Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community
Dear All, I understand that we did have a blocking points that who could sign for Names Community I also understand that someone propose that we put ICANN Similarly I understood that ICANN STAFF indicated that without being requested they hesitate to self-nomination Then someone proposed the following: “ *At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated ……”* What I am saying is from the procedural view we cannot say immediately after such suggestion the entire CWG has unanimously or by consensus requested ICANN to do so since ,there was no such request was made by CWG to ICANN to sign on our behalf. However, we could resolve the matter by just instead of CWG we say CWG call ,,,,, That formulation is reflect what has spontaneously happened That is all REGARDS Kavouss 2016-08-12 7:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Go ahead with that 20 supporte Regards KAVOUSS
2016-08-12 1:10 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>:
20 support > 1 opposed especially considering no one else opposed.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce s@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Thursday, August 11, 2016 4:53 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community
I am sorry , once again we state something which does not reflect the reality.
20 people shall not represent the entire community
You taking an unfair position and pushing for your own position
WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS INAPPROPRIATE.
Your unilateral conclusions supported by Beckie and Andrew DID GET THE AGREEMENT OF THE ENTIRE 130 PEOPLE of CWG
we need to have at least 60 participants
I am not going to get in another battle with any one
We fabricate a conclusion which is false and untrue
regards
Kavouss
2016-08-11 19:32 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss, thank you for your comment. However, Andrew is correct, so we can't delete that sentence and still include ICANN as the proposed signatory. I regret that your comment cannot be accommodated.
As Andrew also notes, this is the last open item before the documents are set out for public comment. So that the process may move forward, I've now sent the proposed signatory and the footnote to the IANA IPR email list so the documents can be finalized and distributed.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Sam was quite clear that the agreement to put ICANN in there requires a note that this was at the request of the CWG.
A
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 06:42:49PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Grec This is my suggestion Kavouss *CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. ICANN has been included in this draft. ICANN (or another counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.*
2016-08-11 18:16 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
All,
As discussed, the following is the proposed footnote to accompany the inclusion of ICANN (in square brackets to indicate the non-final nature of that proposal) as the potential signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community.
This will need to be finalized in the next 1-2 hours so that the documents can be put out for public comment today. No objections were heard on today's call. Any violent objections or genius revisions should be sent in reply to this email.
*CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated that it could serve as the counterparty to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community and ICANN has been included in this draft. ICANN (or another counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.*
Greg
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hello Kavous, If ICANN's requirement/condition was not meet, the following text would not have been included: "...*ICANN** has indicated that it could serve as the counterparty to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community*..." That said, the request actually emanated initially from the CWG( I made the request) which Greg then forwarded to CWG client and the client then asked ICANN. Sidley confirmed during the call that they have made the request and awaiting response(I guess the response must have come subsequently). Anyway, I think the ship has sailed on this one though it's still on the move and has not reached final destination yet. Anything that requires changes can be done during the PC. If ICANN feels they were misinterpreted, that can be corrected. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 12 Aug 2016 7:11 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
I understand that we did have a blocking points that who could sign for Names Community
I also understand that someone propose that we put ICANN
Similarly I understood that ICANN STAFF indicated that without being requested they hesitate to self-nomination
Then someone proposed the following: “ *At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated ……”*
What I am saying is from the procedural view we cannot say immediately after such suggestion the entire CWG has unanimously or by consensus requested ICANN to do so since ,there was no such request was made by CWG to ICANN to sign on our behalf.
However, we could resolve the matter by just instead of CWG we say CWG call ,,,,,
That formulation is reflect what has spontaneously happened
That is all
REGARDS
Kavouss
2016-08-12 7:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Go ahead with that 20 supporte Regards KAVOUSS
2016-08-12 1:10 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>:
20 support > 1 opposed especially considering no one else opposed.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce s@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Thursday, August 11, 2016 4:53 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community
I am sorry , once again we state something which does not reflect the reality.
