Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
Seun, I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a clean Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see what was the changes introduced by Greg I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. Regards Kavouss 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
A word version was included in Greg's mail
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Grec, Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with some of them In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, pls provide a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
CWG,
I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments you may have, I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email below: (1) identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) providing a brief description of the IANA Services used by the names community ( *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other communities).
This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR collaborative group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public comment period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on Thursday.
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org>
Dear Client Committee,
Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement for your review and comment. This is an iterative version prepared jointly by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust to reflect the 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in progress, but we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review.
Two important issues to highlight:
1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the signatory party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the Community Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the organizations put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols Communities; and
2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be provided on behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level description was included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If this is acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we ask the Client Committee to provide a sufficient description):
The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of:
(a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone Management* ”);
(b) Management of the .INT top-level domain;
(c) Maintenance of a repository of internationalized domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and
(d) Provision of other services related to the management of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and at ICANN’s expense.
Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, as we are trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various stakeholders and release for public comment by Thursday.
Thank you in advance.
Cheers,
Josh
*Joshua Hofheimer*
*Sidley Austin LLP*
*jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>*
*(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)*
*(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)*
*(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)*
*From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh and I have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that it reflects the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for your review and discussion.
A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft of 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached.
Please note a few items that still need to be completed, including the description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the CCG representatives, etc.
Best regards,
Jorge
Jorge L. Contreras
Contreras Legal Strategy LLC
1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710
Washington, DC 20036
contreraslegal@att.net
The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message immediately.
************************************************************ **************************************** 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-client mailing list Cwg-client@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
_______________________________________________ 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
I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be bad. Best regards, A On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Seun, I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a clean Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see what was the changes introduced by Greg I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
A word version was included in Greg's mail
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Grec, Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with some of them In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, pls provide a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
CWG,
I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments you may have, I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email below: (1) identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) providing a brief description of the IANA Services used by the names community ( *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other communities).
This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR collaborative group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public comment period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on Thursday.
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org>
Dear Client Committee,
Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement for your review and comment. This is an iterative version prepared jointly by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust to reflect the 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in progress, but we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review.
Two important issues to highlight:
1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the signatory party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the Community Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the organizations put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols Communities; and
2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be provided on behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level description was included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If this is acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we ask the Client Committee to provide a sufficient description):
The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of:
(a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone Management* ”);
(b) Management of the .INT top-level domain;
(c) Maintenance of a repository of internationalized domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and
(d) Provision of other services related to the management of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and at ICANN’s expense.
Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, as we are trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various stakeholders and release for public comment by Thursday.
Thank you in advance.
Cheers,
Josh
*Joshua Hofheimer*
*Sidley Austin LLP*
*jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>*
*(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)*
*(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)*
*(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)*
*From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh and I have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that it reflects the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for your review and discussion.
A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft of 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached.
Please note a few items that still need to be completed, including the description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the CCG representatives, etc.
Best regards,
Jorge
Jorge L. Contreras
Contreras Legal Strategy LLC
1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710
Washington, DC 20036
contreraslegal@att.net
The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message immediately.
************************************************************ **************************************** 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-client mailing list Cwg-client@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Dear Andrew, Tks again for your kind reply. Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC Regards Kavouss 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>:
I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be bad.
Best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Seun, I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a clean Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see what was the changes introduced by Greg I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
A word version was included in Greg's mail
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
wrote:
Grec, Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with some of them In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, pls provide a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
CWG,
I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments you may have, I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email below: (1) identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) providing a brief description of the IANA Services used by the names community ( *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other communities).
This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR collaborative group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public comment period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on Thursday.
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org>
Dear Client Committee,
Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement for your review and comment. This is an iterative version prepared jointly by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust to reflect the 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in progress, but we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review.
Two important issues to highlight:
1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the signatory party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the Community Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the organizations put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols Communities; and
2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be provided on behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level description was included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If this is acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we ask the Client Committee to provide a sufficient description):
The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of:
(a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone Management* ”);
(b) Management of the .INT top-level domain;
(c) Maintenance of a repository of internationalized domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and
(d) Provision of other services related to the management of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and at ICANN’s expense.
Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, as we are trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various stakeholders and release for public comment by Thursday.
Thank you in advance.
Cheers,
Josh
*Joshua Hofheimer*
*Sidley Austin LLP*
*jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>*
*(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)*
*(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)*
*(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)*
*From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh and I have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that it reflects the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for your review and discussion.
A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft of 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached.
Please note a few items that still need to be completed, including the description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the CCG representatives, etc.
Best regards,
Jorge
Jorge L. Contreras
Contreras Legal Strategy LLC
1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710
Washington, DC 20036
contreraslegal@att.net
The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message immediately.
************************************************************ **************************************** 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-client mailing list Cwg-client@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Hello Kavous, An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Andrew, Tks again for your kind reply. Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>:
I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be bad.
Best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Seun, I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a clean Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see what was the changes introduced by Greg I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
A word version was included in Greg's mail
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Grec, Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with some of them In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, pls provide a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
CWG,
I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments you may have, I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email below: (1) identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) providing a brief description of the IANA Services used by the names community ( *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other communities).
This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR collaborative group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public comment period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on Thursday.
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org>
Dear Client Committee,
Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement for your review and comment. This is an iterative version prepared jointly by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust to reflect the 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in progress, but we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review.
Two important issues to highlight:
1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the signatory party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the Community Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the organizations put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols Communities; and
2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be provided on behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level description was included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If this is acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we ask the Client Committee to provide a sufficient description):
The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of:
(a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone Management* ”);
(b) Management of the .INT top-level domain;
(c) Maintenance of a repository of internationalized domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and
(d) Provision of other services related to the management of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and at ICANN’s expense.
Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, as we are trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various stakeholders and release for public comment by Thursday.
Thank you in advance.
Cheers,
Josh
*Joshua Hofheimer*
*Sidley Austin LLP*
*jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>*
*(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)*
*(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)*
*(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)*
*From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh and I have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that it reflects the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for your review and discussion.
A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft of 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached.
Please note a few items that still need to be completed, including the description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the CCG representatives, etc.
Best regards,
Jorge
Jorge L. Contreras
Contreras Legal Strategy LLC
1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710
Washington, DC 20036
contreraslegal@att.net
The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message immediately.
************************************************************ **************************************** 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-client mailing list Cwg-client@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Seun NO PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION Regards Kavouss 2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Hello Kavous,
An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well)
Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Andrew, Tks again for your kind reply. Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>:
I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be bad.
Best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Seun, I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a clean Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see what was the changes introduced by Greg I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
A word version was included in Greg's mail
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Grec, Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with some of them In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, pls provide a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
> CWG, > > I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement > relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments you may have, > I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email below: (1) > identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) providing a > brief description of the IANA Services used by the names community ( > *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other communities). > > This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR collaborative > group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public comment > period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on Thursday. > > Greg > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> > Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM > Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 > To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org> > > > Dear Client Committee, > > > > Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement > for your review and comment. This is an iterative version prepared jointly > by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust to reflect the > 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in progress, but > we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. > > > > Two important issues to highlight: > > 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the signatory > party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the Community > Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the organizations > put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols Communities; and > > 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be provided on > behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level description was > included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If this is > acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we ask the Client > Committee to provide a sufficient description): > > > > The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: > > (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone Management* > ”); > > (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; > > (c) Maintenance of a repository of internationalized > domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and > > (d) Provision of other services related to the management > of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and at ICANN’s > expense. > > Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, as we are > trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various stakeholders and > release for public comment by Thursday. > > > > Thank you in advance. > > > > Cheers, > > Josh > > > > *Joshua Hofheimer* > > *Sidley Austin LLP* > > *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* > > *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* > > *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* > > *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* > > > > *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On > Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras > *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM > *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net > *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 > > > > All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh and I > have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that it reflects > the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for your review and > discussion. > > > > A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft of > 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. > > > > Please note a few items that still need to be completed, including the > description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the CCG > representatives, etc. > > > > Best regards, > > Jorge > > > > Jorge L. Contreras > > Contreras Legal Strategy LLC > > 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 > > Washington, DC 20036 > > contreraslegal@att.net > > > > The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and > confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this > message immediately. > > > > > > ************************************************************ > **************************************** > 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-client mailing list > Cwg-client@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Dear ALL I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss 2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Seun NO PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Hello Kavous,
An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well)
Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Andrew, Tks again for your kind reply. Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>:
I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be bad.
Best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Seun, I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a clean Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see what was the changes introduced by Greg I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
A word version was included in Greg's mail
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Grec, > Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with some of them > In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, pls provide > a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient > Regards > Kavouss > > > 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>: > >> CWG, >> >> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement >> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments you may have, >> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email below: (1) >> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) providing a >> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names community ( >> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other communities). >> >> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR collaborative >> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public comment >> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on Thursday. >> >> Greg >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> >> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 >> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org> >> >> >> Dear Client Committee, >> >> >> >> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement >> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version prepared jointly >> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust to reflect the >> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in progress, but >> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >> >> >> >> Two important issues to highlight: >> >> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the signatory >> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the Community >> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the organizations >> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols Communities; and >> >> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be provided on >> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level description was >> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If this is >> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we ask the Client >> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >> >> >> >> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >> >> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone Management* >> ”); >> >> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >> >> (c) Maintenance of a repository of internationalized >> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >> >> (d) Provision of other services related to the management >> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and at ICANN’s >> expense. >> >> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, as we are >> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various stakeholders and >> release for public comment by Thursday. >> >> >> >> Thank you in advance. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Josh >> >> >> >> *Joshua Hofheimer* >> >> *Sidley Austin LLP* >> >> *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* >> >> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >> >> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >> >> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >> >> >> >> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On >> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net >> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 >> >> >> >> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh and I >> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that it reflects >> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for your review and >> discussion. >> >> >> >> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft of >> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >> >> >> >> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, including the >> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the CCG >> representatives, etc. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Jorge >> >> >> >> Jorge L. Contreras >> >> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >> >> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >> >> Washington, DC 20036 >> >> contreraslegal@att.net >> >> >> >> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and >> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this >> message immediately. >> >> >> >> >> >> ************************************************************ >> **************************************** >> 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-client mailing list >> Cwg-client@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust). I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list. Greg On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear ALL
I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com');>>:
Seun NO PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','seun.ojedeji@gmail.com');>>:
Hello Kavous,
An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well)
Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com');>> wrote:
Dear Andrew, Tks again for your kind reply. Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ajs@anvilwalrusden.com');>>:
I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be bad.
Best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Seun, I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a clean Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see what was the changes introduced by Greg I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','seun.ojedeji@gmail.com');>>:
> A word version was included in Greg's mail > > Regards > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com');>> > wrote: > >> Grec, >> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with some of them >> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, pls provide >> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>>: >> >>> CWG, >>> >>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement >>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments you may have, >>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email below: (1) >>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) providing a >>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names community ( >>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other communities). >>> >>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR collaborative >>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public comment >>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on Thursday. >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jhofheimer@sidley.com');>> >>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 >>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client@icann.org');>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Client Committee, >>> >>> >>> >>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement >>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version prepared jointly >>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust to reflect the >>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in progress, but >>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>> >>> >>> >>> Two important issues to highlight: >>> >>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the signatory >>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the Community >>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the organizations >>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols Communities; and >>> >>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be provided on >>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level description was >>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If this is >>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we ask the Client >>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>> >>> >>> >>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>> >>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone Management* >>> ”); >>> >>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>> >>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of internationalized >>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>> >>> (d) Provision of other services related to the management >>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and at ICANN’s >>> expense. >>> >>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, as we are >>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various stakeholders and >>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you in advance. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Josh >>> >>> >>> >>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>> >>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>> >>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jhofheimer@sidley.com');> < jhofheimer@sidley.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jhofheimer@sidley.com');>>* >>> >>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>> >>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>> >>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net');> [mailto: iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net');>] *On >>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','iana-ipr@nro.net');> >>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 >>> >>> >>> >>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh and I >>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that it reflects >>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for your review and >>> discussion. >>> >>> >>> >>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft of >>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, including the >>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the CCG >>> representatives, etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jorge >>> >>> >>> >>> Jorge L. Contreras >>> >>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>> >>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>> >>> Washington, DC 20036 >>> >>> contreraslegal@att.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','contreraslegal@att.net');> >>> >>> >>> >>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and >>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this >>> message immediately. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ************************************************************ >>> **************************************** >>> 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-client mailing list >>> Cwg-client@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Cwg-client@icann.org');> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ajs@anvilwalrusden.com');>
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss 2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear ALL
I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Seun NO PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Hello Kavous,
An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well)
Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Andrew, Tks again for your kind reply. Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>:
I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be bad.
