Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community
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
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
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
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
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
I'm sorry you feel that way. What is your objection to the sentence you deleted? As for the position that the sentence was needed in order to put ICANN's name as the signatory -- that was ICANN's position. We could not put ICANN's name in the document without a statement like the one in that sentence. If we did not do that, we would not have been asking for comment on ICANN as a potential signatory. On the more general question of the decisional processes, I'll leave that to the co-chairs. I will note that requiring 60 participants in the CWG to affirmatively approve a sentence in a footnote that clearly says it is not a final decision of the CWG does not strike me as a viable working method. I will also note that only a single objection was stated, among all those on the call and reading the list. Since we do not operate by full consensus, this does not strike me as a viable basis to accept the objection, since that would place the objection above all of the non-objections and expressions of support. Further, this needs to be considered in context. There is considerable value in seeking public comment on ICANN as the potential signatory. This needed to be weighed against concerns expressed that would have prevented that outcome, which was broadly supported on the call. On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
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
I oppose to that formulation . I can not agree that CWG requested . What is CWG ,. WE HAVE VERY FEW PEOPLE HOW YOU COULD TALK ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE GROUP. There was no consensus on that . In fact we have not requested ICANN pLS SHOW ME THE TEXT OF THE REQUEST We must not mislead the community We must telling the truth One again with clear and convincing evidence or with convincing evidence for the reasons that I have mentioned What you are saying is your understanding $ I do not share that understanding It seems to me that whatever I say or I propose you categorically oppose to that There must be some other reasons that I do not know Kavouss 2016-08-11 23:10 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
I'm sorry you feel that way. What is your objection to the sentence you deleted?
As for the position that the sentence was needed in order to put ICANN's name as the signatory -- that was ICANN's position. We could not put ICANN's name in the document without a statement like the one in that sentence. If we did not do that, we would not have been asking for comment on ICANN as a potential signatory.
On the more general question of the decisional processes, I'll leave that to the co-chairs.
I will note that requiring 60 participants in the CWG to affirmatively approve a sentence in a footnote that clearly says it is not a final decision of the CWG does not strike me as a viable working method.
I will also note that only a single objection was stated, among all those on the call and reading the list. Since we do not operate by full consensus, this does not strike me as a viable basis to accept the objection, since that would place the objection above all of the non-objections and expressions of support.
Further, this needs to be considered in context. There is considerable value in seeking public comment on ICANN as the potential signatory. This needed to be weighed against concerns expressed that would have prevented that outcome, which was broadly supported on the call.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
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
Grec Can you tell me how an unclear evidence convincing? You said that we either need both or none That is not sensible A convincing argument or evidence must be CLEAR, VALID MEANINGFULL, LOGICAL AND RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT. You take me as not understanding THE MEANING OF THE TEXT. Once again I disagree with you totally. Convicing evidence is the right word I do not care about ICANN STAFF WHETHER HTHEY AGREE OR DISAGREE Pls withdraw your TEXT. Kavouss 2016-08-11 23:22 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
I oppose to that formulation . I can not agree that CWG requested . What is CWG ,. WE HAVE VERY FEW PEOPLE HOW YOU COULD TALK ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE GROUP. There was no consensus on that . In fact we have not requested ICANN pLS SHOW ME THE TEXT OF THE REQUEST We must not mislead the community We must telling the truth One again with clear and convincing evidence or with convincing evidence for the reasons that I have mentioned What you are saying is your understanding $ I do not share that understanding It seems to me that whatever I say or I propose you categorically oppose to that There must be some other reasons that I do not know Kavouss
2016-08-11 23:10 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
I'm sorry you feel that way. What is your objection to the sentence you deleted?
As for the position that the sentence was needed in order to put ICANN's name as the signatory -- that was ICANN's position. We could not put ICANN's name in the document without a statement like the one in that sentence. If we did not do that, we would not have been asking for comment on ICANN as a potential signatory.
On the more general question of the decisional processes, I'll leave that to the co-chairs.
I will note that requiring 60 participants in the CWG to affirmatively approve a sentence in a footnote that clearly says it is not a final decision of the CWG does not strike me as a viable working method.
I will also note that only a single objection was stated, among all those on the call and reading the list. Since we do not operate by full consensus, this does not strike me as a viable basis to accept the objection, since that would place the objection above all of the non-objections and expressions of support.
