- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Agenda for CWG IANA Meeting #92 (15 September @06:00 UTC)
by Nathalie Vergnolle Sept. 15, 2016

Sept. 15, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship, Please find below the agenda for CWG IANA Meeting #92, scheduled on 15 September at 06:00 UTC. 1. Status Update (Chairs) 2. Implementation Update * Staff update 3. Key Issues (with Sidley) * Naming functions agreement * Services agreement * IANA IPR 4. Client Committee 5. AOB Also find attached several documents drafted by Sidley, in relation to IANA IPR, namely a new version of the letter of instruction from CWG to ICANN re: Community Agreement, as well as CCG representative appointment letters, for your review prior to the CWG's call. Thank you, Nathalie. Direct line: +1-310-578-8957 Mobile: +1-310-938-1037 Skype: nathalie.vergnolle.icann Jabber: nathalie.vergnolle(a)jabber.icann.org

3 2

CCG Reps for names community
by Seun Ojedeji Sept. 14, 2016

Sept. 14, 2016

Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 10 Sep 2016 9:05 a.m., "Brenda Brewer" <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> wrote: > Discussed selection of CCG representatives. > Suggestion that CWG co-chairs act as interim CCG reps until a process is figured out by the chartering organizations. > SO: Like I raised on the call, I think we may be putting too much responsibilities on the Co-Chairs who are volunteers. I expect quite a lot of developmental/setup activity will commence once these various groups are formed, which may imply significant amount of time commitment. I will like to suggest we select other members within the CWG to serve as interim instead. However, whoever we select should include someone from the intellectual property constituency as I think this would be their area of strength. The interims should agree to report to the CWG/COs and make decisions based on their approval. > ACTION (Client committee): instruct Sidley to draft a letter of appointment of CCG reps. > SO: I left the room during this discussion, does the action above imply that it has been concluded that we use the Co-Chairs? If that is the case, I suggest a third interim member is selected from the intellectual property constituency. On a much lighter note, i hope it has been clarified that there is no possible conflict in having PTI board members serve as CCG members. Regards > 5. AOB > > IRP will be functional by the time of the transition > > ACTION (CGWG): monitor development of IRP > > Next meeting 15 Sep @06:00UTC > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >

5 18

FW: CWG IANA Stewardship Comment
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 12, 2016

Sept. 12, 2016

All, Please be aware of the CWG comment which was submitted on last Friday, 9 September. Lise and Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 09 September 2016 17:34 To: 'comments-iana-naming-10aug16(a)icann.org' <comments-iana-naming-10aug16(a)icann.org> Subject: CWG IANA Stewardship Comment

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Reps for names community
by Seun Ojedeji Sept. 11, 2016

Sept. 11, 2016

FWIW, my suggestion to include someone from IPC is highly based on the required skills for the job and I thought the IPC would readily have such people (considering the urgency to put an interim in place). It's also conditioned on the expectation that the CCG members will always "report to" and rely on the CO in their decision making. As at today, I remain one of the CWG member from ALAC. With due respect Kavouss, please do not make accusations that lacks fact. By the way, I checked the meaning of the word "smeared" and I don't think it was appropriate to use such word to describe my contribution. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 10 Sep 2016 8:45 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: Jonathan, I do not understand the argument of Seun that all of the sudden he becomes smeared supporter of Intellectual property. I do not understand that nor the support of Chuck. I do not think that we need additional person at all Kavouss 2016-09-10 16:51 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>: > Seun, > > > > Please note that the drafting of the letter of appointment (as per the > action you refer to) does not in any way pre-suppose the names of the > actual appointees. > > > > As the call records will show, I put a strawman out for the IANA IPR Group > as the initial appointees for the CCG reps; 2 x Co-chairs (of CWG) plus > Greg Shatan (as CCG Co-Chair). > > > > Any other suggestions / proposals are clearly very welcome. > > > > Jonathan > > > > *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] > *Sent:* 10 September 2016 13:51 > *To:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>; Brenda Brewer < > brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> > *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Reps for names community > > > > Seun, > > > > Note that it was suggested that Greg Shatan serve as one of the interim > CCG members; if we do that, it clearly would satisfy your recommendation > that “a third interim member is selected from the intellectual property > constituency”. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce > s(a)icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Seun > Ojedeji > *Sent:* Saturday, September 10, 2016 4:46 AM > *To:* Brenda Brewer > *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Reps for names community > > > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On 10 Sep 2016 9:05 a.m., "Brenda Brewer" <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Discussed selection of CCG representatives. > > Suggestion that CWG co-chairs act as interim CCG reps until > a process is figured out by the chartering organizations. > > > > SO: Like I raised on the call, I think we may be putting too much > responsibilities on the Co-Chairs who are volunteers. I expect quite a lot > of developmental/setup activity will commence once these various groups are > formed, which may imply significant amount of time commitment. I will like > to suggest we select other members within the CWG to serve as interim > instead. However, whoever we select should include someone from the > intellectual property constituency as I think this would be their area of > strength. The interims should agree to report to the CWG/COs and make > decisions based on their approval. > > > ACTION (Client committee): instruct Sidley to draft a letter > of appointment of CCG reps. > > > > SO: I left the room during this discussion, does the action above imply > that it has been concluded that we use the Co-Chairs? If that is the case, > I suggest a third interim member is selected from the intellectual property > constituency. > > On a much lighter note, i hope it has been clarified that there is no > possible conflict in having PTI board members serve as CCG members. > > Regards > > > 5. AOB > > > > IRP will be functional by the time of the transition > > > > ACTION (CGWG): monitor development of IRP > > > > Next meeting 15 Sep @06:00UTC > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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