Best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Seun, > I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a clean > Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see what was > the changes introduced by Greg > I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. > Regards > Kavouss > > 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: > > > A word version was included in Greg's mail > > > > Regards > > > > Sent from my LG G4 > > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > > > On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Grec, > >> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with some of them > >> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, pls provide > >> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient > >> Regards > >> Kavouss > >> > >> > >> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>: > >> > >>> CWG, > >>> > >>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement > >>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments you may have, > >>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email below: (1) > >>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) providing a > >>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names community ( > >>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other communities). > >>> > >>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR collaborative > >>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public comment > >>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on Thursday. > >>> > >>> Greg > >>> > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> > >>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM > >>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 > >>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear Client Committee, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement > >>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version prepared jointly > >>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust to reflect the > >>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in progress, but > >>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Two important issues to highlight: > >>> > >>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the signatory > >>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the Community > >>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the organizations > >>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols Communities; and > >>> > >>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be provided on > >>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level description was > >>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If this is > >>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we ask the Client > >>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: > >>> > >>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone Management* > >>> ”); > >>> > >>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; > >>> > >>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of internationalized > >>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and > >>> > >>> (d) Provision of other services related to the management > >>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and at ICANN’s > >>> expense. > >>> > >>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, as we are > >>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various stakeholders and > >>> release for public comment by Thursday. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thank you in advance. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Josh > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *Joshua Hofheimer* > >>> > >>> *Sidley Austin LLP* > >>> > >>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* > >>> > >>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* > >>> > >>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* > >>> > >>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.n et] *On > >>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras > >>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM > >>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net > >>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh and I > >>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that it reflects > >>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for your review and > >>> discussion. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft of > >>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, including the > >>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the CCG > >>> representatives, etc. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Jorge > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Jorge L. Contreras > >>> > >>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC > >>> > >>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 > >>> > >>> Washington, DC 20036 > >>> > >>> contreraslegal@att.net > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and > >>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this > >>> message immediately. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ************************************************************ > >>> **************************************** > >>> 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-client mailing list > >>> Cwg-client@icann.org > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >> > >>
> _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
All, Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments. Greg On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear ALL
I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Seun NO PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Hello Kavous,
An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well)
Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Andrew, Tks again for your kind reply. Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>:
> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is > really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? > There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment > on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be > bad. > > Best regards, > > A > > On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > > Seun, > > I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a > clean > > Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see > what was > > the changes introduced by Greg > > I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. > > Regards > > Kavouss > > > > 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: > > > > > A word version was included in Greg's mail > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Sent from my LG G4 > > > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > > > > > On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < > kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Grec, > > >> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with > some of them > > >> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, > pls provide > > >> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient > > >> Regards > > >> Kavouss > > >> > > >> > > >> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com > >: > > >> > > >>> CWG, > > >>> > > >>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community > Agreement > > >>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments > you may have, > > >>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email > below: (1) > > >>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) > providing a > > >>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names > community ( > > >>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other > communities). > > >>> > > >>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR > collaborative > > >>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public > comment > > >>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on > Thursday. > > >>> > > >>> Greg > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> > > >>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM > > >>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: > 08-05-2016 > > >>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Dear Client Committee, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community > Agreement > > >>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version > prepared jointly > > >>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust > to reflect the > > >>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in > progress, but > > >>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Two important issues to highlight: > > >>> > > >>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the > signatory > > >>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the > Community > > >>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the > organizations > > >>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols > Communities; and > > >>> > > >>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be > provided on > > >>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level > description was > > >>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If > this is > > >>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we > ask the Client > > >>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: > > >>> > > >>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone > Management* > > >>> ”); > > >>> > > >>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; > > >>> > > >>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of > internationalized > > >>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and > > >>> > > >>> (d) Provision of other services related to the > management > > >>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and > at ICANN’s > > >>> expense. > > >>> > > >>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, > as we are > > >>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various > stakeholders and > > >>> release for public comment by Thursday. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Thank you in advance. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Cheers, > > >>> > > >>> Josh > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> *Joshua Hofheimer* > > >>> > > >>> *Sidley Austin LLP* > > >>> > > >>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* > > >>> > > >>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* > > >>> > > >>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* > > >>> > > >>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto: > iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On > > >>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras > > >>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM > > >>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net > > >>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: > 08-05-2016 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh > and I > > >>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that > it reflects > > >>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for > your review and > > >>> discussion. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft > of > > >>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, > including the > > >>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the > CCG > > >>> representatives, etc. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Best regards, > > >>> > > >>> Jorge > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Jorge L. Contreras > > >>> > > >>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC > > >>> > > >>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 > > >>> > > >>> Washington, DC 20036 > > >>> > > >>> contreraslegal@att.net > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged > and > > >>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please > delete this > > >>> message immediately. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ************************************************************ > > >>> **************************************** > > >>> 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-client mailing list > > >>> Cwg-client@icann.org > > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> 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 > > >> > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > > CWG-Stewardship@icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com >
Hi, Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust. I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday. It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so. Thanks and best regards, A On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear ALL
I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Seun NO PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Hello Kavous,
An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well)
Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Andrew, > Tks again for your kind reply. > Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. > I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC > Regards > Kavouss > > > 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>: > >> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >> bad. >> >> Best regards, >> >> A >> >> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> > Seun, >> > I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >> clean >> > Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >> what was >> > the changes introduced by Greg >> > I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >> > Regards >> > Kavouss >> > >> > 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: >> > >> > > A word version was included in Greg's mail >> > > >> > > Regards >> > > >> > > Sent from my LG G4 >> > > Kindly excuse brevity and typos >> > > >> > > On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> Grec, >> > >> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >> some of them >> > >> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >> pls provide >> > >> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >> > >> Regards >> > >> Kavouss >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >> >: >> > >> >> > >>> CWG, >> > >>> >> > >>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >> Agreement >> > >>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >> you may have, >> > >>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >> below: (1) >> > >>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >> providing a >> > >>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >> community ( >> > >>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >> communities). >> > >>> >> > >>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >> collaborative >> > >>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >> comment >> > >>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >> Thursday. >> > >>> >> > >>> Greg >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > >>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> >> > >>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >> > >>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >> 08-05-2016 >> > >>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Dear Client Committee, >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >> Agreement >> > >>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >> prepared jointly >> > >>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >> to reflect the >> > >>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >> progress, but >> > >>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Two important issues to highlight: >> > >>> >> > >>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >> signatory >> > >>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >> Community >> > >>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >> organizations >> > >>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >> Communities; and >> > >>> >> > >>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >> provided on >> > >>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >> description was >> > >>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >> this is >> > >>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >> ask the Client >> > >>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >> > >>> >> > >>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >> Management* >> > >>> ”); >> > >>> >> > >>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >> > >>> >> > >>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >> internationalized >> > >>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >> > >>> >> > >>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >> management >> > >>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >> at ICANN’s >> > >>> expense. >> > >>> >> > >>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >> as we are >> > >>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >> stakeholders and >> > >>> release for public comment by Thursday. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Thank you in advance. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Cheers, >> > >>> >> > >>> Josh >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >> > >>> >> > >>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >> > >>> >> > >>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* >> > >>> >> > >>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >> > >>> >> > >>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >> > >>> >> > >>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto: >> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On >> > >>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >> > >>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >> > >>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net >> > >>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >> 08-05-2016 >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >> and I >> > >>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >> it reflects >> > >>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >> your review and >> > >>> discussion. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >> of >> > >>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >> including the >> > >>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >> CCG >> > >>> representatives, etc. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Best regards, >> > >>> >> > >>> Jorge >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Jorge L. Contreras >> > >>> >> > >>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >> > >>> >> > >>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >> > >>> >> > >>> Washington, DC 20036 >> > >>> >> > >>> contreraslegal@att.net >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >> and >> > >>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >> delete this >> > >>> message immediately. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> ************************************************************ >> > >>> **************************************** >> > >>> 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-client mailing list >> > >>> Cwg-client@icann.org >> > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> _______________________________________________ >> > >>> 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 >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> > CWG-Stewardship@icann.org >> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> >> -- >> Andrew Sullivan >> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com >> > >
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
I for one trust the experts who have put this together. Unless others with comparable expertise can point out any significant problems, I am willing to trust those who are representing us. If there are any serious problems, we will have the public comment period to catch them. Chuck Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
Thanks and best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear ALL
I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Seun NO PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
> Hello Kavous, > > An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on > the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) > > Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version > then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. > > Regards > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Dear Andrew, >> Tks again for your kind reply. >> Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. >> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>: >> >>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >>> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >>> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >>> bad. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> A >>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>> Seun, >>>> I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >>> clean >>>> Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >>> what was >>>> the changes introduced by Greg >>>> I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >>>> Regards >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>>> A word version was included in Greg's mail >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>> >>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >>> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Grec, >>>>>> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >>> some of them >>>>>> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >>> pls provide >>>>>> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>> : >>>>>> >>>>>>> CWG, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >>> Agreement >>>>>>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >>> you may have, >>>>>>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >>> below: (1) >>>>>>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >>> providing a >>>>>>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >>> community ( >>>>>>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >>> communities). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >>> collaborative >>>>>>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >>> comment >>>>>>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >>> Thursday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> >>>>>>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>>>>>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Client Committee, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >>> Agreement >>>>>>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >>> prepared jointly >>>>>>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >>> to reflect the >>>>>>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >>> progress, but >>>>>>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Two important issues to highlight: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >>> signatory >>>>>>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >>> Community >>>>>>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >>> organizations >>>>>>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >>> Communities; and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >>> provided on >>>>>>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >>> description was >>>>>>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >>> this is >>>>>>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >>> ask the Client >>>>>>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >>> Management* >>>>>>> ”); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >>> internationalized >>>>>>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >>> management >>>>>>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >>> at ICANN’s >>>>>>> expense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >>> as we are >>>>>>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >>> stakeholders and >>>>>>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you in advance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Josh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto: >>> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On >>>>>>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>>>>>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net >>>>>>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >>> and I >>>>>>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >>> it reflects >>>>>>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >>> your review and >>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >>> of >>>>>>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >>> including the >>>>>>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >>> CCG >>>>>>> representatives, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jorge >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jorge L. Contreras >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Washington, DC 20036 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> contreraslegal@att.net >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >>> and >>>>>>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>> delete this >>>>>>> message immediately. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>>> **************************************** >>>>>>> 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-client mailing list >>>>>>> Cwg-client@icann.org >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Andrew Sullivan >>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Agree totally with you, in this, Chuck *Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ... *(CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr [image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me] <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> On 8 August 2016 at 13:32, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I for one trust the experts who have put this together. Unless others with comparable expertise can point out any significant problems, I am willing to trust those who are representing us. If there are any serious problems, we will have the public comment period to catch them.
Chuck
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
Thanks and best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear ALL
I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
> Seun > NO > PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. > WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION > Regards > Kavouss > > > 2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: > >> Hello Kavous, >> >> An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on >> the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) >> >> Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version >> then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. >> >> Regards >> >> Sent from my LG G4 >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >> >> On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Andrew, >>> Tks again for your kind reply. >>> Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. >>> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC >>> Regards >>> Kavouss >>> >>> >>> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan < ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>: >>> >>>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >>>> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >>>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >>>> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >>>> bad. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> A >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>>> Seun, >>>>> I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >>>> clean >>>>> Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >>>> what was >>>>> the changes introduced by Greg >>>>> I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >>>>> Regards >>>>> Kavouss >>>>> >>>>> 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com : >>>>> >>>>>> A word version was included in Greg's mail >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >>>> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Grec, >>>>>>> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >>>> some of them >>>>>>> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >>>> pls provide >>>>>>> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>>> : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CWG, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>> Agreement >>>>>>>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >>>> you may have, >>>>>>>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >>>> below: (1) >>>>>>>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >>>> providing a >>>>>>>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >>>> community ( >>>>>>>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >>>> communities). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >>>> collaborative >>>>>>>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >>>> comment >>>>>>>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >>>> Thursday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> >>>>>>>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>>>>>>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Client Committee, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>> Agreement >>>>>>>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >>>> prepared jointly >>>>>>>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >>>> to reflect the >>>>>>>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >>>> progress, but >>>>>>>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Two important issues to highlight: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >>>> signatory >>>>>>>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >>>> Community >>>>>>>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >>>> organizations >>>>>>>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >>>> Communities; and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >>>> provided on >>>>>>>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >>>> description was >>>>>>>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >>>> this is >>>>>>>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >>>> ask the Client >>>>>>>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >>>> Management* >>>>>>>> ”); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >>>> internationalized >>>>>>>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >>>> management >>>>>>>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >>>> at ICANN’s >>>>>>>> expense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >>>> as we are >>>>>>>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >>>> stakeholders and >>>>>>>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you in advance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Josh >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto: >>>> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On >>>>>>>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>>>>>>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net >>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >>>> and I >>>>>>>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >>>> it reflects >>>>>>>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >>>> your review and >>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >>>> of >>>>>>>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >>>> including the >>>>>>>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >>>> CCG >>>>>>>> representatives, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jorge >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jorge L. Contreras >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20036 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> contreraslegal@att.net >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >>>> and >>>>>>>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>>> delete this >>>>>>>> message immediately. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>>>> **************************************** >>>>>>>> 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-client mailing list >>>>>>>> Cwg-client@icann.org >>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Andrew Sullivan >>>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-- 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
Dear respectful Cheryl, Only If you commented on my amendment No one could claim as being expert in any field. This is a multistakeholder process and all participants has the rights and eligible to comment. If people have counter comments they could make it equally. I maintain my comments and disregard any unilateral claim That sone one considered herself or himself expert in any field I have not replied to some aggression made to me during Helsinki attempting to stop me from making commits Best regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 06:07, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Agree totally with you, in this, Chuck
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
On 8 August 2016 at 13:32, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: I for one trust the experts who have put this together. Unless others with comparable expertise can point out any significant problems, I am willing to trust those who are representing us. If there are any serious problems, we will have the public comment period to catch them.
