Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX
Greg, I think there may be some confusion here. I am referring to the letter we are sending to ICANN which was included in this thread(that currently has the Co-Chairs as signatory, attaching for convenience). Ofcourse i was one of those who believe that the EC isn't setup to sign the main agreement and that's why i proposed(or supported) we use ICANN for that, assuming they agree. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 8 Sep 2016 03:59, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: The Chartering Organizations aren't legal entities, so they can't be signatories to the Community Agreement (whether by their Chairs or otherwise). Signing this agreement would not be in scope for the Empowered Community, so that doesn't work either. We have a legal entity that will be the signatory -- ICANN, which I believe has already agreed to do so. (Similarly, the IETF is not a legal entity, but rather an "activity" of ISOC, so I believe ISOC will be signing on behalf of the IETF as the "Protocol Parameters Community.") I don't know whether we *need* formal Chartering Organization approval for this set-up. That said, it would probably be good to inform the COs of this set-up and see if there are any objections. Greg On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Chuck,
I think item 1 is required, though it may perhaps be good to hear from ICANN first on whether they would accept to act on behalf subject to the conditions stated(or a modification of it), before reaching the COs for an ack.
On another note, assuming we are not constraint on timing, it may be better for the Chair(s)(or their representatives in the EC) of the CO to sign the agreement instead. This would however not be possible until the EC is formerly setup. That would give more formality to it and may also address part of Kavouss concern which I sense is around getting an entity to sign.
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 6 Sep 2016 15:14, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Pending input from Sidley, this looks pretty good to me. I do have two very important questions, assuming the CWG supports this letter of instruction as modified by Greg and any subsequent revisions proposed by Sidley:
1. Won’t we have to get approval from the ccNSO, SSAC, GNSO, ALAC and GAC in advance of sending the letter?
2. Realizing that each of the five organizations have their own approval processes that can take considerable time, how will we get all five approvals in the very short window we have?
If the answer to question 1 is affirmative, I think we need to start working on question 2 immediately.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce s@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Monday, September 05, 2016 8:47 PM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX
All,
I've given a good deal of thought to this Letter of Instruction and how the Names Community will operate under the Community Agreement.
The Community Agreement allows each of the Operational Communities to communicate to the IETF Trust through the CCG Co-Chair appointed by that community. Given this ability, it's actually unnecessary to route any of the Names Community's actions through ICANN (as signatory) after the appointment of the Names Community co-chair.
We really only need ICANN to do two things -- sign the agreement and communicate the appointment of the CCG Representatives (including the Co-Chair). Routing other actions through ICANN just causes unnecessary complications.
In order to implement this working model, I've proposed fairly extensive changes to the Letter of Instruction. I'm attaching a clean copy (easier to read) as well as a track changes copy (to show the changes). The original version is also attached for convenience.
We will still need to appoint the CCG reps, and figure out how the CWG (and the Chartering Organization Co-Chairs, when there is no CCG) instructs the CCG reps, and how the CCG reps carry out their duties generally. But that is not part of this Letter of Instruction.
I look forward to comments.
Best regards,
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Hofheimer, Joshua T.* <jhofheimer@sidley.com> Date: Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:05 AM Subject: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "jrobinson@afilias.info" <jrobinson@afilias.info>, Lise Fuhr < lise.fuhr@difo.dk> Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com>, "Resnick, Yael" < yresnick@sidley.com>, "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com>, "Grapsas, Rebecca" <rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com>
Dear Client Committee,
Attached is a draft letter of instruction from the “Names Community” to ICANN regarding it acting as the signatory to the Community Agreement. Per the instruction from CWG, namely that we pursue Scenario 1 from the prior Sidley memo, we have drafted this request to come from the CWG co-chairs, and look to Greg Shatan to help with the description of the “Names Community”. We look forward to discussing on our call on Thursday.
Cheers,
Josh
*JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER* Partner
*SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP* +1 650 565 7561 (PA direct) +1 213 896 6061 (LA direct) +1 323 708 2405 (Cell) jhofheimer@sidley.com www.sidley.com
*[image: SIDLEY]*
************************************************************ **************************************** 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-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks for clarifying. When you said the agreement, I thought you mant the Community Agreement. In any event, I am fine having the Co-Chairs sign,especially since we are time-constrained; we need this signed and sent well before September 30. On Thursday, September 8, 2016, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Greg,
I think there may be some confusion here. I am referring to the letter we are sending to ICANN which was included in this thread(that currently has the Co-Chairs as signatory, attaching for convenience). Ofcourse i was one of those who believe that the EC isn't setup to sign the main agreement and that's why i proposed(or supported) we use ICANN for that, assuming they agree.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 8 Sep 2016 03:59, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>> wrote:
The Chartering Organizations aren't legal entities, so they can't be signatories to the Community Agreement (whether by their Chairs or otherwise). Signing this agreement would not be in scope for the Empowered Community, so that doesn't work either. We have a legal entity that will be the signatory -- ICANN, which I believe has already agreed to do so. (Similarly, the IETF is not a legal entity, but rather an "activity" of ISOC, so I believe ISOC will be signing on behalf of the IETF as the "Protocol Parameters Community.")
I don't know whether we *need* formal Chartering Organization approval for this set-up. That said, it would probably be good to inform the COs of this set-up and see if there are any objections.
Greg
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','seun.ojedeji@gmail.com');>> wrote:
Hello Chuck,
I think item 1 is required, though it may perhaps be good to hear from ICANN first on whether they would accept to act on behalf subject to the conditions stated(or a modification of it), before reaching the COs for an ack.
On another note, assuming we are not constraint on timing, it may be better for the Chair(s)(or their representatives in the EC) of the CO to sign the agreement instead. This would however not be possible until the EC is formerly setup. That would give more formality to it and may also address part of Kavouss concern which I sense is around getting an entity to sign.
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 6 Sep 2016 15:14, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cgomes@verisign.com');>> wrote:
Pending input from Sidley, this looks pretty good to me. I do have two very important questions, assuming the CWG supports this letter of instruction as modified by Greg and any subsequent revisions proposed by Sidley:
1. Won’t we have to get approval from the ccNSO, SSAC, GNSO, ALAC and GAC in advance of sending the letter?
2. Realizing that each of the five organizations have their own approval processes that can take considerable time, how will we get all five approvals in the very short window we have?
If the answer to question 1 is affirmative, I think we need to start working on question 2 immediately.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Monday, September 05, 2016 8:47 PM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX
All,
I've given a good deal of thought to this Letter of Instruction and how the Names Community will operate under the Community Agreement.
The Community Agreement allows each of the Operational Communities to communicate to the IETF Trust through the CCG Co-Chair appointed by that community. Given this ability, it's actually unnecessary to route any of the Names Community's actions through ICANN (as signatory) after the appointment of the Names Community co-chair.
We really only need ICANN to do two things -- sign the agreement and communicate the appointment of the CCG Representatives (including the Co-Chair). Routing other actions through ICANN just causes unnecessary complications.
In order to implement this working model, I've proposed fairly extensive changes to the Letter of Instruction. I'm attaching a clean copy (easier to read) as well as a track changes copy (to show the changes). The original version is also attached for convenience.
We will still need to appoint the CCG reps, and figure out how the CWG (and the Chartering Organization Co-Chairs, when there is no CCG) instructs the CCG reps, and how the CCG reps carry out their duties generally. But that is not part of this Letter of Instruction.
I look forward to comments.
Best regards,
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Hofheimer, Joshua T.* <jhofheimer@sidley.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jhofheimer@sidley.com');>> Date: Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:05 AM Subject: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client@icann.org');>>, Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>>, " jrobinson@afilias.info <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jrobinson@afilias.info');>" < jrobinson@afilias.info <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jrobinson@afilias.info');>>, Lise Fuhr < lise.fuhr@difo.dk <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lise.fuhr@difo.dk');>> Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sflanagan@sidley.com');>>, "Resnick, Yael" <yresnick@sidley.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','yresnick@sidley.com');>>, "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','holly.gregory@sidley.com');>>, "Grapsas, Rebecca" <rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com');>>
Dear Client Committee,
Attached is a draft letter of instruction from the “Names Community” to ICANN regarding it acting as the signatory to the Community Agreement. Per the instruction from CWG, namely that we pursue Scenario 1 from the prior Sidley memo, we have drafted this request to come from the CWG co-chairs, and look to Greg Shatan to help with the description of the “Names Community”. We look forward to discussing on our call on Thursday.