20 people shall not represent the entire community
You taking an unfair position and pushing for your own position
WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS INAPPROPRIATE.
Your unilateral conclusions supported by Beckie and Andrew DID GET THE AGREEMENT OF THE ENTIRE 130 PEOPLE of CWG
we need to have at least 60 participants
I am not going to get in another battle with any one
We fabricate a conclusion which is false and untrue
regards
Kavouss
2016-08-11 19:32 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss, thank you for your comment. However, Andrew is correct, so we can't delete that sentence and still include ICANN as the proposed signatory. I regret that your comment cannot be accommodated.
As Andrew also notes, this is the last open item before the documents are set out for public comment. So that the process may move forward, I've now sent the proposed signatory and the footnote to the IANA IPR email list so the documents can be finalized and distributed.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Andrew Sullivan < ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Sam was quite clear that the agreement to put ICANN in there requires a note that this was at the request of the CWG.
A
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 06:42:49PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Grec This is my suggestion Kavouss *CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. ICANN has been included in this draft. ICANN (or another counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.*
2016-08-11 18:16 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
All,
As discussed, the following is the proposed footnote to accompany the inclusion of ICANN (in square brackets to indicate the non-final nature of that proposal) as the potential signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community.
This will need to be finalized in the next 1-2 hours so that the documents can be put out for public comment today. No objections were heard on today's call. Any violent objections or genius revisions should be sent in reply to this email.
*CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated that it could serve as the counterparty to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community and ICANN has been included in this draft. ICANN (or another counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.*
Greg
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear Co- Chairs Yes the Ship is on the way BUT HAS NOT YET REACHED ITS DESTINATION But What I proposed to co Chairs to simply add the word Call Before CWG and the number of call I.E At the request made at CWG CALL NO X ,ICANN indicated Still that can be corrected if there is good will by the Co Chairs It is still not too late Regards kAVOUSS ...... 2016-08-12 8:29 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Hello Kavous,
If ICANN's requirement/condition was not meet, the following text would not have been included:
"...*ICANN** has indicated that it could serve as the counterparty to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community*..."
That said, the request actually emanated initially from the CWG( I made the request) which Greg then forwarded to CWG client and the client then asked ICANN. Sidley confirmed during the call that they have made the request and awaiting response(I guess the response must have come subsequently).
Anyway, I think the ship has sailed on this one though it's still on the move and has not reached final destination yet. Anything that requires changes can be done during the PC. If ICANN feels they were misinterpreted, that can be corrected.
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 12 Aug 2016 7:11 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
I understand that we did have a blocking points that who could sign for Names Community
I also understand that someone propose that we put ICANN
Similarly I understood that ICANN STAFF indicated that without being requested they hesitate to self-nomination
Then someone proposed the following: “ *At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated ……”*
What I am saying is from the procedural view we cannot say immediately after such suggestion the entire CWG has unanimously or by consensus requested ICANN to do so since ,there was no such request was made by CWG to ICANN to sign on our behalf.
However, we could resolve the matter by just instead of CWG we say CWG call ,,,,,
That formulation is reflect what has spontaneously happened
That is all
REGARDS
Kavouss
2016-08-12 7:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Go ahead with that 20 supporte Regards KAVOUSS
2016-08-12 1:10 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>:
20 support > 1 opposed especially considering no one else opposed.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Thursday, August 11, 2016 4:53 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community
I am sorry , once again we state something which does not reflect the reality.
20 people shall not represent the entire community
You taking an unfair position and pushing for your own position
WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS INAPPROPRIATE.
Your unilateral conclusions supported by Beckie and Andrew DID GET THE AGREEMENT OF THE ENTIRE 130 PEOPLE of CWG
we need to have at least 60 participants
I am not going to get in another battle with any one
We fabricate a conclusion which is false and untrue
regards
Kavouss
2016-08-11 19:32 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss, thank you for your comment. However, Andrew is correct, so we can't delete that sentence and still include ICANN as the proposed signatory. I regret that your comment cannot be accommodated.