Chuck
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
Thanks and best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear ALL > > I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed > Regards > Kavouss > > 2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: > >> Seun >> NO >> PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. >> WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: >> >>> Hello Kavous, >>> >>> An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on >>> the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) >>> >>> Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version >>> then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Sent from my LG G4 >>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>> >>> On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Andrew, >>>> Tks again for your kind reply. >>>> Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. >>>> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC >>>> Regards >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> >>>> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>: >>>> >>>>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >>>>> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >>>>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >>>>> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >>>>> bad. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> A >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>>>> Seun, >>>>>> I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >>>>> clean >>>>>> Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >>>>> what was >>>>>> the changes introduced by Greg >>>>>> I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>> >>>>>> 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> A word version was included in Greg's mail >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >>>>> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Grec, >>>>>>>> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >>>>> some of them >>>>>>>> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >>>>> pls provide >>>>>>>> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>>>> : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> CWG, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>>> Agreement >>>>>>>>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >>>>> you may have, >>>>>>>>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >>>>> below: (1) >>>>>>>>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >>>>> providing a >>>>>>>>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >>>>> community ( >>>>>>>>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >>>>> communities). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >>>>> collaborative >>>>>>>>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >>>>> comment >>>>>>>>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >>>>> Thursday. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> >>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>>>>>>>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Client Committee, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>>> Agreement >>>>>>>>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >>>>> prepared jointly >>>>>>>>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >>>>> to reflect the >>>>>>>>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >>>>> progress, but >>>>>>>>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Two important issues to highlight: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >>>>> signatory >>>>>>>>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >>>>> Community >>>>>>>>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >>>>> organizations >>>>>>>>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >>>>> Communities; and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >>>>> provided on >>>>>>>>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >>>>> description was >>>>>>>>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >>>>> this is >>>>>>>>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >>>>> ask the Client >>>>>>>>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >>>>> Management* >>>>>>>>> ”); >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >>>>> internationalized >>>>>>>>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >>>>> management >>>>>>>>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >>>>> at ICANN’s >>>>>>>>> expense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >>>>> as we are >>>>>>>>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >>>>> stakeholders and >>>>>>>>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you in advance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Josh >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto: >>>>> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On >>>>>>>>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>>>>>>>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >>>>> and I >>>>>>>>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >>>>> it reflects >>>>>>>>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >>>>> your review and >>>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >>>>> of >>>>>>>>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >>>>> including the >>>>>>>>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >>>>> CCG >>>>>>>>> representatives, etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jorge >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jorge L. Contreras >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20036 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> contreraslegal@att.net >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >>>>> and >>>>>>>>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>>>> delete this >>>>>>>>> message immediately. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>>>>> **************************************** >>>>>>>>> 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-client mailing list >>>>>>>>> Cwg-client@icann.org >>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Andrew Sullivan >>>>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-- 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear highly qualified top expert I disagree with you The natter is not a personal or a specific Group issue The case involve the entire community We must convince the participants Here we do not agree with a private club arrangement I strongly maintain my comments You said about your group!!!! What Group you are talking about. No one possess a particular group. We must respect people and their comments Pls be more kind and non aggressive Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 06:07, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Agree totally with you, in this, Chuck
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
On 8 August 2016 at 13:32, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: I for one trust the experts who have put this together. Unless others with comparable expertise can point out any significant problems, I am willing to trust those who are representing us. If there are any serious problems, we will have the public comment period to catch them.
Chuck
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
Thanks and best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear ALL > > I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed > Regards > Kavouss > > 2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: > >> Seun >> NO >> PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. >> WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: >> >>> Hello Kavous, >>> >>> An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on >>> the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) >>> >>> Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version >>> then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Sent from my LG G4 >>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>> >>> On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Andrew, >>>> Tks again for your kind reply. >>>> Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. >>>> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC >>>> Regards >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> >>>> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>: >>>> >>>>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >>>>> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >>>>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >>>>> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >>>>> bad. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> A >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>>>> Seun, >>>>>> I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >>>>> clean >>>>>> Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >>>>> what was >>>>>> the changes introduced by Greg >>>>>> I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>> >>>>>> 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> A word version was included in Greg's mail >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >>>>> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Grec, >>>>>>>> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >>>>> some of them >>>>>>>> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >>>>> pls provide >>>>>>>> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>>>> : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> CWG, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>>> Agreement >>>>>>>>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >>>>> you may have, >>>>>>>>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >>>>> below: (1) >>>>>>>>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >>>>> providing a >>>>>>>>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >>>>> community ( >>>>>>>>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >>>>> communities). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >>>>> collaborative >>>>>>>>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >>>>> comment >>>>>>>>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >>>>> Thursday. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> >>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>>>>>>>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Client Committee, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>>> Agreement >>>>>>>>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >>>>> prepared jointly >>>>>>>>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >>>>> to reflect the >>>>>>>>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >>>>> progress, but >>>>>>>>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Two important issues to highlight: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >>>>> signatory >>>>>>>>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >>>>> Community >>>>>>>>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >>>>> organizations >>>>>>>>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >>>>> Communities; and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >>>>> provided on >>>>>>>>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >>>>> description was >>>>>>>>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >>>>> this is >>>>>>>>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >>>>> ask the Client >>>>>>>>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >>>>> Management* >>>>>>>>> ”); >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >>>>> internationalized >>>>>>>>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >>>>> management >>>>>>>>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >>>>> at ICANN’s >>>>>>>>> expense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >>>>> as we are >>>>>>>>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >>>>> stakeholders and >>>>>>>>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you in advance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Josh >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto: >>>>> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On >>>>>>>>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>>>>>>>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >>>>> and I >>>>>>>>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >>>>> it reflects >>>>>>>>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >>>>> your review and >>>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >>>>> of >>>>>>>>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >>>>> including the >>>>>>>>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >>>>> CCG >>>>>>>>> representatives, etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jorge >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jorge L. Contreras >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20036 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> contreraslegal@att.net >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >>>>> and >>>>>>>>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>>>> delete this >>>>>>>>> message immediately. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>>>>> **************************************** >>>>>>>>> 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-client mailing list >>>>>>>>> Cwg-client@icann.org >>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Andrew Sullivan >>>>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-- 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I am not a ‘highly qualified top expert’ on this subject; that is one of the reasons why I am willing to accept the recommendations of those who have more expertise than I do. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 9:26 AM To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 Dear highly qualified top expert I disagree with you The natter is not a personal or a specific Group issue The case involve the entire community We must convince the participants Here we do not agree with a private club arrangement I strongly maintain my comments You said about your group!!!! What Group you are talking about. No one possess a particular group. We must respect people and their comments Pls be more kind and non aggressive Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 8 Aug 2016, at 06:07, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote: Agree totally with you, in this, Chuck Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr On 8 August 2016 at 13:32, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I for one trust the experts who have put this together. Unless others with comparable expertise can point out any significant problems, I am willing to trust those who are representing us. If there are any serious problems, we will have the public comment period to catch them. Chuck Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
Thanks and best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear ALL
I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Seun NO PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>:
> Hello Kavous, > > An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on > the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) > > Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version > then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. > > Regards > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> > wrote: > >> Dear Andrew, >> Tks again for your kind reply. >> Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. >> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>>: >> >>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >>> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >>> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >>> bad. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> A >>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>> Seun, >>>> I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >>> clean >>>> Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >>> what was >>>> the changes introduced by Greg >>>> I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >>>> Regards >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>: >>>> >>>>> A word version was included in Greg's mail >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>> >>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >>> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Grec, >>>>>> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >>> some of them >>>>>> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >>> pls provide >>>>>> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>>> : >>>>>> >>>>>>> CWG, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >>> Agreement >>>>>>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >>> you may have, >>>>>>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >>> below: (1) >>>>>>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >>> providing a >>>>>>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >>> community ( >>>>>>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >>> communities). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >>> collaborative >>>>>>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >>> comment >>>>>>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >>> Thursday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> >>>>>>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>>>>>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Client Committee, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >>> Agreement >>>>>>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >>> prepared jointly >>>>>>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >>> to reflect the >>>>>>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >>> progress, but >>>>>>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Two important issues to highlight: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >>> signatory >>>>>>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >>> Community >>>>>>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >>> organizations >>>>>>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >>> Communities; and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >>> provided on >>>>>>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >>> description was >>>>>>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >>> this is >>>>>>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >>> ask the Client >>>>>>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >>> Management* >>>>>>> ”); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >>> internationalized >>>>>>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >>> management >>>>>>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >>> at ICANN’s >>>>>>> expense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >>> as we are >>>>>>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >>> stakeholders and >>>>>>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you in advance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Josh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> <jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>>* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net<mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net> [mailto: >>> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net<mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net>] *On >>>>>>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>>>>>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net<mailto:iana-ipr@nro.net> >>>>>>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >>> and I >>>>>>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >>> it reflects >>>>>>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >>> your review and >>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >>> of >>>>>>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >>> including the >>>>>>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >>> CCG >>>>>>> representatives, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jorge >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jorge L. Contreras >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Washington, DC 20036 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> contreraslegal@att.net<mailto:contreraslegal@att.net> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >>> and >>>>>>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>> delete this >>>>>>> message immediately. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>>> **************************************** >>>>>>> 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-client mailing list >>>>>>> Cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:Cwg-client@icann.org> >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Andrew Sullivan >>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Cucke, But you could not reject my comments unless you make a value judgement which you should normally avoid. I suggest to discuss my comments Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 15:38, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I am not a ‘highly qualified top expert’ on this subject; that is one of the reasons why I am willing to accept the recommendations of those who have more expertise than I do.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 9:26 AM To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
Dear highly qualified top expert I disagree with you The natter is not a personal or a specific Group issue The case involve the entire community We must convince the participants Here we do not agree with a private club arrangement I strongly maintain my comments You said about your group!!!! What Group you are talking about. No one possess a particular group. We must respect people and their comments Pls be more kind and non aggressive Tks Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 06:07, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Agree totally with you, in this, Chuck
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
On 8 August 2016 at 13:32, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: I for one trust the experts who have put this together. Unless others with comparable expertise can point out any significant problems, I am willing to trust those who are representing us. If there are any serious problems, we will have the public comment period to catch them.
Chuck
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
Thanks and best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear ALL
I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
> Seun > NO > PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. > WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION > Regards > Kavouss > > > 2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: > >> Hello Kavous, >> >> An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on >> the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) >> >> Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version >> then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. >> >> Regards >> >> Sent from my LG G4 >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >> >> On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Andrew, >>> Tks again for your kind reply. >>> Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. >>> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC >>> Regards >>> Kavouss >>> >>> >>> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>: >>> >>>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >>>> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >>>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >>>> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >>>> bad. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> A >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>>> Seun, >>>>> I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >>>> clean >>>>> Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >>>> what was >>>>> the changes introduced by Greg >>>>> I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >>>>> Regards >>>>> Kavouss >>>>> >>>>> 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> A word version was included in Greg's mail >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >>>> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Grec, >>>>>>> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >>>> some of them >>>>>>> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >>>> pls provide >>>>>>> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>>> : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CWG, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>> Agreement >>>>>>>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >>>> you may have, >>>>>>>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >>>> below: (1) >>>>>>>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >>>> providing a >>>>>>>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >>>> community ( >>>>>>>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >>>> communities). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >>>> collaborative >>>>>>>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >>>> comment >>>>>>>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >>>> Thursday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> >>>>>>>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>>>>>>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Client Committee, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>> Agreement >>>>>>>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >>>> prepared jointly >>>>>>>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >>>> to reflect the >>>>>>>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >>>> progress, but >>>>>>>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Two important issues to highlight: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >>>> signatory >>>>>>>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >>>> Community >>>>>>>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >>>> organizations >>>>>>>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >>>> Communities; and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >>>> provided on >>>>>>>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >>>> description was >>>>>>>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >>>> this is >>>>>>>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >>>> ask the Client >>>>>>>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >>>> Management* >>>>>>>> ”); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >>>> internationalized >>>>>>>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >>>> management >>>>>>>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >>>> at ICANN’s >>>>>>>> expense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >>>> as we are >>>>>>>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >>>> stakeholders and >>>>>>>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you in advance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Josh >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto: >>>> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On >>>>>>>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>>>>>>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net >>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >>>> and I >>>>>>>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >>>> it reflects >>>>>>>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >>>> your review and >>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >>>> of >>>>>>>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >>>> including the >>>>>>>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >>>> CCG >>>>>>>> representatives, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jorge >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jorge L. Contreras >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20036 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> contreraslegal@att.net >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >>>> and >>>>>>>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>>> delete this >>>>>>>> message immediately. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>>>> **************************************** >>>>>>>> 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-client mailing list >>>>>>>> Cwg-client@icann.org >>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Andrew Sullivan >>>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-- 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear experts It is inappropriate and surprising that you self proclaimed highly top qualified expert CATEGORICALLY reject legitimate comments without even been debated? Pls be fair and kind Refard Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 06:07, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Agree totally with you, in this, Chuck
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
On 8 August 2016 at 13:32, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: I for one trust the experts who have put this together. Unless others with comparable expertise can point out any significant problems, I am willing to trust those who are representing us. If there are any serious problems, we will have the public comment period to catch them.
