Hello,

Thanks for the share, looking at one of the 2 cons of option 2l; "Involves some challenges for ICANN to
act as the licensee and also as the representative of the Names Community under the Community Agreement."

As i understand the above, there is no legal barrier if ICANN signs? if that is the case then i think what would then be important is to make sure that CCG members are indeed those selected by the names community. Otherwise it may be good to know what "challenges" is referred to above.

Ultimately the entity that signs only commits to support and be responsible for whoever is acting, this is why i believe ICANN signing may be more appropriate and also for obvious reasons stated in the pro.

As per how to select members of CCG, a suggestion would be to create a CWG-like group (i.e in composition) and then have the group select three co-chairs amongst themselves who then automatically becomes members of the CCG. The charter of that group can be developed to ensure that the act of the co-chairs is based on the consensus view of the group (just like we have in the current cwg).

Regards

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

All,

Please see below and attached for information from Sidley regarding potential signatories to the IANA IPR Community Agreement.

Greg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Flanagan, Sharon <sflanagan@sidley.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Subject: [client com] Signatory to the Community Agreement
To: "jrobinson@afilias.info" <jrobinson@afilias.info>
Cc: Client <cwg-client@icann.org>

Dear Client Committee,

Attached is a table highlighting some of the advantages and disadvantages of the various potential signatories to the IPR community agreement.

Best regards,

Sharon

SHARON R. FLANAGAN

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
+1 415 772 1271
sflanagan@sidley.com

From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 3:25 AM
To: Flanagan, Sharon; Hofheimer, Joshua T.
Cc: Gregory, Holly; Client
Subject: Signatory to the Community Agreement

Dear Sidley,

As you are aware:

1.      A key issue for the CWG in dealing with the IANA IPR will be a decision on the signatory on behalf of the Names Community.

2.      Currently we have some potential options:

a.      ICANN as signatory (assuming ICANN is willing)

b.      The formation of an unincorporated entity (a to be defined)

c.      Other possibilities such as the Empowered Community

It will be helpful to the CWG to have some structured input on this, possibly in the form of a table, in order to inform and aid that decision.

Please can you provide such input and/or advice and indicate if this will be possible at the meeting of the CWG scheduled for tomorrow (18 August) @ 06h00 UTC.

Thank-you,

Jonathan

(on behalf of the Client Committee)

****************************************************************************************************
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@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!