Dear All

The  idea that ICANN SIGN ON BEHALF OF Names Community was legally wrong

There must be

  1. Names community establish an unincorporated associated

  2. That association could sign on behalf names community or

  3. That association e could delegate its authority to a third legal entity to sign on its behalf

You over simplifying the matter and propose CUT & PASTE approach

If CWG on its legal existence as established by its charter decides to request ICANN to sign the Co-Chairs need to write a request the draft of which must be approved by CWG first in a call and second on mailing list then sending that request to ICANN and ICANN formally reply to that in writing.

That is the process

NO CUT & PASTE

However, the formulation that I proposed is a mid way between the two and has legal validity

Regards

Kavouss


2016-08-12 8:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
What is wrong with my formulation
Yes CWG Client did that but CWG did not
kavouss


2016-08-12 7:49 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:

We made the request Kavous, I was even the one that raised the question and the request was sent to ICANN legal by the cwg client.

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 11 Aug 2016 10:49 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Seun
YOU MISSED MY Argument
It is said At the request of CWG....
We have not MADE SUCH REQUEST BY cwg.
It was fabricated as such
I disagree with that
No formal request made to ICANN and no reply received from the Board
There was no Board's Member at the meeting and staff does not have such right to put in Our mouth a text .
I disagree
However, I proposed the following formulation .
At the request  MADE AT CWG CALL ,,,.,,, ICANN .....
It means that the request is limited as being made at that call only
That does not change the substance but reflects the reality
Kavouss

2016-08-11 23:35 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:

"...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


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