Chuck
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
Thanks and best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear ALL > > I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed > Regards > Kavouss > > 2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: > >> Seun >> NO >> PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. >> WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: >> >>> Hello Kavous, >>> >>> An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on >>> the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) >>> >>> Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version >>> then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Sent from my LG G4 >>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>> >>> On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Andrew, >>>> Tks again for your kind reply. >>>> Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. >>>> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC >>>> Regards >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> >>>> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>: >>>> >>>>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >>>>> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >>>>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >>>>> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >>>>> bad. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> A >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>>>> Seun, >>>>>> I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >>>>> clean >>>>>> Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >>>>> what was >>>>>> the changes introduced by Greg >>>>>> I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>> >>>>>> 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> A word version was included in Greg's mail >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >>>>> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Grec, >>>>>>>> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >>>>> some of them >>>>>>>> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >>>>> pls provide >>>>>>>> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>>>> : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> CWG, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>>> Agreement >>>>>>>>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >>>>> you may have, >>>>>>>>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >>>>> below: (1) >>>>>>>>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >>>>> providing a >>>>>>>>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >>>>> community ( >>>>>>>>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >>>>> communities). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >>>>> collaborative >>>>>>>>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >>>>> comment >>>>>>>>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >>>>> Thursday. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> >>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>>>>>>>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Client Committee, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>>> Agreement >>>>>>>>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >>>>> prepared jointly >>>>>>>>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >>>>> to reflect the >>>>>>>>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >>>>> progress, but >>>>>>>>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Two important issues to highlight: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >>>>> signatory >>>>>>>>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >>>>> Community >>>>>>>>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >>>>> organizations >>>>>>>>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >>>>> Communities; and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >>>>> provided on >>>>>>>>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >>>>> description was >>>>>>>>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >>>>> this is >>>>>>>>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >>>>> ask the Client >>>>>>>>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >>>>> Management* >>>>>>>>> ”); >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >>>>> internationalized >>>>>>>>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >>>>> management >>>>>>>>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >>>>> at ICANN’s >>>>>>>>> expense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >>>>> as we are >>>>>>>>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >>>>> stakeholders and >>>>>>>>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you in advance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Josh >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto: >>>>> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On >>>>>>>>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>>>>>>>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >>>>> and I >>>>>>>>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >>>>> it reflects >>>>>>>>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >>>>> your review and >>>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >>>>> of >>>>>>>>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >>>>> including the >>>>>>>>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >>>>> CCG >>>>>>>>> representatives, etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jorge >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jorge L. Contreras >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20036 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> contreraslegal@att.net >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >>>>> and >>>>>>>>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>>>> delete this >>>>>>>>> message immediately. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>>>>> **************************************** >>>>>>>>> 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-client mailing list >>>>>>>>> Cwg-client@icann.org >>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Andrew Sullivan >>>>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-- 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Kavous, I don’t think anyone is being unkind or unfair. In my case and I think Cheryl as well, we were just expressing our opinion just like you did. Disagreeing should not be deemed as ‘CATEGORICALLY rejecting”. It is up to the CWG to decide whether there is enough support to accept your views, not up to me or Cheryl. Chuck From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 9:31 AM To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Gomes, Chuck; <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>; Lise Fuhr; Andrew Sullivan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 Dear experts It is inappropriate and surprising that you self proclaimed highly top qualified expert CATEGORICALLY reject legitimate comments without even been debated? Pls be fair and kind Refard Sent from my iPhone On 8 Aug 2016, at 06:07, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote: Agree totally with you, in this, Chuck Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr On 8 August 2016 at 13:32, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I for one trust the experts who have put this together. Unless others with comparable expertise can point out any significant problems, I am willing to trust those who are representing us. If there are any serious problems, we will have the public comment period to catch them. Chuck Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
Thanks and best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear ALL
I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Seun NO PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>:
> Hello Kavous, > > An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on > the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) > > Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version > then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. > > Regards > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> > wrote: > >> Dear Andrew, >> Tks again for your kind reply. >> Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. >> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>>: >> >>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >>> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >>> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >>> bad. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> A >>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>> Seun, >>>> I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >>> clean >>>> Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >>> what was >>>> the changes introduced by Greg >>>> I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >>>> Regards >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>: >>>> >>>>> A word version was included in Greg's mail >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>> >>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >>> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Grec, >>>>>> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >>> some of them >>>>>> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >>> pls provide >>>>>> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>>> : >>>>>> >>>>>>> CWG, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >>> Agreement >>>>>>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >>> you may have, >>>>>>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >>> below: (1) >>>>>>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >>> providing a >>>>>>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >>> community ( >>>>>>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >>> communities). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >>> collaborative >>>>>>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >>> comment >>>>>>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >>> Thursday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> >>>>>>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>>>>>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Client Committee, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >>> Agreement >>>>>>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >>> prepared jointly >>>>>>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >>> to reflect the >>>>>>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >>> progress, but >>>>>>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Two important issues to highlight: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >>> signatory >>>>>>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >>> Community >>>>>>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >>> organizations >>>>>>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >>> Communities; and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >>> provided on >>>>>>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >>> description was >>>>>>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >>> this is >>>>>>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >>> ask the Client >>>>>>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >>> Management* >>>>>>> ”); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >>> internationalized >>>>>>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >>> management >>>>>>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >>> at ICANN’s >>>>>>> expense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >>> as we are >>>>>>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >>> stakeholders and >>>>>>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you in advance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Josh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> <jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>>* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net<mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net> [mailto: >>> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net<mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net>] *On >>>>>>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>>>>>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net<mailto:iana-ipr@nro.net> >>>>>>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >>> and I >>>>>>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >>> it reflects >>>>>>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >>> your review and >>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >>> of >>>>>>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >>> including the >>>>>>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >>> CCG >>>>>>> representatives, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jorge >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jorge L. Contreras >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Washington, DC 20036 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> contreraslegal@att.net<mailto:contreraslegal@att.net> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >>> and >>>>>>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>> delete this >>>>>>> message immediately. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>>> **************************************** >>>>>>> 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-client mailing list >>>>>>> Cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:Cwg-client@icann.org> >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Andrew Sullivan >>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Do you suggest to vote I disagree with the motion Any thing should based on consensus That is what GNSO moved during CCWG I STRONGLY AND CATEGORICALLY to vitong. The matter must be discussed. Best regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 15:35, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Kavous,
I don’t think anyone is being unkind or unfair. In my case and I think Cheryl as well, we were just expressing our opinion just like you did. Disagreeing should not be deemed as ‘CATEGORICALLY rejecting”. It is up to the CWG to decide whether there is enough support to accept your views, not up to me or Cheryl.
Chuck
From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 9:31 AM To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Gomes, Chuck; <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>; Lise Fuhr; Andrew Sullivan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
Dear experts It is inappropriate and surprising that you self proclaimed highly top qualified expert CATEGORICALLY reject legitimate comments without even been debated? Pls be fair and kind Refard
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 06:07, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Agree totally with you, in this, Chuck
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
On 8 August 2016 at 13:32, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: I for one trust the experts who have put this together. Unless others with comparable expertise can point out any significant problems, I am willing to trust those who are representing us. If there are any serious problems, we will have the public comment period to catch them.
Chuck
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
Thanks and best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear ALL
I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
> Seun > NO > PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. > WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION > Regards > Kavouss > > > 2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: > >> Hello Kavous, >> >> An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on >> the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) >> >> Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version >> then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. >> >> Regards >> >> Sent from my LG G4 >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >> >> On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Andrew, >>> Tks again for your kind reply. >>> Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. >>> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC >>> Regards >>> Kavouss >>> >>> >>> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>: >>> >>>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >>>> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >>>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >>>> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >>>> bad. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> A >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>>> Seun, >>>>> I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >>>> clean >>>>> Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >>>> what was >>>>> the changes introduced by Greg >>>>> I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >>>>> Regards >>>>> Kavouss >>>>> >>>>> 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> A word version was included in Greg's mail >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >>>> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Grec, >>>>>>> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >>>> some of them >>>>>>> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >>>> pls provide >>>>>>> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>>> : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CWG, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>> Agreement >>>>>>>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >>>> you may have, >>>>>>>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >>>> below: (1) >>>>>>>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >>>> providing a >>>>>>>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >>>> community ( >>>>>>>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >>>> communities). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >>>> collaborative >>>>>>>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >>>> comment >>>>>>>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >>>> Thursday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> >>>>>>>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>>>>>>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Client Committee, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>> Agreement >>>>>>>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >>>> prepared jointly >>>>>>>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >>>> to reflect the >>>>>>>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >>>> progress, but >>>>>>>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Two important issues to highlight: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >>>> signatory >>>>>>>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >>>> Community >>>>>>>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >>>> organizations >>>>>>>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >>>> Communities; and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >>>> provided on >>>>>>>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >>>> description was >>>>>>>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >>>> this is >>>>>>>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >>>> ask the Client >>>>>>>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >>>> Management* >>>>>>>> ”); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >>>> internationalized >>>>>>>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >>>> management >>>>>>>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >>>> at ICANN’s >>>>>>>> expense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >>>> as we are >>>>>>>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >>>> stakeholders and >>>>>>>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you in advance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Josh >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto: >>>> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On >>>>>>>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>>>>>>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net >>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >>>> and I >>>>>>>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >>>> it reflects >>>>>>>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >>>> your review and >>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >>>> of >>>>>>>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >>>> including the >>>>>>>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >>>> CCG >>>>>>>> representatives, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jorge >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jorge L. Contreras >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20036 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> contreraslegal@att.net >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >>>> and >>>>>>>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>>> delete this >>>>>>>> message immediately. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>>>> **************************************** >>>>>>>> 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-client mailing list >>>>>>>> Cwg-client@icann.org >>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Andrew Sullivan >>>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-- 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Kavouss, If you look at the charter you will see that voting is discouraged. The CWG is supposed to try to reach decisions that have as strong support as possible. When there is disagreement the CWG is supposed to try to find positions that most can support; full support is always desirable but that is not always possible. Still, everyone’s input must be considered before any final positions are determined. I believe the chairs may ask for an informal poll if needed but that would not be a vote in response to a motion; sometimes that is done simply by asking for those who disagree to express their views and if there is only disagreement from a small minority, they could decide that a position has strong enough support. Ultimately it is up to the chairs to evaluate the level of support. Chuck From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 9:53 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>; Lise Fuhr; Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 Do you suggest to vote I disagree with the motion Any thing should based on consensus That is what GNSO moved during CCWG I STRONGLY AND CATEGORICALLY to vitong. The matter must be discussed. Best regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 8 Aug 2016, at 15:35, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Kavous, I don’t think anyone is being unkind or unfair. In my case and I think Cheryl as well, we were just expressing our opinion just like you did. Disagreeing should not be deemed as ‘CATEGORICALLY rejecting”. It is up to the CWG to decide whether there is enough support to accept your views, not up to me or Cheryl. Chuck From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 9:31 AM To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Gomes, Chuck; <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>>; Lise Fuhr; Andrew Sullivan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 Dear experts It is inappropriate and surprising that you self proclaimed highly top qualified expert CATEGORICALLY reject legitimate comments without even been debated? Pls be fair and kind Refard Sent from my iPhone On 8 Aug 2016, at 06:07, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote: Agree totally with you, in this, Chuck Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr<http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> On 8 August 2016 at 13:32, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I for one trust the experts who have put this together. Unless others with comparable expertise can point out any significant problems, I am willing to trust those who are representing us. If there are any serious problems, we will have the public comment period to catch them. Chuck Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
Thanks and best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear ALL
I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Seun NO PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>:
> Hello Kavous, > > An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on > the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) > > Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version > then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. > > Regards > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> > wrote: > >> Dear Andrew, >> Tks again for your kind reply. >> Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. >> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>>: >> >>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >>> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >>> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >>> bad. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> A >>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>> Seun, >>>> I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >>> clean >>>> Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >>> what was >>>> the changes introduced by Greg >>>> I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >>>> Regards >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>: >>>> >>>>> A word version was included in Greg's mail >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>> >>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >>> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Grec, >>>>>> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >>> some of them >>>>>> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >>> pls provide >>>>>> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>>> : >>>>>> >>>>>>> CWG, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >>> Agreement >>>>>>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >>> you may have, >>>>>>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >>> below: (1) >>>>>>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >>> providing a >>>>>>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >>> community ( >>>>>>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >>> communities). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >>> collaborative >>>>>>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >>> comment >>>>>>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >>> Thursday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> >>>>>>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>>>>>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Client Committee, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >>> Agreement >>>>>>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >>> prepared jointly >>>>>>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >>> to reflect the >>>>>>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >>> progress, but >>>>>>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Two important issues to highlight: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >>> signatory >>>>>>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >>> Community >>>>>>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >>> organizations >>>>>>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >>> Communities; and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >>> provided on >>>>>>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >>> description was >>>>>>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >>> this is >>>>>>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >>> ask the Client >>>>>>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >>> Management* >>>>>>> ”); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >>> internationalized >>>>>>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >>> management >>>>>>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >>> at ICANN’s >>>>>>> expense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >>> as we are >>>>>>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >>> stakeholders and >>>>>>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you in advance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Josh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> <jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>>* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net<mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net> [mailto: >>> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net<mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net>] *On >>>>>>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>>>>>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net<mailto:iana-ipr@nro.net> >>>>>>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >>> and I >>>>>>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >>> it reflects >>>>>>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >>> your review and >>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >>> of >>>>>>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >>> including the >>>>>>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >>> CCG >>>>>>> representatives, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jorge >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jorge L. Contreras >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Washington, DC 20036 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> contreraslegal@att.net<mailto:contreraslegal@att.net> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >>> and >>>>>>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>> delete this >>>>>>> message immediately. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>>> **************************************** >>>>>>> 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-client mailing list >>>>>>> Cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:Cwg-client@icann.org> >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Andrew Sullivan >>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH POLL Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 16:24, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
If you look at the charter you will see that voting is discouraged. The CWG is supposed to try to reach decisions that have as strong support as possible. When there is disagreement the CWG is supposed to try to find positions that most can support; full support is always desirable but that is not always possible. Still, everyone’s input must be considered before any final positions are determined. I believe the chairs may ask for an informal poll if needed but that would not be a vote in response to a motion; sometimes that is done simply by asking for those who disagree to express their views and if there is only disagreement from a small minority, they could decide that a position has strong enough support. Ultimately it is up to the chairs to evaluate the level of support.