2 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Reps for names community
by Seun Ojedeji Sept. 10, 2016

Sept. 10, 2016

Thanks Chuck and Jonathan. Jonathan's suggestion is fine so long as the Co-Chairs are okay with it, as I think it may be asking too much from volunteers. Putting other people instead distributes the workload and improves diversity. Overall my preference would have been not to put members of the PTI Board on CCG. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 10 Sep 2016 15:51, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> wrote: Seun, Please note that the drafting of the letter of appointment (as per the action you refer to) does not in any way pre-suppose the names of the actual appointees. As the call records will show, I put a strawman out for the IANA IPR Group as the initial appointees for the CCG reps; 2 x Co-chairs (of CWG) plus Greg Shatan (as CCG Co-Chair). Any other suggestions / proposals are clearly very welcome. Jonathan *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] *Sent:* 10 September 2016 13:51 *To:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>; Brenda Brewer < brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Reps for names community Seun, Note that it was suggested that Greg Shatan serve as one of the interim CCG members; if we do that, it clearly would satisfy your recommendation that “a third interim member is selected from the intellectual property constituency ”. Chuck *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces(a)icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Saturday, September 10, 2016 4:46 AM *To:* Brenda Brewer *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Reps for names community Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 10 Sep 2016 9:05 a.m., "Brenda Brewer" <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> wrote: > Discussed selection of CCG representatives. > Suggestion that CWG co-chairs act as interim CCG reps until a process is figured out by the chartering organizations. > SO: Like I raised on the call, I think we may be putting too much responsibilities on the Co-Chairs who are volunteers. I expect quite a lot of developmental/setup activity will commence once these various groups are formed, which may imply significant amount of time commitment. I will like to suggest we select other members within the CWG to serve as interim instead. However, whoever we select should include someone from the intellectual property constituency as I think this would be their area of strength. The interims should agree to report to the CWG/COs and make decisions based on their approval. > ACTION (Client committee): instruct Sidley to draft a letter of appointment of CCG reps. > SO: I left the room during this discussion, does the action above imply that it has been concluded that we use the Co-Chairs? If that is the case, I suggest a third interim member is selected from the intellectual property constituency. On a much lighter note, i hope it has been clarified that there is no possible conflict in having PTI board members serve as CCG members. Regards > 5. AOB > > IRP will be functional by the time of the transition > > ACTION (CGWG): monitor development of IRP > > Next meeting 15 Sep @06:00UTC > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript for CWG IANA Meeting #91 - 8 September
by Brenda Brewer Sept. 10, 2016