Further, this needs to be considered in context. There is considerable value in seeking public comment on ICANN as the potential signatory. This needed to be weighed against concerns expressed that would have prevented that outcome, which was broadly supported on the call.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
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
Kavouss, I think you are mixing up two distinct threads here. One is the CWG agreement issue and the other is the IRP standard issue. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 5:23 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community I oppose to that formulation . I can not agree that CWG requested . What is CWG ,. WE HAVE VERY FEW PEOPLE HOW YOU COULD TALK ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE GROUP. There was no consensus on that . In fact we have not requested ICANN pLS SHOW ME THE TEXT OF THE REQUEST We must not mislead the community We must telling the truth One again with clear and convincing evidence or with convincing evidence for the reasons that I have mentioned What you are saying is your understanding $ I do not share that understanding It seems to me that whatever I say or I propose you categorically oppose to that There must be some other reasons that I do not know Kavouss 2016-08-11 23:10 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>: I'm sorry you feel that way. What is your objection to the sentence you deleted? As for the position that the sentence was needed in order to put ICANN's name as the signatory -- that was ICANN's position. We could not put ICANN's name in the document without a statement like the one in that sentence. If we did not do that, we would not have been asking for comment on ICANN as a potential signatory. On the more general question of the decisional processes, I'll leave that to the co-chairs. I will note that requiring 60 participants in the CWG to affirmatively approve a sentence in a footnote that clearly says it is not a final decision of the CWG does not strike me as a viable working method. I will also note that only a single objection was stated, among all those on the call and reading the list. Since we do not operate by full consensus, this does not strike me as a viable basis to accept the objection, since that would place the objection above all of the non-objections and expressions of support. Further, this needs to be considered in context. There is considerable value in seeking public comment on ICANN as the potential signatory. This needed to be weighed against concerns expressed that would have prevented that outcome, which was broadly supported on the call. On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kTZWqT-zUrfdIhLihRnNISv1UGiniQ_A2epoOgyy_j0&s=Miq4PuCokDUGjlzgqnNU5IitWvCZZ7Jw_dHL61JFKU8&e=>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kTZWqT-zUrfdIhLihRnNISv1UGiniQ_A2epoOgyy_j0&s=Miq4PuCokDUGjlzgqnNU5IitWvCZZ7Jw_dHL61JFKU8&e=>
-- 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kTZWqT-zUrfdIhLihRnNISv1UGiniQ_A2epoOgyy_j0&s=Miq4PuCokDUGjlzgqnNU5IitWvCZZ7Jw_dHL61JFKU8&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kTZWqT-zUrfdIhLihRnNISv1UGiniQ_A2epoOgyy_j0&s=Miq4PuCokDUGjlzgqnNU5IitWvCZZ7Jw_dHL61JFKU8&e=>
I must admit I have no idea what is even being objected to at this stage. The IPR documents have been posted for comment… are we still debating them somehow??? From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> Date: Thursday 11 August 2016 at 22:38 To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <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 Kavouss, I think you are mixing up two distinct threads here. One is the CWG agreement issue and the other is the IRP standard issue. From: 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 5:23 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> 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 oppose to that formulation . I can not agree that CWG requested . What is CWG ,. WE HAVE VERY FEW PEOPLE HOW YOU COULD TALK ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE GROUP. There was no consensus on that . In fact we have not requested ICANN pLS SHOW ME THE TEXT OF THE REQUEST We must not mislead the community We must telling the truth One again with clear and convincing evidence or with convincing evidence for the reasons that I have mentioned What you are saying is your understanding $ I do not share that understanding It seems to me that whatever I say or I propose you categorically oppose to that There must be some other reasons that I do not know Kavouss 2016-08-11 23:10 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>: I'm sorry you feel that way. What is your objection to the sentence you deleted? As for the position that the sentence was needed in order to put ICANN's name as the signatory -- that was ICANN's position. We could not put ICANN's name in the document without a statement like the one in that sentence. If we did not do that, we would not have been asking for comment on ICANN as a potential signatory. On the more general question of the decisional processes, I'll leave that to the co-chairs. I will note that requiring 60 participants in the CWG to affirmatively approve a sentence in a footnote that clearly says it is not a final decision of the CWG does not strike me as a viable working method. I will also note that only a single objection was stated, among all those on the call and reading the list. Since we do not operate by full consensus, this does not strike me as a viable basis to accept the objection, since that would place the objection above all of the non-objections and expressions of support. Further, this needs to be considered in context. There is considerable value in seeking public comment on ICANN as the potential signatory. This needed to be weighed against concerns expressed that would have prevented that outcome, which was broadly supported on the call. On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kTZWqT-zUrfdIhLihRnNISv1UGiniQ_A2epoOgyy_j0&s=Miq4PuCokDUGjlzgqnNU5IitWvCZZ7Jw_dHL61JFKU8&e=>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kTZWqT-zUrfdIhLihRnNISv1UGiniQ_A2epoOgyy_j0&s=Miq4PuCokDUGjlzgqnNU5IitWvCZZ7Jw_dHL61JFKU8&e=>
-- 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kTZWqT-zUrfdIhLihRnNISv1UGiniQ_A2epoOgyy_j0&s=Miq4PuCokDUGjlzgqnNU5IitWvCZZ7Jw_dHL61JFKU8&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kTZWqT-zUrfdIhLihRnNISv1UGiniQ_A2epoOgyy_j0&s=Miq4PuCokDUGjlzgqnNU5IitWvCZZ7Jw_dHL61JFKU8&e=>
Totally lost! -ed On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 5:42 PM James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
I must admit I have no idea what is even being objected to at this stage. The IPR documents have been posted for comment… are we still debating them somehow???