Chuck
From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 9:53 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>; Lise Fuhr; Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
Do you suggest to vote I disagree with the motion Any thing should based on consensus That is what GNSO moved during CCWG I STRONGLY AND CATEGORICALLY to vitong. The matter must be discussed. Best regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 15:35, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Kavous,
I don’t think anyone is being unkind or unfair. In my case and I think Cheryl as well, we were just expressing our opinion just like you did. Disagreeing should not be deemed as ‘CATEGORICALLY rejecting”. It is up to the CWG to decide whether there is enough support to accept your views, not up to me or Cheryl.
Chuck
From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 9:31 AM To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Gomes, Chuck; <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>; Lise Fuhr; Andrew Sullivan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
Dear experts It is inappropriate and surprising that you self proclaimed highly top qualified expert CATEGORICALLY reject legitimate comments without even been debated? Pls be fair and kind Refard
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 06:07, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Agree totally with you, in this, Chuck
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
On 8 August 2016 at 13:32, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: I for one trust the experts who have put this together. Unless others with comparable expertise can point out any significant problems, I am willing to trust those who are representing us. If there are any serious problems, we will have the public comment period to catch them.
Chuck
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
Thanks and best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear ALL
I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
> Seun > NO > PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. > WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION > Regards > Kavouss > > > 2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: > >> Hello Kavous, >> >> An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on >> the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) >> >> Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version >> then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. >> >> Regards >> >> Sent from my LG G4 >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >> >> On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Andrew, >>> Tks again for your kind reply. >>> Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. >>> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC >>> Regards >>> Kavouss >>> >>> >>> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>: >>> >>>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >>>> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >>>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >>>> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >>>> bad. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> A >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>>> Seun, >>>>> I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >>>> clean >>>>> Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >>>> what was >>>>> the changes introduced by Greg >>>>> I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >>>>> Regards >>>>> Kavouss >>>>> >>>>> 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> A word version was included in Greg's mail >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >>>> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Grec, >>>>>>> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >>>> some of them >>>>>>> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >>>> pls provide >>>>>>> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>>> : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CWG, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>> Agreement >>>>>>>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >>>> you may have, >>>>>>>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >>>> below: (1) >>>>>>>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >>>> providing a >>>>>>>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >>>> community ( >>>>>>>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >>>> communities). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >>>> collaborative >>>>>>>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >>>> comment >>>>>>>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >>>> Thursday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> >>>>>>>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>>>>>>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Client Committee, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>> Agreement >>>>>>>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >>>> prepared jointly >>>>>>>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >>>> to reflect the >>>>>>>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >>>> progress, but >>>>>>>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Two important issues to highlight: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >>>> signatory >>>>>>>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >>>> Community >>>>>>>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >>>> organizations >>>>>>>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >>>> Communities; and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >>>> provided on >>>>>>>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >>>> description was >>>>>>>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >>>> this is >>>>>>>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >>>> ask the Client >>>>>>>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >>>> Management* >>>>>>>> ”); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >>>> internationalized >>>>>>>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >>>> management >>>>>>>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >>>> at ICANN’s >>>>>>>> expense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >>>> as we are >>>>>>>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >>>> stakeholders and >>>>>>>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you in advance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Josh >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto: >>>> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On >>>>>>>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>>>>>>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net >>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >>>> and I >>>>>>>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >>>> it reflects >>>>>>>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >>>> your review and >>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >>>> of >>>>>>>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >>>> including the >>>>>>>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >>>> CCG >>>>>>>> representatives, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jorge >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jorge L. Contreras >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20036 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> contreraslegal@att.net >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >>>> and >>>>>>>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>>> delete this >>>>>>>> message immediately. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>>>> **************************************** >>>>>>>> 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-client mailing list >>>>>>>> Cwg-client@icann.org >>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Andrew Sullivan >>>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-- 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
No one has suggested a poll that I am aware of. Chuck From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 12:37 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>; Lise Fuhr; Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH POLL Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 8 Aug 2016, at 16:24, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Kavouss, If you look at the charter you will see that voting is discouraged. The CWG is supposed to try to reach decisions that have as strong support as possible. When there is disagreement the CWG is supposed to try to find positions that most can support; full support is always desirable but that is not always possible. Still, everyone’s input must be considered before any final positions are determined. I believe the chairs may ask for an informal poll if needed but that would not be a vote in response to a motion; sometimes that is done simply by asking for those who disagree to express their views and if there is only disagreement from a small minority, they could decide that a position has strong enough support. Ultimately it is up to the chairs to evaluate the level of support. Chuck From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 9:53 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>>; Lise Fuhr; Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 Do you suggest to vote I disagree with the motion Any thing should based on consensus That is what GNSO moved during CCWG I STRONGLY AND CATEGORICALLY to vitong. The matter must be discussed. Best regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 8 Aug 2016, at 15:35, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Kavous, I don’t think anyone is being unkind or unfair. In my case and I think Cheryl as well, we were just expressing our opinion just like you did. Disagreeing should not be deemed as ‘CATEGORICALLY rejecting”. It is up to the CWG to decide whether there is enough support to accept your views, not up to me or Cheryl. Chuck From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 9:31 AM To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Gomes, Chuck; <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>>; Lise Fuhr; Andrew Sullivan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 Dear experts It is inappropriate and surprising that you self proclaimed highly top qualified expert CATEGORICALLY reject legitimate comments without even been debated? Pls be fair and kind Refard Sent from my iPhone On 8 Aug 2016, at 06:07, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote: Agree totally with you, in this, Chuck Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr<http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> On 8 August 2016 at 13:32, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I for one trust the experts who have put this together. Unless others with comparable expertise can point out any significant problems, I am willing to trust those who are representing us. If there are any serious problems, we will have the public comment period to catch them. Chuck Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
Thanks and best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear ALL
I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Seun NO PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>:
> Hello Kavous, > > An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on > the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) > > Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version > then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. > > Regards > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> > wrote: > >> Dear Andrew, >> Tks again for your kind reply. >> Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. >> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>>: >> >>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >>> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >>> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >>> bad. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> A >>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>> Seun, >>>> I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >>> clean >>>> Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >>> what was >>>> the changes introduced by Greg >>>> I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >>>> Regards >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>: >>>> >>>>> A word version was included in Greg's mail >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>> >>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >>> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Grec, >>>>>> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >>> some of them >>>>>> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >>> pls provide >>>>>> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>>> : >>>>>> >>>>>>> CWG, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >>> Agreement >>>>>>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >>> you may have, >>>>>>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >>> below: (1) >>>>>>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >>> providing a >>>>>>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >>> community ( >>>>>>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >>> communities). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >>> collaborative >>>>>>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >>> comment >>>>>>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >>> Thursday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> >>>>>>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>>>>>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Client Committee, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >>> Agreement >>>>>>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >>> prepared jointly >>>>>>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >>> to reflect the >>>>>>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >>> progress, but >>>>>>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Two important issues to highlight: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >>> signatory >>>>>>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >>> Community >>>>>>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >>> organizations >>>>>>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >>> Communities; and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >>> provided on >>>>>>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >>> description was >>>>>>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >>> this is >>>>>>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >>> ask the Client >>>>>>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >>> Management* >>>>>>> ”); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >>> internationalized >>>>>>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >>> management >>>>>>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >>> at ICANN’s >>>>>>> expense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >>> as we are >>>>>>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >>> stakeholders and >>>>>>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you in advance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Josh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> <jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>>* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net<mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net> [mailto: >>> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net<mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net>] *On >>>>>>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>>>>>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net<mailto:iana-ipr@nro.net> >>>>>>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >>> and I >>>>>>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >>> it reflects >>>>>>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >>> your review and >>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >>> of >>>>>>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >>> including the >>>>>>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >>> CCG >>>>>>> representatives, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jorge >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jorge L. Contreras >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Washington, DC 20036 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> contreraslegal@att.net<mailto:contreraslegal@att.net> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >>> and >>>>>>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>> delete this >>>>>>> message immediately. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>>> **************************************** >>>>>>> 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-client mailing list >>>>>>> Cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:Cwg-client@icann.org> >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Andrew Sullivan >>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear Co- Chair I thought that the process was transparent. Multistakehdet approach, democratic. And healthy. I now heard that only few self auto claimed so- called " Top Expert"has the right to put something together totally and inappropriately rejecting comments from others accusing the commenter as non expert. What a wrong idea? I strongly request you to discuss my comments before proceeding Best regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 06:07, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Agree totally with you, in this, Chuck
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
On 8 August 2016 at 13:32, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: I for one trust the experts who have put this together. Unless others with comparable expertise can point out any significant problems, I am willing to trust those who are representing us. If there are any serious problems, we will have the public comment period to catch them.