Sept. 10, 2016

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #91 on 8 September 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/-BOsAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items * ACTION (staff): forward final edits to Sidley for inclusion in the version of the Naming functions agreement to be submitted as public comment. * ACTION (Chairs): review cover letter and submit public comment for Naming functions agreement. * ACTION (ICANN Legal): Propose language around seconded employees and methodology for cost development for inclusion in the Services agreement. * ACTION (Sidley): Conforming change re Section 4.7 need to be made in Annex A, Section 1.d.iii of the Services agreement. * ACTION (CWG): Any additional comments on the Services agreement should be submitted by CWG before Monday 12 Sep @midnight UTC. * ACTION (Chairs): circulate redlined version of the IANA IPR community agreement to CWG mailing list, and communicate presented process (for submission of public comment) at the same time. * ACTION (CWG): Continue discussion on the CWG mailing list for determination of initial CCG reps. * ACTION (Client committee): instruct Sidley to draft a letter of appointment of CCG reps. * ACTION (CGWG): monitor development of IRP Notes 1. Status Update (Jonathan) * NTIA sent letter on 31 Aug. * New versions of Naming functions and Services agreements circulated to CWG mailing list yesterday * Naming function agreement public comment period ends tomorrow, Aug 09 2. Implementation Update (Trang) * Presented status update slide 3. Key issues 3.1 Naming functions agreement * Plan is to send a redline version of the agreement as public comment from CWG. * Language of section 4.7 has been edited on the mailing list. ACTION (staff): forward final edits to Sidley for inclusion in the version of the Naming functions agreement to be submitted as public comment. * No further issues remain. * Reviewed Cover letter drafted by Sidley for submission of the public comment. ACTION (Chairs): review cover letter and submit public comment for Naming functions agreement. 3.2 Services agreement ACTION (ICANN Legal): Propose language around seconded employees and methodology for cost development for inclusion in the Services agreement. * No other issues requiring input from CWG according to Sidley * Discussed section 3.3.b ACTION (Sidley): Conforming change re Section 4.7 need to be made in Annex A, Section 1.d.iii of the Services agreement. ACTION (CWG): Any additional comments on the Services agreement should be submitted by CWG before Monday 12 Sep @midnight UTC. 3.3 IANA IPR * Status update provided by Greg Shatan on instruction letter. * Reviewed redlined instruction letter. * A redline version of the community agreement has been worked on between 3 OCs and IETF trust and will be posted as public comment. * No additional comments from CWG. ACTION (Chairs): circulate redlined version of the IANA IPR community agreement to CWG mailing list, and communicate presented process (for submission of public comment) at the same time. * Discussed selection of CCG representatives. * Suggestion that CWG co-chairs act as interim CCG reps until a process is figured out by the chartering organizations. ACTION (CWG): Continue discussion on the CWG mailing list for determination of initial CCG reps. ACTION (Client committee): instruct Sidley to draft a letter of appointment of CCG reps. 5. AOB * IRP will be functional by the time of the transition ACTION (CGWG): monitor development of IRP * Next meeting 15 Sep @06:00UTC

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement
by Burr, Becky Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

I want to step back and explain why this change was offered and why it is important. There is a fundamental problem with the reference to the GAC Principles in Section 4.7 of the Naming Functions Agreement. Section 4.7 lists the “policies” that IANA is required to apply. Simply put, the GAC Principles are important GAC Advice – but they are not ICANN policy. They have never been considered by any of the policy development bodies authorized in the ICANN Bylaws, and they have not been adopted by the ICANN Board. The ccTLD participants who offered the revised wording attempted to address the problem adding a clear link back to the GAC’s own language in Section 1.3. Alternatively, you could simply remove the GAC Principles from the list of applicable “policies.” J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: <Lindeberg>, Elise <elise.lindeberg(a)Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no>> Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 9:33 AM To: "Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, "trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>" <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement +1, Jorge Elise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sendt: 1. september 2016 09:21 Til: trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>; CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement Thanks for this info. May we be informed why the solution offered to the discussion on 4.7. (how to best refer to the 2005 GAC Principles) apparently ignores the comments made by several members and participants of this group, while it takes up the suggestions made by other participants? Thanks and regards Jorge Von: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Trang Nguyen Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. September 2016 05:49 An: CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> Betreff: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] Naming Function Agreement All, Forwarding email from Sidley regarding the the Naming Function Agreement for your review. Best, Trang From: <cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:32 PM To: Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>>, "jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, 'Lise Fuhr' <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> Subject: [client com] Naming Function Agreement Dear Client Committee, Attached please find a revised draft of the Naming Function Agreement, marked against the version ICANN put out for public comment. This draft reflects the negotiation of various items between ICANN and Sidley, as well as ICANN’s response to the comments provided previously by Paul Kane, Becky Burr and other CWG participants. ICANN has prepared an chart reflecting a number of items for which it is seeking confirmation from the CWG Client Committee that the particular item may be considered closed out. Although the chart appears lengthy, that is merely because it contains the historical context of discussion for each item. ICANN plans to review these items on the call tomorrow, and for our part, Sidley has no further edits to request if the CWG is satisfied with ICANN’s proposed handling of the matters on the chart. Thank you, Josh JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER Partner SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP +1 650 565 7561 (PA direct) +1 213 896 6061 (LA direct) +1 323 708 2405 (Cell) jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com&d=DQMFAw…> [SIDLEY] **************************************************************************************************** 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. ****************************************************************************************************