As Andrew also notes, this is the last open item before the documents are set out for public comment. So that the process may move forward, I've now sent the proposed signatory and the footnote to the IANA IPR email list so the documents can be finalized and distributed.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Andrew Sullivan < ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Sam was quite clear that the agreement to put ICANN in there requires a note that this was at the request of the CWG.
A
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 06:42:49PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Grec This is my suggestion Kavouss *CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. ICANN has been included in this draft. ICANN (or another counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.*
2016-08-11 18:16 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
All,
As discussed, the following is the proposed footnote to accompany the inclusion of ICANN (in square brackets to indicate the non-final nature of that proposal) as the potential signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community.
This will need to be finalized in the next 1-2 hours so that the documents can be put out for public comment today. No objections were heard on today's call. Any violent objections or genius revisions should be sent in reply to this email.
*CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated that it could serve as the counterparty to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community and ICANN has been included in this draft. ICANN (or another counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.*
Greg
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I agree that we cannot say “the entire CWG has unanimously or by consensus requested ICANN to do so”; moreover I don’t think anyone has said that. All we did was to put one option on the table for public comment. Chuck From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 2:05 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Burr, Becky Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community Dear All, I understand that we did have a blocking points that who could sign for Names Community I also understand that someone propose that we put ICANN Similarly I understood that ICANN STAFF indicated that without being requested they hesitate to self-nomination Then someone proposed the following: “ At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated ……” What I am saying is from the procedural view we cannot say immediately after such suggestion the entire CWG has unanimously or by consensus requested ICANN to do so since ,there was no such request was made by CWG to ICANN to sign on our behalf. However, we could resolve the matter by just instead of CWG we say CWG call ,,,,, That formulation is reflect what has spontaneously happened That is all REGARDS Kavouss 2016-08-12 7:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Go ahead with that 20 supporte Regards KAVOUSS 2016-08-12 1:10 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>: 20 support > 1 opposed especially considering no one else opposed. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 4:53 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community I am sorry , once again we state something which does not reflect the reality. 20 people shall not represent the entire community You taking an unfair position and pushing for your own position WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS INAPPROPRIATE. Your unilateral conclusions supported by Beckie and Andrew DID GET THE AGREEMENT OF THE ENTIRE 130 PEOPLE of CWG we need to have at least 60 participants I am not going to get in another battle with any one We fabricate a conclusion which is false and untrue regards Kavouss 2016-08-11 19:32 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>: Kavouss, thank you for your comment. However, Andrew is correct, so we can't delete that sentence and still include ICANN as the proposed signatory. I regret that your comment cannot be accommodated. As Andrew also notes, this is the last open item before the documents are set out for public comment. So that the process may move forward, I've now sent the proposed signatory and the footnote to the IANA IPR email list so the documents can be finalized and distributed. Greg On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote: Sam was quite clear that the agreement to put ICANN in there requires a note that this was at the request of the CWG. A On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 06:42:49PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Grec This is my suggestion Kavouss *CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. ICANN has been included in this draft. ICANN (or another counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.*
2016-08-11 18:16 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>:
All,
As discussed, the following is the proposed footnote to accompany the inclusion of ICANN (in square brackets to indicate the non-final nature of that proposal) as the potential signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community.
This will need to be finalized in the next 1-2 hours so that the documents can be put out for public comment today. No objections were heard on today's call. Any violent objections or genius revisions should be sent in reply to this email.
*CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated that it could serve as the counterparty to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community and ICANN has been included in this draft. ICANN (or another counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.*
Greg
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<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> _______________________________________________ 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 think Kavous implies that when we say "...*At the request of the CWG-Stewardship..." *We were actually saying “the entire CWG has unanimously or by consensus requested ICANN to do so” which is not the case. Even if it were the case, i guess the important thing is that the substance of all these (which is the actual proposal) is not yet final and there is still room to make any required correction on the substance of the proposal during the public comment period. Regards On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I agree that we cannot say “the entire CWG has unanimously or by consensus requested ICANN to do so”; moreover I don’t think anyone has said that. All we did was to put one option on the table for public comment.
