[client com] Signatory to the Community Agreement
All, Please see below and attached for information from Sidley regarding potential signatories to the IANA IPR Community Agreement. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Flanagan, Sharon* <sflanagan@sidley.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sflanagan@sidley.com');>> Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Subject: [client com] Signatory to the Community Agreement To: "jrobinson@afilias.info <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jrobinson@afilias.info');>" < jrobinson@afilias.info <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jrobinson@afilias.info');>> Cc: Client <cwg-client@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client@icann.org');>> Dear Client Committee, Attached is a table highlighting some of the advantages and disadvantages of the various potential signatories to the IPR community agreement. Best regards, Sharon *SHARON R. FLANAGAN* *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP *+1 415 772 1271 sflanagan@sidley.com *From:* Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2016 3:25 AM *To:* Flanagan, Sharon; Hofheimer, Joshua T. *Cc:* Gregory, Holly; Client *Subject:* Signatory to the Community Agreement Dear Sidley, As you are aware: 1. A key issue for the CWG in dealing with the IANA IPR will be a decision on the signatory on behalf of the Names Community. 2. Currently we have some potential options: a. ICANN as signatory (assuming ICANN is willing) b. The formation of an unincorporated entity (a to be defined) c. Other possibilities such as the Empowered Community It will be helpful to the CWG to have some structured input on this, possibly in the form of a table, in order to inform and aid that decision. Please can you provide such input and/or advice and indicate if this will be possible at the meeting of the CWG scheduled for tomorrow (18 August) @ 06h00 UTC. Thank-you, Jonathan (on behalf of the Client Committee) ************************************************************ **************************************** 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. ************************************************************ ****************************************
Thanks Greg. Would it be feasible to start with one option, e.g., ICANN, and transition to another option later, thereby allowing time to implement one that would take more time? Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 10:55 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Signatory to the Community Agreement All, Please see below and attached for information from Sidley regarding potential signatories to the IANA IPR Community Agreement. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Flanagan, Sharon <sflanagan@sidley.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sflanagan@sidley.com');>> Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Subject: [client com] Signatory to the Community Agreement To: "jrobinson@afilias.info<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jrobinson@afilias.info');>" <jrobinson@afilias.info<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jrobinson@afilias.info');>> Cc: Client <cwg-client@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client@icann.org');>> Dear Client Committee, Attached is a table highlighting some of the advantages and disadvantages of the various potential signatories to the IPR community agreement. Best regards, Sharon SHARON R. FLANAGAN SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP +1 415 772 1271 sflanagan@sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 3:25 AM To: Flanagan, Sharon; Hofheimer, Joshua T. Cc: Gregory, Holly; Client Subject: Signatory to the Community Agreement Dear Sidley, As you are aware: 1. A key issue for the CWG in dealing with the IANA IPR will be a decision on the signatory on behalf of the Names Community. 2. Currently we have some potential options: a. ICANN as signatory (assuming ICANN is willing) b. The formation of an unincorporated entity (a to be defined) c. Other possibilities such as the Empowered Community It will be helpful to the CWG to have some structured input on this, possibly in the form of a table, in order to inform and aid that decision. Please can you provide such input and/or advice and indicate if this will be possible at the meeting of the CWG scheduled for tomorrow (18 August) @ 06h00 UTC. Thank-you, Jonathan (on behalf of the Client Committee) **************************************************************************************************** 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. ****************************************************************************************************
Chuck, Good question. I'm fairly sure it would be. Indeed, Sidley revised the draft Community Agreement to facilitate just such a move. This is reflected in the draft out for public comment. Greg On Thursday, August 18, 2016, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Greg. Would it be feasible to start with one option, e.g., ICANN, and transition to another option later, thereby allowing time to implement one that would take more time?
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:* Wednesday, August 17, 2016 10:55 PM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Signatory to the Community Agreement
All,
Please see below and attached for information from Sidley regarding potential signatories to the IANA IPR Community Agreement.
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Flanagan, Sharon* <sflanagan@sidley.com> Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Subject: [client com] Signatory to the Community Agreement To: "jrobinson@afilias.info" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: Client <cwg-client@icann.org>
Dear Client Committee,
Attached is a table highlighting some of the advantages and disadvantages of the various potential signatories to the IPR community agreement.
Best regards,
Sharon
*SHARON R. FLANAGAN*
*SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP *+1 415 772 1271 sflanagan@sidley.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sflanagan@sidley.com');>
*From:* Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jrobinson@afilias.info');>] *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2016 3:25 AM *To:* Flanagan, Sharon; Hofheimer, Joshua T. *Cc:* Gregory, Holly; Client *Subject:* Signatory to the Community Agreement
Dear Sidley,
As you are aware:
1. A key issue for the CWG in dealing with the IANA IPR will be a decision on the signatory on behalf of the Names Community.
2. Currently we have some potential options:
a. ICANN as signatory (assuming ICANN is willing)
b. The formation of an unincorporated entity (a to be defined)
c. Other possibilities such as the Empowered Community
It will be helpful to the CWG to have some structured input on this, possibly in the form of a table, in order to inform and aid that decision.
Please can you provide such input and/or advice and indicate if this will be possible at the meeting of the CWG scheduled for tomorrow (18 August) @ 06h00 UTC.
Thank-you,
Jonathan
(on behalf of the Client Committee)
************************************************************ **************************************** 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.
************************************************************ ****************************************
Hello, Thanks for the share, looking at one of the 2 cons of option 2l; *"Involves some challenges for ICANN toact as the licensee and also as the representative of the Names Community under the Community Agreement*." As i understand the above, there is no legal barrier if ICANN signs? if that is the case then i think what would then be important is to make sure that CCG members are indeed those selected by the names community. Otherwise it may be good to know what "challenges" is referred to above. Ultimately the entity that signs only commits to support and be responsible for whoever is acting, this is why i believe ICANN signing may be more appropriate and also for obvious reasons stated in the pro. As per how to select members of CCG, a suggestion would be to create a CWG-like group (i.e in composition) and then have the group select three co-chairs amongst themselves who then automatically becomes members of the CCG. The charter of that group can be developed to ensure that the act of the co-chairs is based on the consensus view of the group (just like we have in the current cwg). Regards On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Please see below and attached for information from Sidley regarding potential signatories to the IANA IPR Community Agreement.
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Flanagan, Sharon* <sflanagan@sidley.com> Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Subject: [client com] Signatory to the Community Agreement To: "jrobinson@afilias.info" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: Client <cwg-client@icann.org>
Dear Client Committee,
Attached is a table highlighting some of the advantages and disadvantages of the various potential signatories to the IPR community agreement.
Best regards,
Sharon
*SHARON R. FLANAGAN*
*SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP *+1 415 772 1271 sflanagan@sidley.com
*From:* Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2016 3:25 AM *To:* Flanagan, Sharon; Hofheimer, Joshua T. *Cc:* Gregory, Holly; Client *Subject:* Signatory to the Community Agreement
Dear Sidley,
As you are aware:
1. A key issue for the CWG in dealing with the IANA IPR will be a decision on the signatory on behalf of the Names Community.
2. Currently we have some potential options:
a. ICANN as signatory (assuming ICANN is willing)
b. The formation of an unincorporated entity (a to be defined)
c. Other possibilities such as the Empowered Community
It will be helpful to the CWG to have some structured input on this, possibly in the form of a table, in order to inform and aid that decision.
Please can you provide such input and/or advice and indicate if this will be possible at the meeting of the CWG scheduled for tomorrow (18 August) @ 06h00 UTC.
Thank-you,
Jonathan
(on behalf of the Client Committee)
************************************************************ **************************************** 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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 -
Greg Shatan -
Seun Ojedeji