Dear All The idea that ICANN SIGN ON BEHALF OF Names Community was legally wrong There must be 1. Names community establish an unincorporated associated 2. That association could sign on behalf names community or 3. That association e could delegate its authority to a third legal entity to sign on its behalf You over simplifying the matter and propose CUT & PASTE approach If CWG on its legal existence as established by its charter decides to request ICANN to sign the Co-Chairs need to write a request the draft of which must be approved by CWG first in a call and second on mailing list then sending that request to ICANN and ICANN formally reply to that in writing. That is the process NO CUT & PASTE However, the formulation that I proposed is a mid way between the two and has legal validity Regards Kavouss 2016-08-12 8:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

What is wrong with my formulation Yes CWG Client did that but CWG did not kavouss

2016-08-12 7:49 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:

...

We made the request Kavous, I was even the one that raised the question and the request was sent to ICANN legal by the cwg client.

Regards

Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 11 Aug 2016 10:49 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Seun YOU MISSED MY Argument It is said At the request of CWG.... We have not MADE SUCH REQUEST BY cwg. It was fabricated as such I disagree with that No formal request made to ICANN and no reply received from the Board There was no Board's Member at the meeting and staff does not have such right to put in Our mouth a text . I disagree However, I proposed the following formulation . At the request MADE AT CWG CALL ,,,.,,, ICANN ..... It means that the request is limited as being made at that call only That does not change the substance but reflects the reality Kavouss

2016-08-11 23:35 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:

...

"...*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

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship