It was my understanding that the text of this letter was already agreed by the CWG.  In any event, I find the tone of the letter unexceptional and fit for purpose.  This is a "letter of instruction" which needs to clearly state that ICANN will act at the direction of the Names Community, so avoiding the terms "instruction" and "direction" would be counterproductive.

I think that the IANA IPR agreements are quite clear that they cannot be used as end-run around the separation procedures; I don't think there's any need to state that here, particularly because paragraph 5(e) exists only to state that the CCG and not ICANN will provide any notices under Section 5(e).

It's not necessary to define CCG here as the letter states "Any capitalized terms used but not defined in this letter agreement have the meanings set forth in the Community Agreement." That said, I can see from Steve Crocker's note that it would be preferable to define CCG here, since it is an important term to understanding the letter and we certainly have enough other definitions in the letter anyway.  So I would support changing the letter to do that (if it can still be done at this point).

As for the bigger picture, I do agree that there should be guidelines for the names community CCG reps, and (separately) procedures for the activities of the CCG.  (IETF and RIRs will want to draft their own procedures for how they deal with their reps).

Greg




On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good evening:

Thankyou. Noted. I look forward to working with you in this matter. 
Meanwhile, I would have a few suggestions regarding the draft letter.

- Style: the general tone sounds unnecessarily aggressive which might not be conducive to cooperation in the future.
Could we avoid 'instructs' and 'directs' without unduly diluting the underlying intentions?

- Separation: those clauses which refer to possible separation of the Names Community from the IETF Trust, and thus from ICANN and IANA, should be expressly qualified by reference to the agreed EEE procedure set out in the Transition proposal. Paragraph 5e of the draft letter refers. Articles 5 and 6 of the IETF License agreement also refer to this and should be qualified in the same way.

More generally, the Community Agreement, the Naming Functions Agreement and the IETF Trust License Agreement cannot provide for an 'end-run' as against the agreed procedures for an eventual separation decision by the Community, as set out in the Transition proposal.

- Accountability and Transparency:  It would be desirable in the near future to agree guidelines as to the accountability of the Co-Chairs and Representatives in the CCG and transparency about how the positions that they may be called upon to support have been adopted.

- Definitions: please include an explanation as to what is the CCG.

Regards

CW



On 23 Sep 2016, at 19:28, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:

Dear Trang,
 
Please can you accept the attached letter of instruction from the CWG to ICANN regarding the IANA IPR Community Agreement.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
 
 
Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson
For and on behalf of the CWG IANA Stewardship Transition
<Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.docx>