I agree that we cannot say “the entire CWG has unanimously or by consensus requested ICANN to do so”; moreover I don’t think anyone has said that. All we did was to put one option on the table for public comment.

Chuck

From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 2:05 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Burr, Becky
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community

Dear All,

I understand that we did have a blocking points that who could sign for Names Community

I also understand that someone propose that we put ICANN

Similarly I understood that ICANN STAFF indicated that without being requested they hesitate to self-nomination

Then someone proposed the following:
“ At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated ……”

What I am saying is from the procedural view we cannot say immediately after such suggestion the entire CWG has unanimously or by consensus requested ICANN to do so since ,there was no such request was made by CWG to ICANN to sign on our behalf.

However, we could resolve the matter by just instead of CWG we say CWG call ,,,,,

That formulation is reflect what has spontaneously happened

That is all

REGARDS

Kavouss

2016-08-12 7:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

Go ahead with that 20 supporte

Regards

KAVOUSS

2016-08-12 1:10 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>:

20 support > 1 opposed especially considering no one else opposed.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 4:53 PM
To: Greg Shatan
Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community

I am sorry , once again we state something which does not reflect the reality.

20 people shall not represent the entire community

You taking an unfair position and pushing for your own position

WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS INAPPROPRIATE.

Your unilateral conclusions supported by Beckie and Andrew DID GET THE AGREEMENT OF THE ENTIRE 130 PEOPLE of CWG

we need to have at least 60 participants

I am not going to get in another battle with any one

We fabricate a conclusion which is false and untrue

regards

Kavouss

2016-08-11 19:32 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:

Kavouss, thank you for your comment. However, Andrew is correct, so we can't delete that sentence and still include ICANN as the proposed signatory. I regret that your comment cannot be accommodated.

As Andrew also notes, this is the last open item before the documents are set out for public comment. So that the process may move forward, I've now sent the proposed signatory and the footnote to the IANA IPR email list so the documents can be finalized and distributed.

Greg

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

Sam was quite clear that the agreement to put ICANN in there requires
a note that this was at the request of the CWG.

A

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 06:42:49PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Grec
> This is my suggestion
> Kavouss
> *CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the signatory
> to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. ICANN has been
> included in this draft. ICANN (or another counterparty) would be subject
> to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.*
>
> 2016-08-11 18:16 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
>
> > All,
> >
> > As discussed, the following is the proposed footnote to accompany the
> > inclusion of ICANN (in square brackets to indicate the non-final nature of
> > that proposal) as the potential signatory to the Community Agreement on
> > behalf of the Names Community.
> >
> > This will need to be finalized in the next 1-2 hours so that the documents
> > can be put out for public comment today. No objections were heard on
> > today's call. Any violent objections or genius revisions should be sent in
> > reply to this email.
> >
> > *CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the signatory
> > to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. At the
> > request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated that it could serve as
> > the counterparty to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names
> > Community and ICANN has been included in this draft. ICANN (or another
> > counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined by
> > CWG-Stewardship.*
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >
> >

> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship