I oppose  to that formulation .

I can not agree that CWG requested .

What is CWG ,.

WE HAVE VERY FEW PEOPLE

HOW YOU COULD TALK ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE GROUP.

There was no consensus on that . In fact we have not requested ICANN

pLS SHOW ME THE TEXT OF THE REQUEST

We must not mislead the community

We must telling the truth

One again with clear and convincing evidence or with convincing evidence for the reasons that I have mentioned

What you are saying is your understanding $

I do not share that understanding

It seems to me that whatever I say or I propose you  categorically oppose to that

There must be some other reasons that I do not know

Kavouss

2016-08-11 23:10 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:

I'm sorry you feel that way.  What is your objection to the sentence you deleted?

As for the position that the sentence was needed in order to put ICANN's name as the signatory -- that was ICANN's position.  We could not put ICANN's name in the document without a statement like the one in that sentence.  If we did not do that, we would not have been asking for comment on ICANN  as a potential signatory.

On the more general question of the decisional processes, I'll leave that to the co-chairs.  

I will note that requiring 60 participants in the CWG to affirmatively approve a sentence in a footnote that clearly says it is not a final decision of the CWG does not strike me as a viable working method.

I will also note that only a single objection was stated, among all those on the call and reading the list.  Since we do not operate by full consensus, this does not strike me as a viable basis to accept the objection, since that would place the objection above all of the non-objections and expressions of support.

Further, this needs to be considered in context.  There is considerable value in seeking public comment on ICANN as the potential signatory.  This needed to be weighed against concerns expressed that would have prevented that outcome, which was broadly supported on the call.

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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