7 19

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX
by Seun Ojedeji Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

Greg, I think there may be some confusion here. I am referring to the letter we are sending to ICANN which was included in this thread(that currently has the Co-Chairs as signatory, attaching for convenience). Ofcourse i was one of those who believe that the EC isn't setup to sign the main agreement and that's why i proposed(or supported) we use ICANN for that, assuming they agree. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 8 Sep 2016 03:59, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: The Chartering Organizations aren't legal entities, so they can't be signatories to the Community Agreement (whether by their Chairs or otherwise). Signing this agreement would not be in scope for the Empowered Community, so that doesn't work either. We have a legal entity that will be the signatory -- ICANN, which I believe has already agreed to do so. (Similarly, the IETF is not a legal entity, but rather an "activity" of ISOC, so I believe ISOC will be signing on behalf of the IETF as the "Protocol Parameters Community.") I don't know whether we *need* formal Chartering Organization approval for this set-up. That said, it would probably be good to inform the COs of this set-up and see if there are any objections. Greg On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Chuck, > > I think item 1 is required, though it may perhaps be good to hear from > ICANN first on whether they would accept to act on behalf subject to the > conditions stated(or a modification of it), before reaching the COs for an > ack. > > On another note, assuming we are not constraint on timing, it may be > better for the Chair(s)(or their representatives in the EC) of the CO to > sign the agreement instead. This would however not be possible until the EC > is formerly setup. That would give more formality to it and may also > address part of Kavouss concern which I sense is around getting an entity > to sign. > > Regards > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On 6 Sep 2016 15:14, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: > >> Pending input from Sidley, this looks pretty good to me. I do have two >> very important questions, assuming the CWG supports this letter of >> instruction as modified by Greg and any subsequent revisions proposed by >> Sidley: >> >> 1. Won’t we have to get approval from the ccNSO, SSAC, GNSO, ALAC >> and GAC in advance of sending the letter? >> >> 2. Realizing that each of the five organizations have their own >> approval processes that can take considerable time, how will we get all >> five approvals in the very short window we have? >> >> >> >> If the answer to question 1 is affirmative, I think we need to start >> working on question 2 immediately. >> >> >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce >> s(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan >> *Sent:* Monday, September 05, 2016 8:47 PM >> *To:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to >> ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX >> >> >> >> All, >> >> >> >> I've given a good deal of thought to this Letter of Instruction and how >> the Names Community will operate under the Community Agreement. >> >> >> >> The Community Agreement allows each of the Operational Communities to >> communicate to the IETF Trust through the CCG Co-Chair appointed by that >> community. Given this ability, it's actually unnecessary to route any of >> the Names Community's actions through ICANN (as signatory) after the >> appointment of the Names Community co-chair. >> >> >> >> We really only need ICANN to do two things -- sign the agreement and >> communicate the appointment of the CCG Representatives (including the >> Co-Chair). Routing other actions through ICANN just causes unnecessary >> complications. >> >> >> >> In order to implement this working model, I've proposed fairly extensive >> changes to the Letter of Instruction. I'm attaching a clean copy (easier >> to read) as well as a track changes copy (to show the changes). The >> original version is also attached for convenience. >> >> >> >> We will still need to appoint the CCG reps, and figure out how the CWG >> (and the Chartering Organization Co-Chairs, when there is no CCG) instructs >> the CCG reps, and how the CCG reps carry out their duties generally. But >> that is not part of this Letter of Instruction. >> >> >> >> I look forward to comments. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *Hofheimer, Joshua T.* <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com> >> Date: Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:05 AM >> Subject: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community >> Agreement.DOCX >> To: Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, >> "jrobinson(a)afilias.info" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>, Lise Fuhr < >> lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> >> Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan(a)sidley.com>, "Resnick, Yael" < >> yresnick(a)sidley.com>, "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com>, >> "Grapsas, Rebecca" <rebecca.grapsas(a)sidley.com> >> >> Dear Client Committee, >> >> >> >> Attached is a draft letter of instruction from the “Names Community” to >> ICANN regarding it acting as the signatory to the Community Agreement. Per >> the instruction from CWG, namely that we pursue Scenario 1 from the prior >> Sidley memo, we have drafted this request to come from the CWG co-chairs, >> and look to Greg Shatan to help with the description of the “Names >> Community”. We look forward to discussing on our call on Thursday. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Josh >> >> >> >> *JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER* >> Partner >> >> *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP* >> +1 650 565 7561 (PA direct) >> +1 213 896 6061 (LA direct) >> +1 323 708 2405 (Cell) >> jhofheimer(a)sidley.com >> www.sidley.com >> >> *[image: SIDLEY]* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ************************************************************ >> **************************************** >> 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-Stewardship mailing list >> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >>