Chuck
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, August 12, 2016 2:05 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Burr, Becky
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community
Dear All,
I understand that we did have a blocking points that who could sign for Names Community
I also understand that someone propose that we put ICANN
Similarly I understood that ICANN STAFF indicated that without being requested they hesitate to self-nomination
Then someone proposed the following: “ *At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated ……”*
What I am saying is from the procedural view we cannot say immediately after such suggestion the entire CWG has unanimously or by consensus requested ICANN to do so since ,there was no such request was made by CWG to ICANN to sign on our behalf.
However, we could resolve the matter by just instead of CWG we say CWG call ,,,,,
That formulation is reflect what has spontaneously happened
That is all
REGARDS
Kavouss
2016-08-12 7:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Go ahead with that 20 supporte
Regards
KAVOUSS
2016-08-12 1:10 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>:
20 support > 1 opposed especially considering no one else opposed.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Thursday, August 11, 2016 4:53 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community
I am sorry , once again we state something which does not reflect the reality.
20 people shall not represent the entire community
You taking an unfair position and pushing for your own position
WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS INAPPROPRIATE.
Your unilateral conclusions supported by Beckie and Andrew DID GET THE AGREEMENT OF THE ENTIRE 130 PEOPLE of CWG
we need to have at least 60 participants
I am not going to get in another battle with any one
We fabricate a conclusion which is false and untrue
regards
Kavouss
2016-08-11 19:32 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss, thank you for your comment. However, Andrew is correct, so we can't delete that sentence and still include ICANN as the proposed signatory. I regret that your comment cannot be accommodated.
As Andrew also notes, this is the last open item before the documents are set out for public comment. So that the process may move forward, I've now sent the proposed signatory and the footnote to the IANA IPR email list so the documents can be finalized and distributed.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Sam was quite clear that the agreement to put ICANN in there requires a note that this was at the request of the CWG.
A
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 06:42:49PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Grec This is my suggestion Kavouss *CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. ICANN has been included in this draft. ICANN (or another counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.*
2016-08-11 18:16 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
All,
As discussed, the following is the proposed footnote to accompany the inclusion of ICANN (in square brackets to indicate the non-final nature of that proposal) as the potential signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community.
This will need to be finalized in the next 1-2 hours so that the documents can be put out for public comment today. No objections were heard on today's call. Any violent objections or genius revisions should be sent in reply to this email.
*CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated that it could serve as the counterparty to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community and ICANN has been included in this draft. ICANN (or another counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.*
Greg
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
I do not understand why we could not simply say At the request of CWG CALL 83, ICANN... What is the problem that some people insist on something which does not reflect the reality CWG has not formally requested ICANN we just did something at lower level That ids all Please be fair Kavouss 2016-08-12 16:40 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
I think Kavous implies that when we say "...*At the request of the CWG-Stewardship..." *We were actually saying “the entire CWG has unanimously or by consensus requested ICANN to do so” which is not the case. Even if it were the case, i guess the important thing is that the substance of all these (which is the actual proposal) is not yet final and there is still room to make any required correction on the substance of the proposal during the public comment period.
Regards
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I agree that we cannot say “the entire CWG has unanimously or by consensus requested ICANN to do so”; moreover I don’t think anyone has said that. All we did was to put one option on the table for public comment.
Chuck
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, August 12, 2016 2:05 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Burr, Becky
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community
Dear All,
I understand that we did have a blocking points that who could sign for Names Community
I also understand that someone propose that we put ICANN
Similarly I understood that ICANN STAFF indicated that without being requested they hesitate to self-nomination
Then someone proposed the following: “ *At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated ……”*
What I am saying is from the procedural view we cannot say immediately after such suggestion the entire CWG has unanimously or by consensus requested ICANN to do so since ,there was no such request was made by CWG to ICANN to sign on our behalf.
