On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 04:23:04PM -0400, Steve Crocker wrote:

(I am definitely NOT casting aspersions on them. I was one of the original trustees of the IETF Trust.)

FWIW, this Trustee liked it the first way :-D A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

Thanks. Community Community Group? A very peculiar name. Steve Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 24, 2016, at 5:22 AM, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl> wrote:

Morning Steve,

...

On Sep 23, 2016, at 22:23, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org> wrote:

Thanks for this. What does CCG stand for? Apologies if it’s there and I missed it. My eyes glazed over with the plethora of acronyms.

I'm nog sure whether anybody bothered to answer this, but since I'm too loosing track of the acronyms and especially this one as well (it is used for different groups I counted at least three), I looked up a reference (again). In this case it is the Community Community Group created in the "IANA IPR Community Agreement" [1] to "to provide guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals, to the IETF Trust regarding the stewardship of the IANA Intellectual Property".

jaap

[1] <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/Community-Agreemen...>

Yup that's what it is. Cheers! Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 24 Sep 2016 10:53, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

Isn´t it the "Community Coordination Group" (Article 2 of the IANA Community Agreement)?

Wolfgang

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org im Auftrag von Steve Crocker Gesendet: Sa 24.09.2016 11:43 An: Jaap Akkerhuis Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Letter of instruction from the CWG to ICANNregarding the IANA IPR Community Agreement.

Thanks. Community Community Group? A very peculiar name.

Steve

Sent from my iPhone

...

On Sep 24, 2016, at 5:22 AM, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl> wrote:

Morning Steve,

...

On Sep 23, 2016, at 22:23, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org> wrote:

Thanks for this. What does CCG stand for? Apologies if it's there and I missed it. My eyes glazed over with the plethora of acronyms.

I'm nog sure whether anybody bothered to answer this, but since I'm too loosing track of the acronyms and especially this one as well (it is used for different groups I counted at least three), I looked up a reference (again). In this case it is the Community Community Group created in the "IANA IPR Community Agreement" [1] to "to provide guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals, to the IETF Trust regarding the stewardship of the IANA Intellectual Property".

jaap

[1] <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/ Community-Agreement%20-%2008-05-2016%20marked%20against% 2007-30-2016.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1473771319000&api=v2>

---

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

James Gannon writes:

I believe that it supposed to be Community Coordination Group.

Yeah, I mistyped originally. But I hope the citation from made was more to the point. jaap

Chris, You're misreading the agreement and the letter. The language you quote regarding "guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals" is from the Community Agreement and refers to the relationship between the Community Coordination Group and the IETF Trust. This should be readily apparent when looking at the entire Section 2.1, from which you pulled that quote: "The CCG is hereby formed, and shall operate in accordance with the terms set forth below, to provide guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals, to the IETF Trust regarding the stewardship of the IANA Intellectual Property." The language you quote regarding "Instructs" and "directs" is from the Letter of Instruction and refers to the relationship between the Names Community and ICANN acting as a signatory on behalf of the Names Community. This can be seen in Section 3 of the Letter of Instruction ("ICANN will follow the instructions of the Names Community") as well as in Section 7 ("ICANN will act solely at the direction of the Names Community"). Each is appropriate for their respective circumstances. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance in understanding the agreements. It strikes me that, once the CCG representatives have all been selected, a webinar or other presentation on the agreements might be in order. This will help those who were relatively less involved in the process understand the agreements and the relationships among the parties. Best regards, Greg On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Christopher Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

Umm … then how did we get from:

<<…guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals…>>

to " instructs" and "directs" - ?

CW

On 24 Sep 2016, at 11:22, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:

...

Morning Steve,

...

On Sep 23, 2016, at 22:23, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org> wrote:

Thanks for this. What does CCG stand for? Apologies if it’s there and I missed it. My eyes glazed over with the plethora of acronyms.