Chuck
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
Thanks and best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear ALL > > I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed > Regards > Kavouss > > 2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: > >> Seun >> NO >> PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. >> WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: >> >>> Hello Kavous, >>> >>> An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on >>> the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) >>> >>> Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version >>> then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Sent from my LG G4 >>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>> >>> On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Andrew, >>>> Tks again for your kind reply. >>>> Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. >>>> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC >>>> Regards >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> >>>> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>: >>>> >>>>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >>>>> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >>>>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >>>>> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >>>>> bad. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> A >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>>>> Seun, >>>>>> I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >>>>> clean >>>>>> Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >>>>> what was >>>>>> the changes introduced by Greg >>>>>> I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>> >>>>>> 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> A word version was included in Greg's mail >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >>>>> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Grec, >>>>>>>> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >>>>> some of them >>>>>>>> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >>>>> pls provide >>>>>>>> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>>>> : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> CWG, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>>> Agreement >>>>>>>>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >>>>> you may have, >>>>>>>>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >>>>> below: (1) >>>>>>>>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >>>>> providing a >>>>>>>>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >>>>> community ( >>>>>>>>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >>>>> communities). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >>>>> collaborative >>>>>>>>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >>>>> comment >>>>>>>>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >>>>> Thursday. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> >>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>>>>>>>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Client Committee, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>>> Agreement >>>>>>>>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >>>>> prepared jointly >>>>>>>>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >>>>> to reflect the >>>>>>>>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >>>>> progress, but >>>>>>>>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Two important issues to highlight: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >>>>> signatory >>>>>>>>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >>>>> Community >>>>>>>>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >>>>> organizations >>>>>>>>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >>>>> Communities; and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >>>>> provided on >>>>>>>>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >>>>> description was >>>>>>>>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >>>>> this is >>>>>>>>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >>>>> ask the Client >>>>>>>>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >>>>> Management* >>>>>>>>> ”); >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >>>>> internationalized >>>>>>>>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >>>>> management >>>>>>>>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >>>>> at ICANN’s >>>>>>>>> expense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >>>>> as we are >>>>>>>>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >>>>> stakeholders and >>>>>>>>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you in advance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Josh >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto: >>>>> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On >>>>>>>>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>>>>>>>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >>>>> and I >>>>>>>>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >>>>> it reflects >>>>>>>>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >>>>> your review and >>>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >>>>> of >>>>>>>>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >>>>> including the >>>>>>>>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >>>>> CCG >>>>>>>>> representatives, etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jorge >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jorge L. Contreras >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20036 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> contreraslegal@att.net >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >>>>> and >>>>>>>>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>>>> delete this >>>>>>>>> message immediately. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>>>>> **************************************** >>>>>>>>> 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-client mailing list >>>>>>>>> Cwg-client@icann.org >>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Andrew Sullivan >>>>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-- 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear Kavouss, I haven’t discussed this matter with Jonathan, so this reply is on my own behalf. I strongly believe this process to be transparent and a multistakeholder approach. We have delegated the work of writing the Community Agreement to the legal advisors and they are experts on IPR matters. Greg sent you the Community Agreement as soon as possible on behalf of the Client Committee to the CWG for review. You have reviewed the Agreement and sent the comments to CWG, and Greg has responded specifically to your comments in the document. Others have discussed the text and gotten responses from Greg too. So from my perspective we have the discussion of your and other people’s comments that you ask for. We as CWG will have to agree on this Agreement as a group and I find that we are in the midst of doing so now. Best regards, Lise From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: 08 August 2016 15:45 To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Chuck Gomes; Andrew Sullivan; <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>; Lise Fuhr Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 Dear Co- Chair I thought that the process was transparent. Multistakehdet approach, democratic. And healthy. I now heard that only few self auto claimed so- called " Top Expert"has the right to put something together totally and inappropriately rejecting comments from others accusing the commenter as non expert. What a wrong idea? I strongly request you to discuss my comments before proceeding Best regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 8 Aug 2016, at 06:07, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote: Agree totally with you, in this, Chuck Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr On 8 August 2016 at 13:32, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I for one trust the experts who have put this together. Unless others with comparable expertise can point out any significant problems, I am willing to trust those who are representing us. If there are any serious problems, we will have the public comment period to catch them. Chuck Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
Thanks and best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear ALL
I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Seun NO PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>:
> Hello Kavous, > > An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on > the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) > > Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version > then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. > > Regards > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> > wrote: > >> Dear Andrew, >> Tks again for your kind reply. >> Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. >> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>>: >> >>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >>> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >>> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >>> bad. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> A >>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>> Seun, >>>> I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >>> clean >>>> Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >>> what was >>>> the changes introduced by Greg >>>> I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >>>> Regards >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>: >>>> >>>>> A word version was included in Greg's mail >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>> >>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >>> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Grec, >>>>>> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >>> some of them >>>>>> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >>> pls provide >>>>>> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>>> : >>>>>> >>>>>>> CWG, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >>> Agreement >>>>>>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >>> you may have, >>>>>>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >>> below: (1) >>>>>>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >>> providing a >>>>>>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >>> community ( >>>>>>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >>> communities). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >>> collaborative >>>>>>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >>> comment >>>>>>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >>> Thursday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> >>>>>>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>>>>>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Client Committee, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >>> Agreement >>>>>>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >>> prepared jointly >>>>>>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >>> to reflect the >>>>>>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >>> progress, but >>>>>>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Two important issues to highlight: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >>> signatory >>>>>>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >>> Community >>>>>>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >>> organizations >>>>>>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >>> Communities; and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >>> provided on >>>>>>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >>> description was >>>>>>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >>> this is >>>>>>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >>> ask the Client >>>>>>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >>> Management* >>>>>>> ”); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >>> internationalized >>>>>>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >>> management >>>>>>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >>> at ICANN’s >>>>>>> expense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >>> as we are >>>>>>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >>> stakeholders and >>>>>>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you in advance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Josh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> <jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>>* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net<mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net> [mailto: >>> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net<mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net>] *On >>>>>>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>>>>>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net<mailto:iana-ipr@nro.net> >>>>>>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >>> and I >>>>>>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >>> it reflects >>>>>>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >>> your review and >>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >>> of >>>>>>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >>> including the >>>>>>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >>> CCG >>>>>>> representatives, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jorge >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jorge L. Contreras >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Washington, DC 20036 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> contreraslegal@att.net<mailto:contreraslegal@att.net> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >>> and >>>>>>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>> delete this >>>>>>> message immediately. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>>> **************************************** >>>>>>> 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-client mailing list >>>>>>> Cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:Cwg-client@icann.org> >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Andrew Sullivan >>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear All The Transition process must be 100% transparent , in a Button Up multistakeholder approach with full equality of participation without any superiority or inferiority status in a fair, healthy Environment. It is not a private club for certain people or group of people My comments must be discussed. For instance at the beginning the initial text is amended by so- called expert adding the term collectively and unanimously. The second term is irrelevant for the reasons given , thus collectively is enough Kavouss. Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 15:44, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Co- Chair I thought that the process was transparent. Multistakehdet approach, democratic. And healthy. I now heard that only few self auto claimed so- called " Top Expert"has the right to put something together totally and inappropriately rejecting comments from others accusing the commenter as non expert. What a wrong idea? I strongly request you to discuss my comments before proceeding Best regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 06:07, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Agree totally with you, in this, Chuck
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
On 8 August 2016 at 13:32, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: I for one trust the experts who have put this together. Unless others with comparable expertise can point out any significant problems, I am willing to trust those who are representing us. If there are any serious problems, we will have the public comment period to catch them.
Chuck
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
Thanks and best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
> The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's > counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came > after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all > the communities and the Trust). > > I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was > initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client > Committee list. > > Greg > > > On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Dear ALL >> >> I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> 2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: >> >>> Seun >>> NO >>> PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. >>> WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION >>> Regards >>> Kavouss >>> >>> >>> 2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> Hello Kavous, >>>> >>>> An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on >>>> the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) >>>> >>>> Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version >>>> then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>> >>>> On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Andrew, >>>>> Tks again for your kind reply. >>>>> Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. >>>>> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC >>>>> Regards >>>>> Kavouss >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >>>>>> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >>>>>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >>>>>> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >>>>>> bad. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> A >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>>>>> Seun, >>>>>>> I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >>>>>> clean >>>>>>> Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >>>>>> what was >>>>>>> the changes introduced by Greg >>>>>>> I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A word version was included in Greg's mail >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >>>>>> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Grec, >>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >>>>>> some of them >>>>>>>>> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >>>>>> pls provide >>>>>>>>> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> CWG, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>>>> Agreement >>>>>>>>>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >>>>>> you may have, >>>>>>>>>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >>>>>> below: (1) >>>>>>>>>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >>>>>> providing a >>>>>>>>>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >>>>>> community ( >>>>>>>>>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >>>>>> communities). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >>>>>> collaborative >>>>>>>>>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >>>>>> comment >>>>>>>>>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >>>>>> Thursday. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> >>>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>>>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear Client Committee, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>>>> Agreement >>>>>>>>>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >>>>>> prepared jointly >>>>>>>>>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >>>>>> to reflect the >>>>>>>>>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >>>>>> progress, but >>>>>>>>>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Two important issues to highlight: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >>>>>> signatory >>>>>>>>>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >>>>>> Community >>>>>>>>>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >>>>>> organizations >>>>>>>>>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >>>>>> Communities; and >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >>>>>> provided on >>>>>>>>>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >>>>>> description was >>>>>>>>>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >>>>>> this is >>>>>>>>>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >>>>>> ask the Client >>>>>>>>>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >>>>>> Management* >>>>>>>>>> ”); >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >>>>>> internationalized >>>>>>>>>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >>>>>> management >>>>>>>>>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >>>>>> at ICANN’s >>>>>>>>>> expense. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >>>>>> as we are >>>>>>>>>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >>>>>> stakeholders and >>>>>>>>>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you in advance. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Josh >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto: >>>>>> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On >>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>>>>>>>>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net >>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >>>>>> and I >>>>>>>>>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >>>>>> it reflects >>>>>>>>>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >>>>>> your review and >>>>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >>>>>> including the >>>>>>>>>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >>>>>> CCG >>>>>>>>>> representatives, etc. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jorge >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jorge L. Contreras >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20036 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> contreraslegal@att.net >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>>>>> delete this >>>>>>>>>> message immediately. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>>>>>> **************************************** >>>>>>>>>> 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-client mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Cwg-client@icann.org >>>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Andrew Sullivan >>>>>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-- 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I don’t disagree with anything you said Kavouss; moreover, I believe that is what is happening. My opinions are no more valuable than yours and both must be evaluated by the full CWG. Chuck From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 10:27 AM To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Gomes, Chuck; Andrew Sullivan; <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>; Lise Fuhr Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 Dear All The Transition process must be 100% transparent , in a Button Up multistakeholder approach with full equality of participation without any superiority or inferiority status in a fair, healthy Environment. It is not a private club for certain people or group of people My comments must be discussed. For instance at the beginning the initial text is amended by so- called expert adding the term collectively and unanimously. The second term is irrelevant for the reasons given , thus collectively is enough Kavouss. Sent from my iPhone On 8 Aug 2016, at 15:44, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Co- Chair I thought that the process was transparent. Multistakehdet approach, democratic. And healthy. I now heard that only few self auto claimed so- called " Top Expert"has the right to put something together totally and inappropriately rejecting comments from others accusing the commenter as non expert. What a wrong idea? I strongly request you to discuss my comments before proceeding Best regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 8 Aug 2016, at 06:07, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote: Agree totally with you, in this, Chuck Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr On 8 August 2016 at 13:32, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I for one trust the experts who have put this together. Unless others with comparable expertise can point out any significant problems, I am willing to trust those who are representing us. If there are any serious problems, we will have the public comment period to catch them. Chuck Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
Thanks and best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear ALL
I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Seun NO PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>:
> Hello Kavous, > > An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on > the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) > > Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version > then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. > > Regards > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> > wrote: > >> Dear Andrew, >> Tks again for your kind reply. >> Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. >> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>>: >> >>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >>> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >>> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >>> bad. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> A >>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>> Seun, >>>> I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >>> clean >>>> Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >>> what was >>>> the changes introduced by Greg >>>> I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >>>> Regards >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>: >>>> >>>>> A word version was included in Greg's mail >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>> >>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >>> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Grec, >>>>>> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >>> some of them >>>>>> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >>> pls provide >>>>>> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>>> : >>>>>> >>>>>>> CWG, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >>> Agreement >>>>>>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >>> you may have, >>>>>>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >>> below: (1) >>>>>>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >>> providing a >>>>>>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >>> community ( >>>>>>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >>> communities). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >>> collaborative >>>>>>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >>> comment >>>>>>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >>> Thursday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> >>>>>>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>>>>>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Client Committee, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >>> Agreement >>>>>>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >>> prepared jointly >>>>>>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >>> to reflect the >>>>>>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >>> progress, but >>>>>>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Two important issues to highlight: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >>> signatory >>>>>>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >>> Community >>>>>>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >>> organizations >>>>>>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >>> Communities; and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >>> provided on >>>>>>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >>> description was >>>>>>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >>> this is >>>>>>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >>> ask the Client >>>>>>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >>> Management* >>>>>>> ”); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >>> internationalized >>>>>>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >>> management >>>>>>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >>> at ICANN’s >>>>>>> expense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >>> as we are >>>>>>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >>> stakeholders and >>>>>>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you in advance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Josh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> <jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>>* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net<mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net> [mailto: >>> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net<mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net>] *On >>>>>>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>>>>>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net<mailto:iana-ipr@nro.net> >>>>>>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >>> and I >>>>>>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >>> it reflects >>>>>>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >>> your review and >>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >>> of >>>>>>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >>> including the >>>>>>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >>> CCG >>>>>>> representatives, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jorge >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jorge L. Contreras >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Washington, DC 20036 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> contreraslegal@att.net<mailto:contreraslegal@att.net> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >>> and >>>>>>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>> delete this >>>>>>> message immediately. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>>> **************************************** >>>>>>> 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-client mailing list >>>>>>> Cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:Cwg-client@icann.org> >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Andrew Sullivan >>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear Chuke Thank you for your understanding. All of my comments are legally based on facts and figure. Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 16:29, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I don’t disagree with anything you said Kavouss; moreover, I believe that is what is happening. My opinions are no more valuable than yours and both must be evaluated by the full CWG.
Chuck
From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 10:27 AM To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Gomes, Chuck; Andrew Sullivan; <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>; Lise Fuhr Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
Dear All The Transition process must be 100% transparent , in a Button Up multistakeholder approach with full equality of participation without any superiority or inferiority status in a fair, healthy Environment. It is not a private club for certain people or group of people My comments must be discussed. For instance at the beginning the initial text is amended by so- called expert adding the term collectively and unanimously. The second term is irrelevant for the reasons given , thus collectively is enough Kavouss.
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 15:44, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Co- Chair I thought that the process was transparent. Multistakehdet approach, democratic. And healthy. I now heard that only few self auto claimed so- called " Top Expert"has the right to put something together totally and inappropriately rejecting comments from others accusing the commenter as non expert. What a wrong idea? I strongly request you to discuss my comments before proceeding Best regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 06:07, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Agree totally with you, in this, Chuck
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
On 8 August 2016 at 13:32, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: I for one trust the experts who have put this together. Unless others with comparable expertise can point out any significant problems, I am willing to trust those who are representing us. If there are any serious problems, we will have the public comment period to catch them.