5 6

FW: [client com] Action items from last CWG Call and next call agenda
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

All, Please see the following and attached in advance of our call later today. Jonathan (on behalf of the Client Committee) From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. [mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com] Sent: 08 September 2016 06:54 To: Yuko Green <yuko.green(a)icann.org>; Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Cc: Resnick, Yael <yresnick(a)sidley.com>; Flanagan, Sharon <sflanagan(a)sidley.com>; Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com>; jrobinson(a)afilias.info; 'Lise Fuhr' <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Subject: RE: [client com] Action items from last CWG Call and next call agenda Dear Client Committee, Attached please find the following documents in advance of the call tomorrow (7 attachments total): 1. Naming Functions Agreement – Clean and Redline marked against the last version shared with CWG on August 31. 2. Draft Comment Letter from the CWG Co-Chairs to accompany the posting of the Naming Function Agreement redline in the public comment period. 3. Services Agreement – Clean and Redline against ICANN’s initial draft. 4. Letter of Instruction to ICANN re the Community Agreement – Clean and Track Change Redline showing the changes proposed by Greg Shatan to the prior Sidley draft, and some additional edits by Sidley on top of Greg’s. Regarding the Letter of Instruction: * We agree with the additional revisions proposed by Greg to emphasize the decision-making authority of the CCG Representatives of the Names Community, rather than ICANN, with respect to the limited activity contemplated under the Community Agreement. * As noted by Sidley previously, and discussed and agreed on the Client Committee call two weeks ago, though the CWG is not a legal entity, it has been acting on behalf of the chartering organizations for some time now, and using this letter may be the most efficient approach to facilitate the transition. This is especially true if ICANN enters into the letter and agrees to be bound by its terms, which presumably could be enforced by the EC through removal of the ICANN Board if something egregious happened in the future. * We incorporated the definition of the Names Community, but added a modification to enable affirmation pre- or post-transition by the various SO/ACs. This would help manage the difficult timing that the CWG faces now in September. * Based on prior discussions among the CWG members and our own review of the legal issues, on balance it does not appear to us to add much value to have the CWG organize itself into a legal, unincorporated association just for the purpose of instructing ICANN to sign the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. Leaving aside the practical question whether the members and stakeholders want CWG to survive, if CWG were to become a legal entity, then it also could sign the Community Agreement directly on behalf of the Names Community, rather than insert ICANN as an intermediary. Finally, aside from finalizing the above drafts, the three CCG Representatives (one of whom will also be named the co-chair from Names) still need to be selected for the Community Agreement. Thank you and speak with you tomorrow. Cheers, Josh Joshua Hofheimer Sidley Austin LLP jhofheimer(a)sidley.com <mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> (213) 896-6061 (LA direct) (650) 565-7561 (Palo Alto direct) (323) 708-2405 (cell) From: Yuko Green [mailto:yuko.green@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:37 PM To: Hofheimer, Joshua T.; Client Committee Cc: Resnick, Yael; Flanagan, Sharon; Gregory, Holly; jrobinson(a)afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> ; 'Lise Fuhr'; Greg Shatan Subject: RE: [client com] Action items from last CWG Call and next call agenda Thank you Josh for the updates. We will await for your e-mail with updated documents from later today. Regards, Yuko From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. [mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 1:27 PM To: Yuko Green <yuko.green(a)icann.org <mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> >; Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org> > Cc: Resnick, Yael <yresnick(a)sidley.com <mailto:yresnick@sidley.com> >; Flanagan, Sharon <sflanagan(a)sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> >; Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> >; jrobinson(a)afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> ; 'Lise Fuhr' <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk <mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk> >; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Subject: RE: [client com] Action items from last CWG Call and next call agenda Yuko – We are working with ICANNon some final proposed revisions and should be able to circulate revised drafts of the Naming Function Agreement and Services Agreement, and issues list if needed, sometime today. We also are going to be sending a revised draft of the instruction letter with a few edits on top of the draft Greg circulated earlier. Unfortunately, I am only going to be available tomorrow for the first hour, so perhaps we can cover any open items on the Naming Function Agreement and Services Agreement in that time period. Sharon will also be on the call, and either of us can assist with discussion of the Instruction Letter and Names Community definition (with Sharon leading if it spills into the second hour). Cheers, Josh Joshua Hofheimer Sidley Austin LLP jhofheimer(a)sidley.com <mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> (213) 896-6061 (LA direct) (650) 565-7561 (Palo Alto direct) (323) 708-2405 (cell) From: cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Yuko Green Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:17 PM To: Client Committee Subject: Re: [client com] Action items from last CWG Call and next call agenda Dear Sidley team, I am following up on below e-mail, as we have a CWG meeting scheduled for tomorrow at 14:00 UTC. Regards, Yuko From: cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Yuko Green Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 1:08 PM To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org> > Subject: [client com] Action items from last CWG Call and next call agenda Dear Sidley team, On behalf of the CWG Co-Chairs, I am following up on 2 action items from the last CWG calls: * (ICANN Legal / Sidley): provide CWG with a revised version of the Naming functions agreement including today's points before next CWG call. --> Will the redline and CWG comment submission letter be ready to be distributed to the CWG prior to the Thursday’s call? * (Sidley): propose some revised language [for definition of Names community for the IANA IPR agreement] on the basis of the feedback received by the group today. --> Will this be ready to be distributed to the CQG prior to the Thursday’s call? For your reference, here is the agenda for this Thursday’s CWG meeting (08 September @ 14:00 UTC): 1. Status Update (Chairs) 2. Implementation Update * Staff update 3. Key Issues (with Sidley) * Naming Functions Agreement * Services Agreement * IANA IPR 4. Client Committee 5. AOB 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: <mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> yuko.green(a)icann.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DQMFAg…> www.icann.org **************************************************************************************************** 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

Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX
by Greg Shatan Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

All, I've given a good deal of thought to this Letter of Instruction and how the Names Community will operate under the Community Agreement. The Community Agreement allows each of the Operational Communities to communicate to the IETF Trust through the CCG Co-Chair appointed by that community. Given this ability, it's actually unnecessary to route any of the Names Community's actions through ICANN (as signatory) after the appointment of the Names Community co-chair. We really only need ICANN to do two things -- sign the agreement and communicate the appointment of the CCG Representatives (including the Co-Chair). Routing other actions through ICANN just causes unnecessary complications. In order to implement this working model, I've proposed fairly extensive changes to the Letter of Instruction. I'm attaching a clean copy (easier to read) as well as a track changes copy (to show the changes). The original version is also attached for convenience. We will still need to appoint the CCG reps, and figure out how the CWG (and the Chartering Organization Co-Chairs, when there is no CCG) instructs the CCG reps, and how the CCG reps carry out their duties generally. But that is not part of this Letter of Instruction. I look forward to comments. Best regards, Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com> Date: Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:05 AM Subject: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX To: Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, " jrobinson(a)afilias.info" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>, Lise Fuhr < lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan(a)sidley.com>, "Resnick, Yael" < yresnick(a)sidley.com>, "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com>, "Grapsas, Rebecca" <rebecca.grapsas(a)sidley.com> Dear Client Committee, Attached is a draft letter of instruction from the “Names Community” to ICANN regarding it acting as the signatory to the Community Agreement. Per the instruction from CWG, namely that we pursue Scenario 1 from the prior Sidley memo, we have drafted this request to come from the CWG co-chairs, and look to Greg Shatan to help with the description of the “Names Community”. We look forward to discussing on our call on Thursday. Cheers, Josh *JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER* Partner *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP* +1 650 565 7561 (PA direct) +1 213 896 6061 (LA direct) +1 323 708 2405 (Cell) jhofheimer(a)sidley.com www.sidley.com *[image: SIDLEY]* ************************************************************ **************************************** 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. ************************************************************ ****************************************

3 3