Cheers,
Josh
*JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER* Partner
*SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP* +1 650 565 7561 (PA direct) +1 213 896 6061 (LA direct) +1 323 708 2405 (Cell) jhofheimer@sidley.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jhofheimer@sidley.com');> www.sidley.com
*[image: SIDLEY]*
************************************************************ **************************************** 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-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Noted since there is time constraint. I just felt that because the COs would be part of the EC would give some strength/more community sense to the agreement. I don't think we've signed any document with ICANN before as CWG, so don't know how formal/binding this would be and I thought having COs sign may bring such formality and sense of commitment on both sides. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 8 Sep 2016 06:49, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for clarifying. When you said the agreement, I thought you mant the Community Agreement. In any event, I am fine having the Co-Chairs sign,especially since we are time-constrained; we need this signed and sent well before September 30.
On Thursday, September 8, 2016, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Greg,
I think there may be some confusion here. I am referring to the letter we are sending to ICANN which was included in this thread(that currently has the Co-Chairs as signatory, attaching for convenience). Ofcourse i was one of those who believe that the EC isn't setup to sign the main agreement and that's why i proposed(or supported) we use ICANN for that, assuming they agree.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 8 Sep 2016 03:59, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The Chartering Organizations aren't legal entities, so they can't be signatories to the Community Agreement (whether by their Chairs or otherwise). Signing this agreement would not be in scope for the Empowered Community, so that doesn't work either. We have a legal entity that will be the signatory -- ICANN, which I believe has already agreed to do so. (Similarly, the IETF is not a legal entity, but rather an "activity" of ISOC, so I believe ISOC will be signing on behalf of the IETF as the "Protocol Parameters Community.")
I don't know whether we *need* formal Chartering Organization approval for this set-up. That said, it would probably be good to inform the COs of this set-up and see if there are any objections.
Greg
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Chuck,
I think item 1 is required, though it may perhaps be good to hear from ICANN first on whether they would accept to act on behalf subject to the conditions stated(or a modification of it), before reaching the COs for an ack.
On another note, assuming we are not constraint on timing, it may be better for the Chair(s)(or their representatives in the EC) of the CO to sign the agreement instead. This would however not be possible until the EC is formerly setup. That would give more formality to it and may also address part of Kavouss concern which I sense is around getting an entity to sign.
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 6 Sep 2016 15:14, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Pending input from Sidley, this looks pretty good to me. I do have two very important questions, assuming the CWG supports this letter of instruction as modified by Greg and any subsequent revisions proposed by Sidley:
1. Won’t we have to get approval from the ccNSO, SSAC, GNSO, ALAC and GAC in advance of sending the letter?
2. Realizing that each of the five organizations have their own approval processes that can take considerable time, how will we get all five approvals in the very short window we have?
If the answer to question 1 is affirmative, I think we need to start working on question 2 immediately.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Monday, September 05, 2016 8:47 PM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX
All,
I've given a good deal of thought to this Letter of Instruction and how the Names Community will operate under the Community Agreement.
The Community Agreement allows each of the Operational Communities to communicate to the IETF Trust through the CCG Co-Chair appointed by that community. Given this ability, it's actually unnecessary to route any of the Names Community's actions through ICANN (as signatory) after the appointment of the Names Community co-chair.
We really only need ICANN to do two things -- sign the agreement and communicate the appointment of the CCG Representatives (including the Co-Chair). Routing other actions through ICANN just causes unnecessary complications.