However, we could resolve the matter by just instead of CWG we say CWG call ,,,,,
That formulation is reflect what has spontaneously happened
That is all
REGARDS
Kavouss
2016-08-12 7:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Go ahead with that 20 supporte
Regards
KAVOUSS
2016-08-12 1:10 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>:
20 support > 1 opposed especially considering no one else opposed.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce s@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Thursday, August 11, 2016 4:53 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community
I am sorry , once again we state something which does not reflect the reality.
20 people shall not represent the entire community
You taking an unfair position and pushing for your own position
WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS INAPPROPRIATE.
Your unilateral conclusions supported by Beckie and Andrew DID GET THE AGREEMENT OF THE ENTIRE 130 PEOPLE of CWG
we need to have at least 60 participants
I am not going to get in another battle with any one
We fabricate a conclusion which is false and untrue
regards
Kavouss
2016-08-11 19:32 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss, thank you for your comment. However, Andrew is correct, so we can't delete that sentence and still include ICANN as the proposed signatory. I regret that your comment cannot be accommodated.
As Andrew also notes, this is the last open item before the documents are set out for public comment. So that the process may move forward, I've now sent the proposed signatory and the footnote to the IANA IPR email list so the documents can be finalized and distributed.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Sam was quite clear that the agreement to put ICANN in there requires a note that this was at the request of the CWG.
A
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 06:42:49PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Grec This is my suggestion Kavouss *CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. ICANN has been included in this draft. ICANN (or another counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.*
2016-08-11 18:16 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
All,
As discussed, the following is the proposed footnote to accompany the inclusion of ICANN (in square brackets to indicate the non-final nature of that proposal) as the potential signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community.
This will need to be finalized in the next 1-2 hours so that the documents can be put out for public comment today. No objections were heard on today's call. Any violent objections or genius revisions should be sent in reply to this email.
*CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated that it could serve as the counterparty to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community and ICANN has been included in this draft. ICANN (or another counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.*
Greg
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Dear Co Chairs, You were selected or elected to lead the process of CWG You need and even required to fulfill your responsibilities and obligations You cannot decide on rush on something which crucial, fundamental and legal The issue of signatories to the agreement 8 a legally binding document ) must be legally addressed and legally valid The signatories must have legal status or to be legal entity Names Community is not a legal entity and thus does not have legal status A signatory to the agreement while it signs the agreement is legally responsible to discharge its responsibility at every and all stages of a long term agreement up to and including standing at any court In order that names community be able to sign the agreement there are two options Option 1 It should establish an unincorporated association among the various players to provide it the legal status Option 2 To delegate its authority and responsibilities on not only sign the agreement but rendering its rights and obligation during the validity period of the agreement to another entity ,such as ICANN either represented by its Board or its President and Chief Executive officer . To do so CWG which currently performing the required tasks expected form Names Community must formally ask ICANN IF IT IS READY TO ACT AS DESCRIBED To this effect 1. The draft of the text of the request must be discussed and approved by/in a CWG call. 2. The text must be prepared as a draft letter to be a) approved by the entire CWG ( to be put 7 posted on CWG web site or CWG mailing for comment from the entire group , if any and b) finalized by inclusing of the comments, if any . 3. The definitive text as approved should be signed by Co –Chairs and sent to ICANN Board, together with the terms and condition associated with such delegation of responsibilities and obligations. This latter part may be postponed for the time being after receiving public comments 4. ICANN Board needs to formally reply to the request indicating that it accepts the request and fully and unconditionally agreed to the terms and conditions associated with such delegation of authorities and responsibilities Consequently, it is inappropriate to undermine the importance of this very delicate and legal matter and by cut and paste rushing to shortcut the process. Please be aware that you are not expected to breach, contravene, infringe and contradicts the process as legally required . Some people oppose to my valid point and categorize it as minority view That is inappropriate. We must properly examine the matter, analyses the situation and decide appropriately I remind you once again to be prudent, responsive and accountable . If you are not in a position to act and proceed as proposed, YOU ARE KINDLY REQUESTED TO RECORD THESE COMMENTS AS MY FORMAL PUBLIC COMMENTS AND ADVISE THE SECRETARIAT TO INSERT IT IN THE CORRESPONDING COLUMN UNDER PULIC COMMENTS Regards Kavouss 2016-08-12 17:10 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
I do not understand why we could not simply say At the request of CWG CALL 83, ICANN... What is the problem that some people insist on something which does not reflect the reality CWG has not formally requested ICANN we just did something at lower level That ids all Please be fair Kavouss
2016-08-12 16:40 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
I think Kavous implies that when we say "...*At the request of the CWG-Stewardship..." *We were actually saying “the entire CWG has unanimously or by consensus requested ICANN to do so” which is not the case. Even if it were the case, i guess the important thing is that the substance of all these (which is the actual proposal) is not yet final and there is still room to make any required correction on the substance of the proposal during the public comment period.