From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Becky Burr < Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> Date: Thursday 11 August 2016 at 22:38 To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>, Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community
Kavouss, I think you are mixing up two distinct threads here. One is the CWG agreement issue and the other is the IRP standard issue.
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Thursday, August 11, 2016 5:23 PM *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community
I oppose to that formulation .
I can not agree that CWG requested .
What is CWG ,.
WE HAVE VERY FEW PEOPLE
HOW YOU COULD TALK ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE GROUP.
There was no consensus on that . In fact we have not requested ICANN
pLS SHOW ME THE TEXT OF THE REQUEST
We must not mislead the community
We must telling the truth
One again with clear and convincing evidence or with convincing evidence for the reasons that I have mentioned
What you are saying is your understanding $
I do not share that understanding
It seems to me that whatever I say or I propose you categorically oppose to that
There must be some other reasons that I do not know
Kavouss
2016-08-11 23:10 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
I'm sorry you feel that way. What is your objection to the sentence you deleted?
As for the position that the sentence was needed in order to put ICANN's name as the signatory -- that was ICANN's position. We could not put ICANN's name in the document without a statement like the one in that sentence. If we did not do that, we would not have been asking for comment on ICANN as a potential signatory.
On the more general question of the decisional processes, I'll leave that to the co-chairs.
I will note that requiring 60 participants in the CWG to affirmatively approve a sentence in a footnote that clearly says it is not a final decision of the CWG does not strike me as a viable working method.
I will also note that only a single objection was stated, among all those on the call and reading the list. Since we do not operate by full consensus, this does not strike me as a viable basis to accept the objection, since that would place the objection above all of the non-objections and expressions of support.
Further, this needs to be considered in context. There is considerable value in seeking public comment on ICANN as the potential signatory. This needed to be weighed against concerns expressed that would have prevented that outcome, which was broadly supported on the call.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Grec I totally agree with you on substance buy just want to reflect what had happened I have suggested to add just the word"Call No ...." Aftet CWG THAT IS ALL Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Aug 2016, at 23:10, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm sorry you feel that way. What is your objection to the sentence you deleted?
As for the position that the sentence was needed in order to put ICANN's name as the signatory -- that was ICANN's position. We could not put ICANN's name in the document without a statement like the one in that sentence. If we did not do that, we would not have been asking for comment on ICANN as a potential signatory.
On the more general question of the decisional processes, I'll leave that to the co-chairs.
I will note that requiring 60 participants in the CWG to affirmatively approve a sentence in a footnote that clearly says it is not a final decision of the CWG does not strike me as a viable working method.
I will also note that only a single objection was stated, among all those on the call and reading the list. Since we do not operate by full consensus, this does not strike me as a viable basis to accept the objection, since that would place the objection above all of the non-objections and expressions of support.
Further, this needs to be considered in context. There is considerable value in seeking public comment on ICANN as the potential signatory. This needed to be weighed against concerns expressed that would have prevented that outcome, which was broadly supported on the call.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: 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
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<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
The Secretariat is standing by waiting for this text. This is the only thing holding up the document. I therefore propose that the text as Greg proposed be used, and I would like to do that in the next 30 minutes (the person who's going to post this for us is in Korea and is waiting for us; I don't want her to have to wait too long). A On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:16:13PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
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
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
I am fine with Greg's text
On 11 Aug 2016, at 19:04, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
The Secretariat is standing by waiting for this text. This is the only thing holding up the document. I therefore propose that the text as Greg proposed be used, and I would like to do that in the next 30 minutes (the person who's going to post this for us is in Korea and is waiting for us; I don't want her to have to wait too long).
A
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:16:13PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: 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
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I concur. James On 11/08/2016, 18:22, "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Lise Fuhr" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Fuhr@etno.eu> wrote:
I am fine with Greg's text
On 11 Aug 2016, at 19:04, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
The Secretariat is standing by waiting for this text. This is the only thing holding up the document. I therefore propose that the text as Greg proposed be used, and I would like to do that in the next 30 minutes (the person who's going to post this for us is in Korea and is waiting for us; I don't want her to have to wait too long).
A
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:16:13PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: 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
-- 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
"...*ICANN** has indicated that it could serve as the counterparty to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community*..." I did not stay all through the meeting so may have missed that part where ICANN confirmed this, It's good to know. FWIW, I believe Greg's text accurately captures the current status. Regards On 11 Aug 2016 17:16, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
participants (10)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Arasteh -
Burr, Becky -
Eduardo Diaz -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
James Gannon -
Kavouss Arasteh
-
Lise Fuhr -
Seun Ojedeji