Chair of the CCG. I look forward to serving the community in this capacity. Best regards, Greg Shatan On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> wrote: > Dear Maarten, Christopher and Greg, > > > > Following your nominations and subsequent CWG agreed appointments to the > role of CCG Representatives (and co-chair in the case of Greg Shatan), > please can you proceed to sign your respective appointment letters > (attached to this email) and return the signed appointment letters to the > CWG via this mailing list as soon as possible and, in any event, no later > than 23h59 UTC on 29 September 2016. > > > > Thank-you for making yourselves available. > > > > > Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson > > > > >

2 1

Another step closer....
by Greg Shatan Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

Here's my understanding of the current situation. The Continuing Resolution (funding the US government) was approved by the US Senate without language defunding the "relinquishment" of IANA. House still needs to pass the CR, but these are generally worked out between the houses beforehand, so any surprises are relatively unlikely, subject to some last-minute posturing. Greg

5 6

Letter of instruction from the CWG to ICANN regarding the IANA IPR Community Agreement.
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 27, 2016

Sept. 27, 2016

Dear Trang, Please can you accept the attached letter of instruction from the CWG to ICANN regarding the IANA IPR Community Agreement. Yours sincerely, Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson For and on behalf of the CWG IANA Stewardship Transition

17 30

Call
by Arasteh Sept. 26, 2016

Sept. 26, 2016

Pls kindly Advise to call me as I can not open Adobe Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 25 Sep 2016, at 21:38, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Replies below. > >> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> 1. While ICANN agreed to sign "on behalf" I don't think they have agreed to sign "on behalf" as per the text in the letter. However it seem Greg is now confirming that ICANN has indeed agreed to the terms for signing "on behalf" which is good to know. >> > It's my understanding that the text of the letter is acceptable to ICANN. It's up to ICANN to confirm that, not me. >> 2. There is really nothing wrong with raising observations and all that we should do is provide clarification. It doesn't have to degenerate to imply incompetence of the person asking/raising an opinion. >> > I never said there was anything wrong with raising observations, and I spent a significant amount of time providing clarification. I don't think I implied anything about a person's incompetence; I'm sure there are times for all of us when we failed to keep up with a part of our work -- that doesn't make us all incompetent. It does make it more challenging to rejoin participation in that part of the work -- both for the participant and for the rest of the group. >> 3. I earlier raised an observation about the inclusion of the following "...hereafter affirm in writing..." and I suggested that section wasn't necessary. Since it is included, I hope a letter/note has also been sent to the CO to provide their affirmation in writing. >> > It's my understanding that that sending such a request is the intent of the CWG, but I'm not sure if it has happened yet. I would look to our co-chairs to confirm the status of that piece. >> 4. I don't know how this letter is binding on anyone especially as it's been signed by CWG and not by COs who are in turn members of EC. However, i would only just hope that since/if ICANN agree then both sides will keep to terms. >> > Within the internal processes of ICANN, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on whether a communication from an ICANN structure to ICANN corporate is "binding" in the same sense as would apply to an agreement between unrelated third parties. It can scarcely be argued that either ICANN or the Names Community is free to walk away from the letter, merely because the Names Community is not a legal entity. >> For avoidance of doubt, None of the above implies delaying this process by any means. >> > That's a relief. >> Regards >> Sent from my LG G4 >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >> >> >> On 25 Sep 2016 7:02 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Avri, >> >> It's certainly my understanding that all has been completed on the letter and that ICANN can sign it. >> >> There is nothing missing. There is one non-substantive change suggested by Chuck Gomes that could be made, which would slightly improve the readability of the letter (spelling out "Community Coordination Group" the first time it is used, instead of saying "CCG"). Whether or not this is done, the letter is ready to be signed. >> >> I don't think any significant confusion came out of the meeting itself. After the meeting, one participant (who appears not to have kept up with the CWG's work) started an exchange on this thread raising a number of 12th hour objections. This exchange may have created an appearance of more general confusion. The confusion is actually quite isolated, as far as I can tell. Andrew Sullivan and I both responded with explanations, which I thought cleared up any confusion on the very minor subject of this "letter of instruction." The high-level explanation is this: >> >> The "Names Community" is a party to the Community Agreement (relating to the IANA IPR). The Names Community needs a legal entity to sign the Agreement on its behalf, because there is no existing legal entity that encompasses the Names Community. ICANN was asked if it could perform the limited function of signing on behalf of the Names Community. ICANN said that it could. The "Letter of Instruction" formally instructs ICANN to sign on behalf of the Names Community and sets out the parameters of ICANN's limited role as signatory. This is needed because signing the Agreement without any explanation