Chuck
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
Thanks and best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear ALL
I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
> Seun > NO > PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. > WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION > Regards > Kavouss > > > 2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: > >> Hello Kavous, >> >> An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on >> the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) >> >> Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version >> then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. >> >> Regards >> >> Sent from my LG G4 >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >> >> On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Andrew, >>> Tks again for your kind reply. >>> Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. >>> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC >>> Regards >>> Kavouss >>> >>> >>> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>: >>> >>>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >>>> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >>>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >>>> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >>>> bad. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> A >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>>> Seun, >>>>> I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >>>> clean >>>>> Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >>>> what was >>>>> the changes introduced by Greg >>>>> I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >>>>> Regards >>>>> Kavouss >>>>> >>>>> 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> A word version was included in Greg's mail >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >>>> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Grec, >>>>>>> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >>>> some of them >>>>>>> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >>>> pls provide >>>>>>> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>>> : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CWG, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>> Agreement >>>>>>>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >>>> you may have, >>>>>>>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >>>> below: (1) >>>>>>>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >>>> providing a >>>>>>>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >>>> community ( >>>>>>>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >>>> communities). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >>>> collaborative >>>>>>>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >>>> comment >>>>>>>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >>>> Thursday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> >>>>>>>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>>>>>>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Client Committee, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>> Agreement >>>>>>>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >>>> prepared jointly >>>>>>>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >>>> to reflect the >>>>>>>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >>>> progress, but >>>>>>>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Two important issues to highlight: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >>>> signatory >>>>>>>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >>>> Community >>>>>>>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >>>> organizations >>>>>>>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >>>> Communities; and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >>>> provided on >>>>>>>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >>>> description was >>>>>>>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >>>> this is >>>>>>>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >>>> ask the Client >>>>>>>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >>>> Management* >>>>>>>> ”); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >>>> internationalized >>>>>>>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >>>> management >>>>>>>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >>>> at ICANN’s >>>>>>>> expense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >>>> as we are >>>>>>>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >>>> stakeholders and >>>>>>>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you in advance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Josh >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto: >>>> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On >>>>>>>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>>>>>>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net >>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >>>> and I >>>>>>>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >>>> it reflects >>>>>>>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >>>> your review and >>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >>>> of >>>>>>>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >>>> including the >>>>>>>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >>>> CCG >>>>>>>> representatives, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jorge >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jorge L. Contreras >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20036 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> contreraslegal@att.net >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >>>> and >>>>>>>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>>> delete this >>>>>>>> message immediately. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>>>> **************************************** >>>>>>>> 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-client mailing list >>>>>>>> Cwg-client@icann.org >>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Andrew Sullivan >>>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-- 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Kavouss, Have you looked at my responses to your comments? It would be helpful to see if you have any continuing concerns after these responses. Greg On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Chuke Thank you for your understanding. All of my comments are legally based on facts and figure. Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 16:29, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I don’t disagree with anything you said Kavouss; moreover, I believe that is what is happening. My opinions are no more valuable than yours and both must be evaluated by the full CWG.
Chuck
*From:* Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Monday, August 08, 2016 10:27 AM *To:* Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Gomes, Chuck; Andrew Sullivan; < jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>; Lise Fuhr *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
Dear All
The Transition process must be 100% transparent , in a Button Up multistakeholder approach with full equality of participation without any superiority or inferiority status in a fair, healthy
Environment.
It is not a private club for certain people or group of people
My comments must be discussed.
For instance at the beginning the initial text is amended by so- called expert adding the term collectively and unanimously.
The second term is irrelevant for the reasons given , thus collectively is enough
Kavouss.
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 15:44, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Co- Chair
I thought that the process was transparent. Multistakehdet approach, democratic. And healthy.
I now heard that only few self auto claimed so- called " Top Expert"has the right to put something together totally and inappropriately rejecting comments from others accusing the commenter as non expert.
What a wrong idea?
I strongly request you to discuss my comments before proceeding
Best regards
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 06:07, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Agree totally with you, in this, Chuck
*C**heryl **L**angdon-**O**rr ... *(CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
[image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me]
On 8 August 2016 at 13:32, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I for one trust the experts who have put this together. Unless others with comparable expertise can point out any significant problems, I am willing to trust those who are representing us. If there are any serious problems, we will have the public comment period to catch them.
Chuck
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
Thanks and best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear ALL
I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
> Seun > NO > PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. > WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION > Regards > Kavouss > > > 2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: > >> Hello Kavous, >> >> An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on >> the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) >> >> Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version >> then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. >> >> Regards >> >> Sent from my LG G4 >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >> >> On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Andrew, >>> Tks again for your kind reply. >>> Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. >>> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC >>> Regards >>> Kavouss >>> >>> >>> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan < ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>: >>> >>>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >>>> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >>>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >>>> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >>>> bad. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> A >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>>> Seun, >>>>> I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >>>> clean >>>>> Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >>>> what was >>>>> the changes introduced by Greg >>>>> I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >>>>> Regards >>>>> Kavouss >>>>> >>>>> 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com : >>>>> >>>>>> A word version was included in Greg's mail >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >>>> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Grec, >>>>>>> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >>>> some of them >>>>>>> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >>>> pls provide >>>>>>> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>>> : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CWG, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>> Agreement >>>>>>>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >>>> you may have, >>>>>>>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >>>> below: (1) >>>>>>>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >>>> providing a >>>>>>>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >>>> community ( >>>>>>>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >>>> communities). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >>>> collaborative >>>>>>>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >>>> comment >>>>>>>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >>>> Thursday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> >>>>>>>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>>>>>>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Client Committee, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>> Agreement >>>>>>>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >>>> prepared jointly >>>>>>>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >>>> to reflect the >>>>>>>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >>>> progress, but >>>>>>>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Two important issues to highlight: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >>>> signatory >>>>>>>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >>>> Community >>>>>>>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >>>> organizations >>>>>>>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >>>> Communities; and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >>>> provided on >>>>>>>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >>>> description was >>>>>>>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >>>> this is >>>>>>>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >>>> ask the Client >>>>>>>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >>>> Management* >>>>>>>> ”); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >>>> internationalized >>>>>>>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >>>> management >>>>>>>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >>>> at ICANN’s >>>>>>>> expense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >>>> as we are >>>>>>>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >>>> stakeholders and >>>>>>>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you in advance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Josh >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto: >>>> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On >>>>>>>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>>>>>>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net >>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >>>> and I >>>>>>>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >>>> it reflects >>>>>>>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >>>> your review and >>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >>>> of >>>>>>>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >>>> including the >>>>>>>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >>>> CCG >>>>>>>> representatives, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jorge >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jorge L. Contreras >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20036 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> contreraslegal@att.net >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >>>> and >>>>>>>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>>> delete this >>>>>>>> message immediately. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>>>> **************************************** >>>>>>>> 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-client mailing list >>>>>>>> Cwg-client@icann.org >>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Andrew Sullivan >>>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-- 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
_______________________________________________ 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
+1 as well, the PC can be used for any other issue. As for me, so long as the Trust legal have also okayed this, every other points becomes minor and can be lived with. Regards. Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 8 Aug 2016 4:35 a.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I for one trust the experts who have put this together. Unless others with comparable expertise can point out any significant problems, I am willing to trust those who are representing us. If there are any serious problems, we will have the public comment period to catch them.
Chuck
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
Thanks and best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear ALL
I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
> Seun > NO > PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. > WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION > Regards > Kavouss > > > 2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: > >> Hello Kavous, >> >> An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on >> the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) >> >> Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version >> then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. >> >> Regards >> >> Sent from my LG G4 >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >> >> On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Andrew, >>> Tks again for your kind reply. >>> Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. >>> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC >>> Regards >>> Kavouss >>> >>> >>> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan < ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>: >>> >>>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >>>> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >>>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >>>> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >>>> bad. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> A >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>>> Seun, >>>>> I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >>>> clean >>>>> Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >>>> what was >>>>> the changes introduced by Greg >>>>> I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >>>>> Regards >>>>> Kavouss >>>>> >>>>> 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com : >>>>> >>>>>> A word version was included in Greg's mail >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >>>> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Grec, >>>>>>> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >>>> some of them >>>>>>> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >>>> pls provide >>>>>>> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>>> : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CWG, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>> Agreement >>>>>>>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >>>> you may have, >>>>>>>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >>>> below: (1) >>>>>>>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >>>> providing a >>>>>>>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >>>> community ( >>>>>>>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >>>> communities). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >>>> collaborative >>>>>>>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >>>> comment >>>>>>>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >>>> Thursday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> >>>>>>>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>>>>>>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Client Committee, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >>>> Agreement >>>>>>>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >>>> prepared jointly >>>>>>>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >>>> to reflect the >>>>>>>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >>>> progress, but >>>>>>>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Two important issues to highlight: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >>>> signatory >>>>>>>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >>>> Community >>>>>>>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >>>> organizations >>>>>>>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >>>> Communities; and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >>>> provided on >>>>>>>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >>>> description was >>>>>>>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >>>> this is >>>>>>>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >>>> ask the Client >>>>>>>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >>>> Management* >>>>>>>> ”); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >>>> internationalized >>>>>>>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >>>> management >>>>>>>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >>>> at ICANN’s >>>>>>>> expense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >>>> as we are >>>>>>>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >>>> stakeholders and >>>>>>>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you in advance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Josh >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto: >>>> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On >>>>>>>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>>>>>>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net >>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>>> 08-05-2016 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >>>> and I >>>>>>>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >>>> it reflects >>>>>>>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >>>> your review and >>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >>>> of >>>>>>>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >>>> including the >>>>>>>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >>>> CCG >>>>>>>> representatives, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jorge >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jorge L. Contreras >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20036 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> contreraslegal@att.net >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >>>> and >>>>>>>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>>> delete this >>>>>>>> message immediately. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ************************************************************ >>>>>>>> **************************************** >>>>>>>> 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-client mailing list >>>>>>>> Cwg-client@icann.org >>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Andrew Sullivan >>>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-- 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
Thank you, Andrew for this email, with which I agree (particularly on process). Given the continuing back-and-forth in this email thread, I thought it was important to BUMP this email back to the front of the queue. I'll do one thing more, which is to repeat Andrew's exhortation at the end of his email: The better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so. I would add the following: If the answer is "No, I can't live with [x]" you will need a sound, compelling and persuasive argument why significant problems will arise if your change is not made. And others will need to be very quickly persuaded and say so. And it will need to be persuasive enough to persuade the RIRs, IETF, IETF Trust and ICANN representatives as well. Greg On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
Thanks and best regards,
A
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
Greg
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear ALL
I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Seun NO PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
> Hello Kavous, > > An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on > the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well) > > Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version > then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions. > > Regards > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Dear Andrew, >> Tks again for your kind reply. >> Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. >> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan < ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>: >> >>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is >>> really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? >>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment >>> on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be >>> bad. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> A >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>> > Seun, >>> > I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a >>> clean >>> > Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see >>> what was >>> > the changes introduced by Greg >>> > I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. >>> > Regards >>> > Kavouss >>> > >>> > 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji < seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: >>> > >>> > > A word version was included in Greg's mail >>> > > >>> > > Regards >>> > > >>> > > Sent from my LG G4 >>> > > Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>> > > >>> > > On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < >>> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> Grec, >>> > >> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with >>> some of them >>> > >> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, >>> pls provide >>> > >> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient >>> > >> Regards >>> > >> Kavouss >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>> >: >>> > >> >>> > >>> CWG, >>> > >>> >>> > >>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community >>> Agreement >>> > >>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments >>> you may have, >>> > >>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email >>> below: (1) >>> > >>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) >>> providing a >>> > >>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names >>> community ( >>> > >>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other >>> communities). >>> > >>> >>> > >>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR >>> collaborative >>> > >>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public >>> comment >>> > >>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on >>> Thursday. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Greg >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> > >>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> >>> > >>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM >>> > >>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>> 08-05-2016 >>> > >>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Dear Client Committee, >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community >>> Agreement >>> > >>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version >>> prepared jointly >>> > >>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust >>> to reflect the >>> > >>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in >>> progress, but >>> > >>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Two important issues to highlight: >>> > >>> >>> > >>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the >>> signatory >>> > >>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the >>> Community >>> > >>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the >>> organizations >>> > >>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols >>> Communities; and >>> > >>> >>> > >>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be >>> provided on >>> > >>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level >>> description was >>> > >>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If >>> this is >>> > >>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we >>> ask the Client >>> > >>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: >>> > >>> >>> > >>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone >>> Management* >>> > >>> ”); >>> > >>> >>> > >>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; >>> > >>> >>> > >>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of >>> internationalized >>> > >>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and >>> > >>> >>> > >>> (d) Provision of other services related to the >>> management >>> > >>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and >>> at ICANN’s >>> > >>> expense. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, >>> as we are >>> > >>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various >>> stakeholders and >>> > >>> release for public comment by Thursday. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Thank you in advance. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Cheers, >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Josh >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> *Joshua Hofheimer* >>> > >>> >>> > >>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>> > >>> >>> > >>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* >>> > >>> >>> > >>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* >>> > >>> >>> > >>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* >>> > >>> >>> > >>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto: >>> iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On >>> > >>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras >>> > >>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM >>> > >>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net >>> > >>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: >>> 08-05-2016 >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh >>> and I >>> > >>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that >>> it reflects >>> > >>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for >>> your review and >>> > >>> discussion. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft >>> of >>> > >>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, >>> including the >>> > >>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the >>> CCG >>> > >>> representatives, etc. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Best regards, >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Jorge >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Jorge L. Contreras >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC >>> > >>> >>> > >>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Washington, DC 20036 >>> > >>> >>> > >>> contreraslegal@att.net >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged >>> and >>> > >>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>> delete this >>> > >>> message immediately. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> ******************************
>>> > >>> **************************************** >>> > >>> 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-client mailing list >>> > >>> Cwg-client@icann.org >>> > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> > >>> 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 >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>> > CWG-Stewardship@icann.org >>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Andrew Sullivan >>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com >>> >> >>
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
First, I wanted to agree with Andrew as he wrote:
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
And all of that is very important. I would also like to add the point that we need the contracts to be ready enough that are in principle in good shape and broadly acceptable, but we *do* have a public comment period which enables further adjustment as needed, from CWG and others. If people can think about their further comments also in this light, that would be helpful. Thanks, Jari
Jari That does not mean that my comments be ignored Kavouss It is 28 months that we working in a hasty and rush We must be mindful that it would have adverse impact on the entire community Not only IETF Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 17:15, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
First, I wanted to agree with Andrew as he wrote:
Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I would encourage you to say so.