In order to implement this working model, I've proposed fairly extensive changes to the Letter of Instruction. I'm attaching a clean copy (easier to read) as well as a track changes copy (to show the changes). The original version is also attached for convenience.
We will still need to appoint the CCG reps, and figure out how the CWG (and the Chartering Organization Co-Chairs, when there is no CCG) instructs the CCG reps, and how the CCG reps carry out their duties generally. But that is not part of this Letter of Instruction.
I look forward to comments.
Best regards,
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Hofheimer, Joshua T.* <jhofheimer@sidley.com> Date: Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:05 AM Subject: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "jrobinson@afilias.info" <jrobinson@afilias.info>, Lise Fuhr < lise.fuhr@difo.dk> Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com>, "Resnick, Yael" < yresnick@sidley.com>, "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com>, "Grapsas, Rebecca" <rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com>
Dear Client Committee,
Attached is a draft letter of instruction from the “Names Community” to ICANN regarding it acting as the signatory to the Community Agreement. Per the instruction from CWG, namely that we pursue Scenario 1 from the prior Sidley memo, we have drafted this request to come from the CWG co-chairs, and look to Greg Shatan to help with the description of the “Names Community”. We look forward to discussing on our call on Thursday.
Cheers,
Josh
*JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER* Partner
*SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP* +1 650 565 7561 (PA direct) +1 213 896 6061 (LA direct) +1 323 708 2405 (Cell) jhofheimer@sidley.com www.sidley.com
*[image: SIDLEY]*
************************************************************ **************************************** 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-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Would we then revise the first paragraph so that it does not state that the letter is from the sponsoring organizations, thereby eliminating the need to get specific approval from them? If so, that would solve the time crunch problem for getting their approval. Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 1:38 AM To: Greg Shatan Cc: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX Greg, I think there may be some confusion here. I am referring to the letter we are sending to ICANN which was included in this thread(that currently has the Co-Chairs as signatory, attaching for convenience). Ofcourse i was one of those who believe that the EC isn't setup to sign the main agreement and that's why i proposed(or supported) we use ICANN for that, assuming they agree. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 8 Sep 2016 03:59, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: The Chartering Organizations aren't legal entities, so they can't be signatories to the Community Agreement (whether by their Chairs or otherwise). Signing this agreement would not be in scope for the Empowered Community, so that doesn't work either. We have a legal entity that will be the signatory -- ICANN, which I believe has already agreed to do so. (Similarly, the IETF is not a legal entity, but rather an "activity" of ISOC, so I believe ISOC will be signing on behalf of the IETF as the "Protocol Parameters Community.") I don't know whether we need formal Chartering Organization approval for this set-up. That said, it would probably be good to inform the COs of this set-up and see if there are any objections. Greg On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello Chuck, I think item 1 is required, though it may perhaps be good to hear from ICANN first on whether they would accept to act on behalf subject to the conditions stated(or a modification of it), before reaching the COs for an ack. On another note, assuming we are not constraint on timing, it may be better for the Chair(s)(or their representatives in the EC) of the CO to sign the agreement instead. This would however not be possible until the EC is formerly setup. That would give more formality to it and may also address part of Kavouss concern which I sense is around getting an entity to sign. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 6 Sep 2016 15:14, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Pending input from Sidley, this looks pretty good to me. I do have two very important questions, assuming the CWG supports this letter of instruction as modified by Greg and any subsequent revisions proposed by Sidley: 1. Won’t we have to get approval from the ccNSO, SSAC, GNSO, ALAC and GAC in advance of sending the letter? 2. Realizing that each of the five organizations have their own approval processes that can take considerable time, how will we get all five approvals in the very short window we have? If the answer to question 1 is affirmative, I think we need to start working on question 2 immediately. 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 Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 8:47 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX All, I've given a good deal of thought to this Letter of Instruction and how the Names Community will operate under the Community Agreement. The Community Agreement allows each of the Operational Communities to communicate to the IETF Trust through the CCG Co-Chair appointed by that community. Given this ability, it's actually unnecessary to route any of the Names Community's actions through ICANN (as signatory) after the appointment of the Names Community co-chair. We really only need ICANN to do two things -- sign the agreement and communicate the appointment of the CCG Representatives (including the Co-Chair). Routing other actions through ICANN just causes unnecessary complications. In order to implement this working model, I've proposed fairly extensive changes to the Letter of Instruction. I'm attaching a clean copy (easier to read) as well as a track changes copy (to show the changes). The original version is also attached for convenience. We will still need to appoint the CCG reps, and figure out how the CWG (and the Chartering Organization Co-Chairs, when there is no CCG) instructs the CCG reps, and how the CCG reps carry out their duties generally. But that is not part of this Letter of Instruction. I look forward to comments. Best regards, Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> Date: Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:05 AM Subject: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, "jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com>>, "Resnick, Yael" <yresnick@sidley.com<mailto:yresnick@sidley.com>>, "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>>, "Grapsas, Rebecca" <rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com<mailto:rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com>> Dear Client Committee, Attached is a draft letter of instruction from the “Names Community” to ICANN regarding it acting as the signatory to the Community Agreement. Per the instruction from CWG, namely that we pursue Scenario 1 from the prior Sidley memo, we have drafted this request to come from the CWG co-chairs, and look to Greg Shatan to help with the description of the “Names Community”. We look forward to discussing on our call on Thursday. Cheers, Josh JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER Partner SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP +1 650 565 7561<tel:%2B1%20650%20565%207561> (PA direct) +1 213 896 6061<tel:%2B1%20213%20896%206061> (LA direct) +1 323 708 2405<tel:%2B1%20323%20708%202405> (Cell) jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [SIDLEY] **************************************************************************************************** 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-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Chuck - I have more or less the same concerns The way the «letter of instruction» is formulated now in the first paragraph doesn’t work with how the ICANN community is organized. The CWG can’t formulate any “legal” document and sign it on behalf of the listed chartering organizations. In the case of the GAC (and I will hope also for the other chartering organizations) an approval of sending something on behalf of the whole GAC would need to be discussed in the GAC and approved formally by the GAC Chair. What the GAC representatives in the CWG have authority to do is to send something to ICANN on behalf of the CWG, and that is it. So I think we need to revise - something in line with “confirms the request of the CWG which consists of representatives from ..(listing of all the chartering organizations). Elise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Gomes, Chuck Sendt: 8. september 2016 15:10 Til: Seun Ojedeji; Greg Shatan Kopi: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX Would we then revise the first paragraph so that it does not state that the letter is from the sponsoring organizations, thereby eliminating the need to get specific approval from them? If so, that would solve the time crunch problem for getting their approval. Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 1:38 AM To: Greg Shatan Cc: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX Greg, I think there may be some confusion here. I am referring to the letter we are sending to ICANN which was included in this thread(that currently has the Co-Chairs as signatory, attaching for convenience). Ofcourse i was one of those who believe that the EC isn't setup to sign the main agreement and that's why i proposed(or supported) we use ICANN for that, assuming they agree. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 8 Sep 2016 03:59, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: The Chartering Organizations aren't legal entities, so they can't be signatories to the Community Agreement (whether by their Chairs or otherwise). Signing this agreement would not be in scope for the Empowered Community, so that doesn't work either. We have a legal entity that will be the signatory -- ICANN, which I believe has already agreed to do so. (Similarly, the IETF is not a legal entity, but rather an "activity" of ISOC, so I believe ISOC will be signing on behalf of the IETF as the "Protocol Parameters Community.") I don't know whether we need formal Chartering Organization approval for this set-up. That said, it would probably be good to inform the COs of this set-up and see if there are any objections. Greg On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello Chuck, I think item 1 is required, though it may perhaps be good to hear from ICANN first on whether they would accept to act on behalf subject to the conditions stated(or a modification of it), before reaching the COs for an ack. On another note, assuming we are not constraint on timing, it may be better for the Chair(s)(or their representatives in the EC) of the CO to sign the agreement instead. This would however not be possible until the EC is formerly setup. That would give more formality to it and may also address part of Kavouss concern which I sense is around getting an entity to sign. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 6 Sep 2016 15:14, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Pending input from Sidley, this looks pretty good to me. I do have two very important questions, assuming the CWG supports this letter of instruction as modified by Greg and any subsequent revisions proposed by Sidley: 1. Won’t we have to get approval from the ccNSO, SSAC, GNSO, ALAC and GAC in advance of sending the letter? 2. Realizing that each of the five organizations have their own approval processes that can take considerable time, how will we get all five approvals in the very short window we have? If the answer to question 1 is affirmative, I think we need to start working on question 2 immediately. 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 Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 8:47 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX All, I've given a good deal of thought to this Letter of Instruction and how the Names Community will operate under the Community Agreement. The Community Agreement allows each of the Operational Communities to communicate to the IETF Trust through the CCG Co-Chair appointed by that community. Given this ability, it's actually unnecessary to route any of the Names Community's actions through ICANN (as signatory) after the appointment of the Names Community co-chair. We really only need ICANN to do two things -- sign the agreement and communicate the appointment of the CCG Representatives (including the Co-Chair). Routing other actions through ICANN just causes unnecessary complications. In order to implement this working model, I've proposed fairly extensive changes to the Letter of Instruction. I'm attaching a clean copy (easier to read) as well as a track changes copy (to show the changes). The original version is also attached for convenience. We will still need to appoint the CCG reps, and figure out how the CWG (and the Chartering Organization Co-Chairs, when there is no CCG) instructs the CCG reps, and how the CCG reps carry out their duties generally. But that is not part of this Letter of Instruction. I look forward to comments. Best regards, Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> Date: Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:05 AM Subject: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, "jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com>>, "Resnick, Yael" <yresnick@sidley.com<mailto:yresnick@sidley.com>>, "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>>, "Grapsas, Rebecca" <rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com<mailto:rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com>> Dear Client Committee, Attached is a draft letter of instruction from the “Names Community” to ICANN regarding it acting as the signatory to the Community Agreement. Per the instruction from CWG, namely that we pursue Scenario 1 from the prior Sidley memo, we have drafted this request to come from the CWG co-chairs, and look to Greg Shatan to help with the description of the “Names Community”. We look forward to discussing on our call on Thursday. Cheers, Josh JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER Partner SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP +1 650 565 7561<tel:%2B1%20650%20565%207561> (PA direct) +1 213 896 6061<tel:%2B1%20213%20896%206061> (LA direct) +1 323 708 2405<tel:%2B1%20323%20708%202405> (Cell) jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [SIDLEY] **************************************************************************************************** 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-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Agree (in fact, we would need discussion and agreement by the GAC itself for such a statement/formulation to be valid) Jorge Von: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Lindeberg, Elise Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. September 2016 15:42 An: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>; Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX Chuck - I have more or less the same concerns The way the «letter of instruction» is formulated now in the first paragraph doesn’t work with how the ICANN community is organized. The CWG can’t formulate any “legal” document and sign it on behalf of the listed chartering organizations. In the case of the GAC (and I will hope also for the other chartering organizations) an approval of sending something on behalf of the whole GAC would need to be discussed in the GAC and approved formally by the GAC Chair. What the GAC representatives in the CWG have authority to do is to send something to ICANN on behalf of the CWG, and that is it. So I think we need to revise - something in line with “confirms the request of the CWG which consists of representatives from ..(listing of all the chartering organizations). Elise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Gomes, Chuck Sendt: 8. september 2016 15:10 Til: Seun Ojedeji; Greg Shatan Kopi: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX Would we then revise the first paragraph so that it does not state that the letter is from the sponsoring organizations, thereby eliminating the need to get specific approval from them? If so, that would solve the time crunch problem for getting their approval. Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 1:38 AM To: Greg Shatan Cc: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX Greg, I think there may be some confusion here. I am referring to the letter we are sending to ICANN which was included in this thread(that currently has the Co-Chairs as signatory, attaching for convenience). Ofcourse i was one of those who believe that the EC isn't setup to sign the main agreement and that's why i proposed(or supported) we use ICANN for that, assuming they agree. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 8 Sep 2016 03:59, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: The Chartering Organizations aren't legal entities, so they can't be signatories to the Community Agreement (whether by their Chairs or otherwise). Signing this agreement would not be in scope for the Empowered Community, so that doesn't work either. We have a legal entity that will be the signatory -- ICANN, which I believe has already agreed to do so. (Similarly, the IETF is not a legal entity, but rather an "activity" of ISOC, so I believe ISOC will be signing on behalf of the IETF as the "Protocol Parameters Community.") I don't know whether we need formal Chartering Organization approval for this set-up. That said, it would probably be good to inform the COs of this set-up and see if there are any objections. Greg On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello Chuck, I think item 1 is required, though it may perhaps be good to hear from ICANN first on whether they would accept to act on behalf subject to the conditions stated(or a modification of it), before reaching the COs for an ack. On another note, assuming we are not constraint on timing, it may be better for the Chair(s)(or their representatives in the EC) of the CO to sign the agreement instead. This would however not be possible until the EC is formerly setup. That would give more formality to it and may also address part of Kavouss concern which I sense is around getting an entity to sign. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 6 Sep 2016 15:14, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Pending input from Sidley, this looks pretty good to me. I do have two very important questions, assuming the CWG supports this letter of instruction as modified by Greg and any subsequent revisions proposed by Sidley: 1. Won’t we have to get approval from the ccNSO, SSAC, GNSO, ALAC and GAC in advance of sending the letter? 2. Realizing that each of the five organizations have their own approval processes that can take considerable time, how will we get all five approvals in the very short window we have? If the answer to question 1 is affirmative, I think we need to start working on question 2 immediately. 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 Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 8:47 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX All, I've given a good deal of thought to this Letter of Instruction and how the Names Community will operate under the Community Agreement. The Community Agreement allows each of the Operational Communities to communicate to the IETF Trust through the CCG Co-Chair appointed by that community. Given this ability, it's actually unnecessary to route any of the Names Community's actions through ICANN (as signatory) after the appointment of the Names Community co-chair. We really only need ICANN to do two things -- sign the agreement and communicate the appointment of the CCG Representatives (including the Co-Chair). Routing other actions through ICANN just causes unnecessary complications. In order to implement this working model, I've proposed fairly extensive changes to the Letter of Instruction. I'm attaching a clean copy (easier to read) as well as a track changes copy (to show the changes). The original version is also attached for convenience. We will still need to appoint the CCG reps, and figure out how the CWG (and the Chartering Organization Co-Chairs, when there is no CCG) instructs the CCG reps, and how the CCG reps carry out their duties generally. But that is not part of this Letter of Instruction. I look forward to comments. Best regards, Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> Date: Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:05 AM Subject: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, "jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com>>, "Resnick, Yael" <yresnick@sidley.com<mailto:yresnick@sidley.com>>, "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>>, "Grapsas, Rebecca" <rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com<mailto:rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com>> Dear Client Committee, Attached is a draft letter of instruction from the “Names Community” to ICANN regarding it acting as the signatory to the Community Agreement. Per the instruction from CWG, namely that we pursue Scenario 1 from the prior Sidley memo, we have drafted this request to come from the CWG co-chairs, and look to Greg Shatan to help with the description of the “Names Community”. We look forward to discussing on our call on Thursday. Cheers, Josh JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER Partner SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP +1 650 565 7561<tel:%2B1%20650%20565%207561> (PA direct) +1 213 896 6061<tel:%2B1%20213%20896%206061> (LA direct) +1 323 708 2405<tel:%2B1%20323%20708%202405> (Cell) jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [SIDLEY] **************************************************************************************************** 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-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I see that edits have been made to the first paragraph of the letter so my question has been answered. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 9:10 AM To: Seun Ojedeji; Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX Would we then revise the first paragraph so that it does not state that the letter is from the sponsoring organizations, thereby eliminating the need to get specific approval from them? If so, that would solve the time crunch problem for getting their approval. Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 1:38 AM To: Greg Shatan Cc: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX Greg, I think there may be some confusion here. I am referring to the letter we are sending to ICANN which was included in this thread(that currently has the Co-Chairs as signatory, attaching for convenience). Ofcourse i was one of those who believe that the EC isn't setup to sign the main agreement and that's why i proposed(or supported) we use ICANN for that, assuming they agree. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 8 Sep 2016 03:59, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: The Chartering Organizations aren't legal entities, so they can't be signatories to the Community Agreement (whether by their Chairs or otherwise). Signing this agreement would not be in scope for the Empowered Community, so that doesn't work either. We have a legal entity that will be the signatory -- ICANN, which I believe has already agreed to do so. (Similarly, the IETF is not a legal entity, but rather an "activity" of ISOC, so I believe ISOC will be signing on behalf of the IETF as the "Protocol Parameters Community.") I don't know whether we need formal Chartering Organization approval for this set-up. That said, it would probably be good to inform the COs of this set-up and see if there are any objections. Greg On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello Chuck, I think item 1 is required, though it may perhaps be good to hear from ICANN first on whether they would accept to act on behalf subject to the conditions stated(or a modification of it), before reaching the COs for an ack. On another note, assuming we are not constraint on timing, it may be better for the Chair(s)(or their representatives in the EC) of the CO to sign the agreement instead. This would however not be possible until the EC is formerly setup. That would give more formality to it and may also address part of Kavouss concern which I sense is around getting an entity to sign. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 6 Sep 2016 15:14, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Pending input from Sidley, this looks pretty good to me. I do have two very important questions, assuming the CWG supports this letter of instruction as modified by Greg and any subsequent revisions proposed by Sidley: 1. Won’t we have to get approval from the ccNSO, SSAC, GNSO, ALAC and GAC in advance of sending the letter? 2. Realizing that each of the five organizations have their own approval processes that can take considerable time, how will we get all five approvals in the very short window we have? If the answer to question 1 is affirmative, I think we need to start working on question 2 immediately. 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 Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 8:47 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX All, I've given a good deal of thought to this Letter of Instruction and how the Names Community will operate under the Community Agreement. The Community Agreement allows each of the Operational Communities to communicate to the IETF Trust through the CCG Co-Chair appointed by that community. Given this ability, it's actually unnecessary to route any of the Names Community's actions through ICANN (as signatory) after the appointment of the Names Community co-chair. We really only need ICANN to do two things -- sign the agreement and communicate the appointment of the CCG Representatives (including the Co-Chair). Routing other actions through ICANN just causes unnecessary complications. In order to implement this working model, I've proposed fairly extensive changes to the Letter of Instruction. I'm attaching a clean copy (easier to read) as well as a track changes copy (to show the changes). The original version is also attached for convenience. We will still need to appoint the CCG reps, and figure out how the CWG (and the Chartering Organization Co-Chairs, when there is no CCG) instructs the CCG reps, and how the CCG reps carry out their duties generally. But that is not part of this Letter of Instruction. I look forward to comments. Best regards, Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> Date: Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:05 AM Subject: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, "jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com>>, "Resnick, Yael" <yresnick@sidley.com<mailto:yresnick@sidley.com>>, "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>>, "Grapsas, Rebecca" <rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com<mailto:rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com>> Dear Client Committee, Attached is a draft letter of instruction from the “Names Community” to ICANN regarding it acting as the signatory to the Community Agreement. Per the instruction from CWG, namely that we pursue Scenario 1 from the prior Sidley memo, we have drafted this request to come from the CWG co-chairs, and look to Greg Shatan to help with the description of the “Names Community”. We look forward to discussing on our call on Thursday. Cheers, Josh JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER Partner SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP +1 650 565 7561<tel:%2B1%20650%20565%207561> (PA direct) +1 213 896 6061<tel:%2B1%20213%20896%206061> (LA direct) +1 323 708 2405<tel:%2B1%20323%20708%202405> (Cell) jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [SIDLEY] **************************************************************************************************** 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-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (5)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Lindeberg, Elise -
Seun Ojedeji