makes it look like ICANN has full authority and discretion to act as the Names Community under the Agreement. >> >> The rest of the discussion turned to the effects (if any) of this confusion, both on implementing our work and on the composition of the CCG. In my view, this confusion has absolutely no effect on implementing our work. If working group results could be undone after the fact by a single confused participant, ICANN probably would not even exist. >> >> Greg >> >>> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:22 PM, avri doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have gotten lost in this discussion. >>> >>> Has all been completed on the letter? Can ICANN sign if the transition >>> is freed to move ahead? >>> >>> If not, what is missing? I unfortunately missed the last meeting, but >>> am amazed at the confusion that came out of that meeting. >>> >>> thanks >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 25-Sep-16 01:58, Greg Shatan wrote: >>> > Milton, >>> > >>> > I don't think any one person can be in a position to hold up this >>> > process. This is the end result of an exhaustive (and exhausting) >>> > multistakeholder process. We put in months (really, years) of >>> > thorough and well-considered work on the IPR issues alone. This >>> > involved a significant group of stakeholders (in this case, across the >>> > names, protocol parameters and numbers communities). The result of >>> > this work has been put through the public comment process, and fully >>> > agreed and brought to conclusion with the broad support of diverse >>> > stakeholders. >>> > >>> > It would make a mockery of the multistakeholder process to allow any >>> > one person to hold up implementation at this point, when the work is >>> > done. >>> > >>> > In working groups, we do try to be open to questions and opinions from >>> > all angles, sometimes to a fault. This is especially true early on, >>> > when it's important to consider all viewpoints. But we are far, far >>> > past that point. Our decisions have been made. Our commitments are >>> > clear. It's time to get it done. >>> > >>> > Greg >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton(a)gatech.edu >>> > <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: >>> > >>> > I am not sure I understand why someone who clearly does not >>> > understand what is going on in the IPR transition process, and who >>> > actually never seemed to understand what IANA is, should be in a >>> > position to hold up this process. >>> > >>> > Milton L Mueller >>> > Professor, School of Public Policy >>> > Georgia Institute of Technology >>> > >>> > > On Sep 24, 2016, at 18:45, Andrew Sullivan >>> > <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Dear colleagues, >>> > > >>> > > As usual, I note that I am a trustee of the IETF Trust, and I do not >>> > > wish anyone to understand that I am promoting any IETF or Trust >>> > > interest here. But I am concerned that we not delay the >>> > transition by >>> > > organizational mmisunderstanding. In particular, >>> > > >>> > >> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:03:43AM +0200, Christopher Wilkinson >>> > wrote: >>> > >> 2. I understand that the CCG has been 'created' to regulate >>> > the relationships between the Naming Community and the IETF Trust, >>> > thus the interest in IPR. >>> > > >>> > > I think it would be better to say that the CCG is being created to >>> > > ensure that each operational community's interests are properly >>> > > represented to the Trust, which will own the IPR. The Trust is >>> > > undertaking to manage this IPR according to the needs and wishes of >>> > > the various communities, consistent with the Trust's >>> > responsibilities >>> > > in respect of the IPR. >>> > > >>> > >> 3. The leap from the IETF Trust to directing ICANN - as >>> > indicated in the draft Letter of Instruction - has not been >>> > explained. As far as I can see, the small number of delegates to >>> > the CCG (Representatives and Co-Chairs, including apparently >>> > ourselves) have no mandate to direct ICANN about anything. What is >>> > the eventual scope of these instructions? >>> > > >>> > > The scope -- which I believe is already completely outlined in the >>> > > relevant documents for the IPR issues -- is to advise and direct the >>> > > Trust about the appropriate use of the IPR for a given community's >>> > > needs. In the case of the names community, this necessarily >>> > involves >>> > > instructing both ICANN and PTI about specific uses of the IANA >>> > > trademarks and the iana.org <http://iana.org> domain name (and >>> > maybe some others, but >>> > > iana.org <http://iana.org> is the bit one). >>> > > >>> > >> 4. I would agree to your suggestion that some tutorials >>> > might be in order. If so, these should take place well before >>> > anything is finalised, and after public consultation (see 1. above) >>> > >> Thus it is perhaps premature to demand that ICANN accept the >>> > draft Letter of Instructions. >>> > > >>> > > In my opinion, claiming that this is "premature" suggests that the >>> > > issues have not been completely vented in the CWG. Given the amount >>> > > of time that's already been spent on this issue, I am a little >>> > worried >>> > > (not to say alarmed) at the suggestion that more time is >>> > needed. The >>> > > IPR transfer and the resulting arrangements for each community >>> > need in >>> > > fact to be in place in a week, assuming the transition is to >>> > happen on >>> > > schedule. I don't really understand why there could be any >>> > confusion >>> > > about this. >>> > > >>> > > Best regards, >>> > > >>> > > A >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > Andrew Sullivan >>> > > ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>> > > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>> > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> > <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 >>> >>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

