"...*ICANN** has indicated that it could serve as the counterparty to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community*..." I did not stay all through the meeting so may have missed that part where ICANN confirmed this, It's good to know. FWIW, I believe Greg's text accurately captures the current status. Regards On 11 Aug 2016 17:16, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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