And all of that is very important.
I would also like to add the point that we need the contracts to be ready enough that are in principle in good shape and broadly acceptable, but we *do* have a public comment period which enables further adjustment as needed, from CWG and others. If people can think about their further comments also in this light, that would be helpful.
Thanks,
Jari
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear Jari I have made many comments during public comment period for CCWG. Non of them were consulted??? Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 18:44, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
That does not mean that my comments be ignored
No, of course not. What I said was that we have more time to consider additional comments during the public comment period.
Jari
Jonathan/Lise, You are probably ahead of me but, if there is time in our CWG call this week, it might be a good idea to discuss Kavouss's comments. Allowing the 'experts' to respond to his comments and other CWG members to discuss as well might help although I am not sure he will easily concede. It would at least document the discussion in a very visible way. I of course will respect your decision on how to handle this. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 12:46 PM To: Jari Arkko Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 Dear Jari I have made many comments during public comment period for CCWG. Non of them were consulted??? Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 18:44, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
That does not mean that my comments be ignored
No, of course not. What I said was that we have more time to consider additional comments during the public comment period.
Jari
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dea all, Please KINDLY SLOW DOWN " Expert" “ Expert” There are other legal experts than those two law firms that are eligible to comments How many ideas we have received from these firms which did not suit our case during CCWG WS1? `. We MUST respect other people having considerable experience and strong legal background than those firs. When you said in the draft" Breaching repeatedly " and legal people on which you have full trust does not say " repeated " may means two , three or more thus without specifying the frequency of breeching, the term " Breaching repeatedly " has no meaning When you say OCS collectively and unanimously agreed instead of «collectively agreed without objections or abstention still you reject the idea In the draft, at several occasion the term “will “ has been used. In a legal document either we use the mandatory term “ shall “ or optional/ quasi mandatory term “ should 2 Please read my comments carefully KAVOUSS 2016-08-08 19:22 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Jonathan/Lise,
You are probably ahead of me but, if there is time in our CWG call this week, it might be a good idea to discuss Kavouss's comments. Allowing the 'experts' to respond to his comments and other CWG members to discuss as well might help although I am not sure he will easily concede. It would at least document the discussion in a very visible way.
I of course will respect your decision on how to handle this.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 12:46 PM To: Jari Arkko Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
Dear Jari I have made many comments during public comment period for CCWG. Non of them were consulted???
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 18:44, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
That does not mean that my comments be ignored
No, of course not. What I said was that we have more time to consider additional comments during the public comment period.
Jari
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
My responses in-line. On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dea all,
Please KINDLY SLOW DOWN " Expert" “ Expert”
There are other legal experts than those two law firms that are eligible to comments
There's no reason to go shopping around for legal experts at this time on this document. We have lawyers representing each operational community and the Trust involved, as well as other practicing lawyers. If you want to invite other law firms to comment, they can do so in the public comment period.
How many ideas we have received from these firms which did not suit our case during CCWG WS1? `.
Very, very few, and virtually none when it came to legal concepts (as opposed to policy matters).
We MUST respect other people having considerable experience and strong legal background than those firs.
Good idea. Better idea if they have experience reading, drafting, negotiating and handling disputes relating to US legal documents. FYI, I've worked on about 800 U.S. and cross-border transactions, many involving multiple agreements.
When you said in the draft" Breaching repeatedly " and legal people on which you have full trust does not say " repeated " may means two , three or more thus without specifying the frequency of breeching, the term " Breaching repeatedly " has no meaning
I've seen this commonly used in agreements. We don't have to be absolutely proscriptive in each instance. We can leave it to the parties to determine whether any given set of failures is sufficient to rise to the level required by 4.4; depending on the gravity of each failure, the number of failures necessary to trigger 4.4 would differ. Trying to pin this down now would be like nailing mercury to the wall.
When you say OCS collectively and unanimously agreed instead of «collectively agreed without objections or abstention still you reject the idea
This was only a definition and it only applied to the RIRs, and it was correct as regards their method of operation. See my prior note. In the draft, at several occasion the term “will “ has been used.
In a legal document either we use the mandatory term “ shall “ or optional/ quasi mandatory term “ should 2
Reasonable people can differ on this point, and the trend in legal drafting is actually away from "shall" and toward "will." Please read the attached articles from one of the leading and most respected commentators on legal drafting. There's more where this came from, and from other commentators. Please read my comments carefully
I have. As I said, I will pass this on to the Client Committee list where they can be seen by counsel. We can have counsel respond, but I doubt that they will differ from what I've offered here on a volunteer basis. Greg
KAVOUSS
2016-08-08 19:22 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Jonathan/Lise,
You are probably ahead of me but, if there is time in our CWG call this week, it might be a good idea to discuss Kavouss's comments. Allowing the 'experts' to respond to his comments and other CWG members to discuss as well might help although I am not sure he will easily concede. It would at least document the discussion in a very visible way.
I of course will respect your decision on how to handle this.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce s@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 12:46 PM To: Jari Arkko Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
Dear Jari I have made many comments during public comment period for CCWG. Non of them were consulted???
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2016, at 18:44, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
That does not mean that my comments be ignored
No, of course not. What I said was that we have more time to consider additional comments during the public comment period.
Jari
_______________________________________________ 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
I am re-sending these responses to Kavouss's comments to the list with two notes: 1. The use of "unanimous" in the preamble was discussed. The reason for this use is to make it clear that the RIRs must act unanimously as the "numbers community" "party" to the agreement. This is language the numbers community feels comfortable with, and it apparently tracks language used in the IANA numbers MoU (but I haven't checked). This verbiage may change as other alternatives are considered, but the concept remains the same. 2. In response to the comment on Section 6.5 regarding "joint and several liability," in which Kavouss commented that "joint cannot be associated with several." "Joint and several liability" is a fundamental legal concept and well-understood term, at least under U.S. law. Here is a definition from the Cornell Legal Information Institute https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/joint_and_several_liability (one of many available on the web): Joint and Several Liability When two or more parties are *jointly and severally liable* for a tortious act, each party is independently liable for the full extent of the injuries stemming from the tortious act. Thus, if a plaintiff <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/plaintiff> wins a money judgment against the parties collectively, the plaintiff <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/plaintiff> may collect the full value of the judgment from any one of them. That party may then seek contribution <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/contribution> from the other wrong-doers. For example suppose that A, B, and C negligently <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence> injure V. V successfully sues A, B, and C, for $1,000,000. If the court used a joint and several liability system, V could demand that A pay V the full $1,000,000. A could them demand contribution <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/contribution> from B and C. However, if B or C could not pay, A would be stuck paying the full $1,000,000. Joint and several liability reduces plaintiffs' <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/plaintiff> risk that one or more defendants <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/defendant> are judgment-proof <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/judgment-proof> by shifting that risk onto the other defendants <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/defendant>. Only if all defendants <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/defendant> are judgment-proof <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/judgment-proof> will a plaintiff <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/plaintiff> be unable to recover anything. However, this system can cause inequities, particularly where a relatively blameless defendant <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/defendant> is forced to bear the financial burden of an incredibly guilty co-defendant's <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/defendant> insolvency. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 6:07 PM Subject: Re: FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016 To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>, Andrew Sullivan < ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org> All, Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments. Greg On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the author's identity. I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and attached my comments There are serious problems in some of the terms. I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with comments in round bracket. Regartds Kavouss
2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all the communities and the Trust).
I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client Committee list.
Greg
On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear ALL
I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Seun NO PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD.. WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Hello Kavous,
An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well)
Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Andrew, Tks again for your kind reply. Please send me a red mark Word Version and I Will reply today. I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE CHANGED MADE BY GREC Regards Kavouss
2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>:
> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is > really rather late. Can you at least say what your concerns are? > There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment > on Thursday. An additional day to wait for the comments would be > bad. > > Best regards, > > A > > On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > > Seun, > > I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a > clean > > Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see > what was > > the changes introduced by Greg > > I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION. > > Regards > > Kavouss > > > > 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>: > > > > > A word version was included in Greg's mail > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Sent from my LG G4 > > > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > > > > > On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" < > kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Grec, > > >> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with > some of them > > >> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you, > pls provide > > >> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient > > >> Regards > > >> Kavouss > > >> > > >> > > >> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com > >: > > >> > > >>> CWG, > > >>> > > >>> I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community > Agreement > > >>> relating to the IANA IPR. In addition to any other comments > you may have, > > >>> I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email > below: (1) > > >>> identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) > providing a > > >>> brief description of the IANA Services used by the names > community ( > > >>> *see* Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other > communities). > > >>> > > >>> This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR > collaborative > > >>> group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public > comment > > >>> period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on > Thursday. > > >>> > > >>> Greg > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com> > > >>> Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM > > >>> Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: > 08-05-2016 > > >>> To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Dear Client Committee, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community > Agreement > > >>> for your review and comment. This is an iterative version > prepared jointly > > >>> by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust > to reflect the > > >>> 7-point discussion items. To be clear, it is still a work in > progress, but > > >>> we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Two important issues to highlight: > > >>> > > >>> 1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the > signatory > > >>> party, acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the > Community > > >>> Agreement. For your information, the attached draft has the > organizations > > >>> put forward to represent the Numbers and Protocols > Communities; and > > >>> > > >>> 2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be > provided on > > >>> behalf of the Names Community. The following high-level > description was > > >>> included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement. If > this is > > >>> acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we > ask the Client > > >>> Committee to provide a sufficient description): > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of: > > >>> > > >>> (a) Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone > Management* > > >>> ”); > > >>> > > >>> (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; > > >>> > > >>> (c) Maintenance of a repository of > internationalized > > >>> domain name tables and label generation rule sets; and > > >>> > > >>> (d) Provision of other services related to the > management > > >>> of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and > at ICANN’s > > >>> expense. > > >>> > > >>> Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, > as we are > > >>> trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various > stakeholders and > > >>> release for public comment by Thursday. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Thank you in advance. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Cheers, > > >>> > > >>> Josh > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> *Joshua Hofheimer* > > >>> > > >>> *Sidley Austin LLP* > > >>> > > >>> *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* > > >>> > > >>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* > > >>> > > >>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* > > >>> > > >>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto: > iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] *On > > >>> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras > > >>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM > > >>> *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net > > >>> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: > 08-05-2016 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh > and I > > >>> have collaborated on over the past two days. We believe that > it reflects > > >>> the current requirements of the parties, and submit it for > your review and > > >>> discussion. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft > of > > >>> 07-30-16 (in PDF format) are attached. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Please note a few items that still need to be completed, > including the > > >>> description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the > CCG > > >>> representatives, etc. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Best regards, > > >>> > > >>> Jorge > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Jorge L. Contreras > > >>> > > >>> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC > > >>> > > >>> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 > > >>> > > >>> Washington, DC 20036 > > >>> > > >>> contreraslegal@att.net > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged > and > > >>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please > delete this > > >>> message immediately. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ************************************************************ > > >>> **************************************** > > >>> 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-client mailing list > > >>> Cwg-client@icann.org > > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> 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 > > >> > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > > CWG-Stewardship@icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com >
participants (9)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Arasteh -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Jari Arkko -
Kavouss Arasteh
-
Lise Fuhr -
Seun Ojedeji