1 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Letter of instruction from the CWG to ICANN regarding the IANA IPR Community Agreement.
by Seun Ojedeji Sept. 25, 2016

Sept. 25, 2016

Hello, 1. While ICANN agreed to sign "on behalf" I don't think they have agreed to sign "on behalf" as per the text in the letter. However it seem Greg is now confirming that ICANN has indeed agreed to the terms for signing "on behalf" which is good to know. 2. There is really nothing wrong with raising observations and all that we should do is provide clarification. It doesn't have to degenerate to imply incompetence of the person asking/raising an opinion. 3. I earlier raised an observation about the inclusion of the following "...hereafter affirm in writing..." and I suggested that section wasn't necessary. Since it is included, I hope a letter/note has also been sent to the CO to provide their affirmation in writing. 4. I don't know how this letter is binding on anyone especially as it's been signed by CWG and not by COs who are in turn members of EC. However, i would only just hope that since/if ICANN agree then both sides will keep to terms. For avoidance of doubt, None of the above implies delaying this process by any means. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 25 Sep 2016 7:02 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: Avri, It's certainly my understanding that all has been completed on the letter and that ICANN can sign it. There is nothing missing. There is one non-substantive change suggested by Chuck Gomes that could be made, which would slightly improve the readability of the letter (spelling out "Community Coordination Group" the first time it is used, instead of saying "CCG"). Whether or not this is done, the letter is ready to be signed. I don't think any significant confusion came out of the meeting itself. After the meeting, one participant (who appears not to have kept up with the CWG's work) started an exchange on this thread raising a number of 12th hour objections. This exchange may have created an appearance of more general confusion. The confusion is actually quite isolated, as far as I can tell. Andrew Sullivan and I both responded with explanations, which I thought cleared up any confusion on the very minor subject of this "letter of instruction." The high-level explanation is this: The "Names Community" is a party to the Community Agreement (relating to the IANA IPR). The Names Community needs a legal entity to sign the Agreement on its behalf, because there is no existing legal entity that encompasses the Names Community. ICANN was asked if it could perform the limited function of signing on behalf of the Names Community. ICANN said that it could. The "Letter of Instruction" formally instructs ICANN to sign on behalf of the Names Community and sets out the parameters of ICANN's limited role as signatory. This is needed because signing the Agreement without any explanation makes it look like ICANN has full authority and discretion to act as the Names Community under the Agreement. The rest of the discussion turned to the effects (if any) of this confusion, both on implementing our work and on the composition of the CCG. In my view, this confusion has absolutely no effect on implementing our work. If working group results could be undone after the fact by a single confused participant, ICANN probably would not even exist. Greg On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:22 PM, avri doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I have gotten lost in this discussion. > > Has all been completed on the letter? Can ICANN sign if the transition > is freed to move ahead? > > If not, what is missing? I unfortunately missed the last meeting, but > am amazed at the confusion that came out of that meeting. > > thanks > > avri > > > On 25-Sep-16 01:58, Greg Shatan wrote: > > Milton, > > > > I don't think any one person can be in a position to hold up this > > process. This is the end result of an exhaustive (and exhausting) > > multistakeholder process. We put in months (really, years) of > > thorough and well-considered work on the IPR issues alone. This > > involved a significant group of stakeholders (in this case, across the > > names, protocol parameters and numbers communities). The result of > > this work has been put through the public comment process, and fully > > agreed and brought to conclusion with the broad support of diverse > > stakeholders. > > > > It would make a mockery of the multistakeholder process to allow any > > one person to hold up implementation at this point, when the work is > > done. > > > > In working groups, we do try to be open to questions and opinions from > > all angles, sometimes to a fault. This is especially true early on, > > when it's important to consider all viewpoints. But we are far, far > > past that point. Our decisions have been made. Our commitments are > > clear. It's time to get it done. > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton(a)gatech.edu > > <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: > > > > I am not sure I understand why someone who clearly does not > > understand what is going on in the IPR transition process, and who > > actually never seemed to understand what IANA is, should be in a > > position to hold up this process. > > > > Milton L Mueller > > Professor, School of Public Policy > > Georgia Institute of Technology > > > > > On Sep 24, 2016, at 18:45, Andrew Sullivan > > <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote: > > > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > > > As usual, I note that I am a trustee of the IETF Trust, and I do > not > > > wish anyone to understand that I am promoting any IETF or Trust > > > interest here. But I am concerned that we not delay the > > transition by > > > organizational mmisunderstanding. In particular, > > > > > >> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:03:43AM +0200, Christopher Wilkinson > > wrote: > > >> 2. I understand that the CCG has been 'created' to regulate > > the relationships between the Naming Community and the IETF Trust, > > thus the interest in IPR. > > > > > > I think it would be better to say that the CCG is being created to > > > ensure that each operational community's interests are properly > > > represented to the Trust, which will own the IPR. The Trust is > > > undertaking to manage this IPR according to the needs and wishes of > > > the various communities, consistent with the Trust's > > responsibilities > > > in respect of the IPR. > > > > > >> 3. The leap from the IETF Trust to directing ICANN - as > > indicated in the draft Letter of Instruction - has not been > > explained. As far as I can see, the small number of delegates to > > the CCG (Representatives and Co-Chairs, including apparently > > ourselves) have no mandate to direct ICANN about anything. What is > > the eventual scope of these instructions? > > > > > > The scope -- which I believe is already completely outlined in the > > > relevant documents for the IPR issues -- is to advise and direct > the > > > Trust about the appropriate use of the IPR for a given community's > > > needs. In the case of the names community, this necessarily > > involves > > > instructing both ICANN and PTI about specific uses of the IANA > > > trademarks and the iana.org <http://iana.org> domain name (and > > maybe some others, but > > > iana.org <http://iana.org> is the bit one). > > > > > >> 4. I would agree to your suggestion that some tutorials > > might be in order. If so, these should take place well before > > anything is finalised, and after public consultation (see 1. above) > > >> Thus it is perhaps premature to demand that ICANN accept the > > draft Letter of Instructions. > > > > > > In my opinion, claiming that this is "premature" suggests that the > > > issues have not been completely vented in the CWG. Given the > amount > > > of time that's already been spent on this issue, I am a little > > worried > > > (not to say alarmed) at the suggestion that more time is > > needed. The > > > IPR transfer and the resulting arrangements for each community > > need in > > > fact to be in place in a week, assuming the transition is to > > happen on > > > schedule. I don't really understand why there could be any > > confusion > > > about this. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > A > > > > > > -- > > > Andrew Sullivan > > > ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > > > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> > > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship> > > _______________________________________________ > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > <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 > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > 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