I'm nog sure whether anybody bothered to answer this, but since I'm too loosing track of the acronyms and especially this one as well (it is used for different groups I counted at least three), I looked up a reference (again). In this case it is the Community Community Group created in the "IANA IPR Community Agreement" [1] to "to provide guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals, to the IETF Trust regarding the stewardship of the IANA Intellectual Property".

jaap

[1] <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/ Community-Agreement%20-%2008-05-2016%20marked%20against% 2007-30-2016.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1473771319000&api=v2> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

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

Dear Greg: Thankyou. I trust that I am by now more enlightened. 1. That I may have misread matters is a minor concern that I shall endeavour to correct in the next few days. What is of greater import is that, as I rather suspect, a wide range of interested parties ('stakeholders') may not have read all these documents atall. I propose that each and all of the CWG proposed contracts and agreements should be posted for public comment in translation to the ICANN working languages. 2. I understand that the CCG has been 'created' to regulate the relationships between the Naming Community and the IETF Trust, thus the interest in IPR. To which we have volunteered to contribute time and - I trust - understanding. However, 3. The leap from the IETF Trust to directing ICANN - as indicated in the draft Letter of Instruction - has not been explained. As far as I can see, the small number of delegates to the CCG (Representatives and Co-Chairs, including apparently ourselves) have no mandate to direct ICANN about anything. What is the eventual scope of these instructions? 4. I would agree to your suggestion that some tutorials might be in order. If so, these should take place well before anything is finalised, and after public consultation (see 1. above) Thus it is perhaps premature to demand that ICANN accept the draft Letter of Instructions. Regards CW On 24 Sep 2016, at 21:22, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Chris,

You're misreading the agreement and the letter.

The language you quote regarding "guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals" is from the Community Agreement and refers to the relationship between the Community Coordination Group and the IETF Trust. This should be readily apparent when looking at the entire Section 2.1, from which you pulled that quote:

"The CCG is hereby formed, and shall operate in accordance with the terms set forth below, to provide guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals, to the IETF Trust regarding the stewardship of the IANA Intellectual Property."

The language you quote regarding "Instructs" and "directs" is from the Letter of Instruction and refers to the relationship between the Names Community and ICANN acting as a signatory on behalf of the Names Community. This can be seen in Section 3 of the Letter of Instruction ("ICANN will follow the instructions of the Names Community") as well as in Section 7 ("ICANN will act solely at the direction of the Names Community").

Each is appropriate for their respective circumstances.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance in understanding the agreements. It strikes me that, once the CCG representatives have all been selected, a webinar or other presentation on the agreements might be in order. This will help those who were relatively less involved in the process understand the agreements and the relationships among the parties.

Best regards,

Greg

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Umm … then how did we get from:

<<…guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals…>>

to " instructs" and "directs" - ?

CW

On 24 Sep 2016, at 11:22, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:

...

Morning Steve,

...

On Sep 23, 2016, at 22:23, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org> wrote:

Thanks for this. What does CCG stand for? Apologies if it’s there and I missed it. My eyes glazed over with the plethora of acronyms.

I'm nog sure whether anybody bothered to answer this, but since I'm too loosing track of the acronyms and especially this one as well (it is used for different groups I counted at least three), I looked up a reference (again). In this case it is the Community Community Group created in the "IANA IPR Community Agreement" [1] to "to provide guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals, to the IETF Trust regarding the stewardship of the IANA Intellectual Property".

jaap

[1] <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/Community-Agreemen...> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

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

Dear colleagues, As usual, I note that I am a trustee of the IETF Trust, and I do not wish anyone to understand that I am promoting any IETF or Trust interest here. But I am concerned that we not delay the transition by organizational mmisunderstanding. In particular, On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:03:43AM +0200, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:

2. I understand that the CCG has been 'created' to regulate the relationships between the Naming Community and the IETF Trust, thus the interest in IPR.

I think it would be better to say that the CCG is being created to ensure that each operational community's interests are properly represented to the Trust, which will own the IPR. The Trust is undertaking to manage this IPR according to the needs and wishes of the various communities, consistent with the Trust's responsibilities in respect of the IPR.

3. The leap from the IETF Trust to directing ICANN - as indicated in the draft Letter of Instruction - has not been explained. As far as I can see, the small number of delegates to the CCG (Representatives and Co-Chairs, including apparently ourselves) have no mandate to direct ICANN about anything. What is the eventual scope of these instructions?