Regards
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I agree that we cannot say “the entire CWG has unanimously or by consensus requested ICANN to do so”; moreover I don’t think anyone has said that. All we did was to put one option on the table for public comment.
Chuck
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, August 12, 2016 2:05 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Burr, Becky
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community
Dear All,
I understand that we did have a blocking points that who could sign for Names Community
I also understand that someone propose that we put ICANN
Similarly I understood that ICANN STAFF indicated that without being requested they hesitate to self-nomination
Then someone proposed the following: “ *At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated ……”*
What I am saying is from the procedural view we cannot say immediately after such suggestion the entire CWG has unanimously or by consensus requested ICANN to do so since ,there was no such request was made by CWG to ICANN to sign on our behalf.
However, we could resolve the matter by just instead of CWG we say CWG call ,,,,,
That formulation is reflect what has spontaneously happened
That is all
REGARDS
Kavouss
2016-08-12 7:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Go ahead with that 20 supporte
Regards
KAVOUSS
2016-08-12 1:10 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>:
20 support > 1 opposed especially considering no one else opposed.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce s@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Thursday, August 11, 2016 4:53 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community
I am sorry , once again we state something which does not reflect the reality.
20 people shall not represent the entire community
You taking an unfair position and pushing for your own position
WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS INAPPROPRIATE.
Your unilateral conclusions supported by Beckie and Andrew DID GET THE AGREEMENT OF THE ENTIRE 130 PEOPLE of CWG
we need to have at least 60 participants
I am not going to get in another battle with any one
We fabricate a conclusion which is false and untrue
regards
Kavouss
2016-08-11 19:32 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss, thank you for your comment. However, Andrew is correct, so we can't delete that sentence and still include ICANN as the proposed signatory. I regret that your comment cannot be accommodated.
As Andrew also notes, this is the last open item before the documents are set out for public comment. So that the process may move forward, I've now sent the proposed signatory and the footnote to the IANA IPR email list so the documents can be finalized and distributed.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Andrew Sullivan < ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Sam was quite clear that the agreement to put ICANN in there requires a note that this was at the request of the CWG.
A
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 06:42:49PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Grec This is my suggestion Kavouss *CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. ICANN has been included in this draft. ICANN (or another counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.*
2016-08-11 18:16 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
All,
As discussed, the following is the proposed footnote to accompany the inclusion of ICANN (in square brackets to indicate the non-final nature of that proposal) as the potential signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community.
This will need to be finalized in the next 1-2 hours so that the documents can be put out for public comment today. No objections were heard on today's call. Any violent objections or genius revisions should be sent in reply to this email.
*CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated that it could serve as the counterparty to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community and ICANN has been included in this draft. ICANN (or another counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.*
Greg
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
participants (3)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Seun Ojedeji