2 1

Notes, Recordings, Transcript for CWG IANA Meeting #93 - 22 September
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 22, 2016

Sept. 22, 2016

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #93 on 22 September 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/9AS4Aw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Action Items · ACTION (chairs): confirm via email to ICG that CWG is ready to sign the IANA IPR agreements Notes 1. Status Update (Jonathan) · Still working towards Sep 30 transition date · ICANN Board approved Naming function contract and Services agreement · PTI board seated: Jonathan Robinson , Lise Fuhr, Akram Atallah, David Conrad, Elise Gerich 2. Implementation Update (Trang) · IANA IPR agreements finalized · IETF Trust signature later today · ICANN Board will meet next week to approve the agreements 3. Key Issues IANA IPR topics to be discussed today: · Confirm the definition of the Names community · Composition of CCG reps · Effective date of the IANA IPR agreements Effective date of the IANA IPR agreements: · Reviewed language proposed · Transfer of IPR has to be bound to the transition · Important to get the agreements signed now, to show that we are ready · Sunset date may not be ideal, but seems to be the compromise that all parties agreed to. · CWG agrees with the language. Definition of the Names community: · Reviewed proposed definition of the Names community · No objections from the group. Nomination of CCG Reps: · Call for volunteers issued last week · 3 volunteers responses received: Maarten Simon, Christopher Wilkinson, Greg Shatan · ccNSO nominated Maarten Simon for 1 year · CCG reps can resign at the time of their choice · No objection from group. · Greg Shatan, Maarten Simon and Christopher Wilkinson are nominated, with Greg Shatan as co-chair. Signature of the agreement: · Confirm that CWG is ready to sign the IANA IPR agreements · ACTION (chairs): confirm via email to ICG that CWG is ready to sign the IANA IPR agreements AOB · Suggestion to issue an official note to indicate that CWG has completed its work for the transition · No further CWG calls scheduled

1 0

FW: [Iana-ipr] Effective date text
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 22, 2016

Sept. 22, 2016

All, Please be aware of the text below which we will discuss in the CWG meeting later today. Thank-you, Jonathan From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: 22 September 2016 01:22 To: iana-ipr(a)nro.net Subject: [Iana-ipr] Effective date text This is the text for consideration on Thursday: This Agreement will become effective on the date (“Effective Date”) that the IANA functions contract between NTIA and ICANN ends or is terminated, provided that date occurs before February 1, 2017. If such ending or termination has not occurred by February 1, 2017, this Agreement shall automatically terminate without further action of the Parties. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, no Party shall have the right to revoke or terminate this Agreement prior to the Effective Date. In the event that the CWG finds consensus around this tomorrow, I have edited all of the agreements to reflect this (attached). I also deleted the word “Draft” in the header on the first page and updated the date, in case these become the final documents for approval tomorrow. I will circulate clean versions in a separate email. Alissa

1 0

Agenda for CWG Meeting (22 September 2016 @14:00 UTC)
by Yuko Green Sept. 22, 2016

Sept. 22, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship, Below, please find the agenda for the CWG meeting on 22 September 2016 at 14:00 UTC: 1. Status Update (Chairs) 2. Implementation Update * Staff update 3. Key Issues (with Sidley) * IANA IPR 4. Client Committee 5. AOB Please note in the item 3 for IANA IPR, we will need to ratify the definition of the Names Community as it currently stands in the instruction letter: "This letter confirms the request of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions ("CWG") for the benefit of those of its listed chartering organizations - the Country Code Names Supporting Organization ("ccNSO"), the Security and Stability Advisory Committee ("SSAC"), the Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO"), the At Large Advisory Committee ("ALAC") and the Governmental Advisory Committee ("GAC") - that have affirmed or hereafter affirm in writing that they agree to be included herein (each a "Consenting SO/AC" and collectively, the "Names Community") that ICANN serve as the signatory for the Names Community under the Community Agreement." 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/>

4 3

CCG Representatives - Call for Nominations
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

All, During the course of the past few CWG meetings, we have discussed the appointment of CCG Representatives from the Naming Community (see Attached). We now have a revised version of the appointment letter (also attached) As you will recall, we need three named representatives, one of whom will be a co-chair. There are no specific skill sets defined for the reps but discussions have centred around three areas of knowledge / expertise: 1. Familiarity with and understanding of the work of this CWG to date i.e. the CWG IANA Stewardship. 2. Specific familiarity with and understanding of the work of the CWG as it relates to the IANA intellectual property rights. 3. General intellectual property expertise / experience only required for the CCG Rep that will serve in the role as CCG Co-Chair. At the last meeting, we agreed that we could work with a temporary solution which would entail appointing the two CWG Co-chairs (Lise Fuhr & myself) as well as Greg Shatan (as CCG Co-Chair). If we do not receive nominations / volunteers, we will work with this solution until the next available opportunity to make a change, likely the next ICANN meeting. However, there were reservations expressed about the above and it was felt to be desirable to see if we could find alternative nominations / volunteers to the above, particularly with respect to replacing Lise & myself. Finally, my understanding is that we have agreed that the two CCG Reps (other than the c-chair) should derive one from each of the ccTLD and gTLD communities. There is no such stipulation with regard to the CCG Co-Chair. This is a call for nominations (or self-nominations) for individuals willing to serve as CCG Reps. If any nominees do have specific intellectual property experience (which may qualify them as a current or future CCG co-chair) that will be helpful to highlight. Therefore, in the nomination, please state: - Name - Affiliation to ccTLD OR gTLD community - Specific intellectual property experience (Yes or no) Please provide nominations to the CWG IANA mailing list by 23h59 UTC on Tuesday 20 September 2016. Thank-you. Jonathan On behalf of the co-chairs Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson

5 8

PTI Board Appointment
by Yuko Green Sept. 20, 2016

Sept. 20, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship, On 15 September 2016, ICANN Board appointed Akram Atallah, David Conrad, Lise Fuhr, Elise Gerich and Jonathan Robinson as Initial Directors of PTI. For more information, please refer to below link for Board's resolution: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-09-15-en#2.d 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