The scope -- which I believe is already completely outlined in the relevant documents for the IPR issues -- is to advise and direct the Trust about the appropriate use of the IPR for a given community's needs. In the case of the names community, this necessarily involves instructing both ICANN and PTI about specific uses of the IANA trademarks and the iana.org domain name (and maybe some others, but iana.org is the bit one).

4. I would agree to your suggestion that some tutorials might be in order. If so, these should take place well before anything is finalised, and after public consultation (see 1. above) Thus it is perhaps premature to demand that ICANN accept the draft Letter of Instructions.

In my opinion, claiming that this is "premature" suggests that the issues have not been completely vented in the CWG. Given the amount of time that's already been spent on this issue, I am a little worried (not to say alarmed) at the suggestion that more time is needed. The IPR transfer and the resulting arrangements for each community need in fact to be in place in a week, assuming the transition is to happen on schedule. I don't really understand why there could be any confusion about this. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

Milton, I don't think any one person can be in a position to hold up this process. This is the end result of an exhaustive (and exhausting) multistakeholder process. We put in months (really, years) of thorough and well-considered work on the IPR issues alone. This involved a significant group of stakeholders (in this case, across the names, protocol parameters and numbers communities). The result of this work has been put through the public comment process, and fully agreed and brought to conclusion with the broad support of diverse stakeholders. It would make a mockery of the multistakeholder process to allow any one person to hold up implementation at this point, when the work is done. In working groups, we do try to be open to questions and opinions from all angles, sometimes to a fault. This is especially true early on, when it's important to consider all viewpoints. But we are far, far past that point. Our decisions have been made. Our commitments are clear. It's time to get it done. Greg On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:

I am not sure I understand why someone who clearly does not understand what is going on in the IPR transition process, and who actually never seemed to understand what IANA is, should be in a position to hold up this process.

Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology

...

On Sep 24, 2016, at 18:45, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

Dear colleagues,

As usual, I note that I am a trustee of the IETF Trust, and I do not wish anyone to understand that I am promoting any IETF or Trust interest here. But I am concerned that we not delay the transition by organizational mmisunderstanding. In particular,

...

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:03:43AM +0200, Christopher Wilkinson wrote: 2. I understand that the CCG has been 'created' to regulate the relationships between the Naming Community and the IETF Trust, thus the interest in IPR.

I think it would be better to say that the CCG is being created to ensure that each operational community's interests are properly represented to the Trust, which will own the IPR. The Trust is undertaking to manage this IPR according to the needs and wishes of the various communities, consistent with the Trust's responsibilities in respect of the IPR.

...

3. The leap from the IETF Trust to directing ICANN - as indicated in the draft Letter of Instruction - has not been explained. As far as I can see, the small number of delegates to the CCG (Representatives and Co-Chairs, including apparently ourselves) have no mandate to direct ICANN about anything. What is the eventual scope of these instructions?

The scope -- which I believe is already completely outlined in the relevant documents for the IPR issues -- is to advise and direct the Trust about the appropriate use of the IPR for a given community's needs. In the case of the names community, this necessarily involves instructing both ICANN and PTI about specific uses of the IANA trademarks and the iana.org domain name (and maybe some others, but iana.org is the bit one).

...

4. I would agree to your suggestion that some tutorials might be in order. If so, these should take place well before anything is finalised, and after public consultation (see 1. above) Thus it is perhaps premature to demand that ICANN accept the draft Letter of Instructions.

In my opinion, claiming that this is "premature" suggests that the issues have not been completely vented in the CWG. Given the amount of time that's already been spent on this issue, I am a little worried (not to say alarmed) at the suggestion that more time is needed. The IPR transfer and the resulting arrangements for each community need in fact to be in place in a week, assuming the transition is to happen on schedule. I don't really understand why there could be any confusion about this.

Best regards,

A

-- 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

Avri, It's certainly my understanding that all has been completed on the letter and that ICANN can sign it. There is nothing missing. There is one non-substantive change suggested by Chuck Gomes that could be made, which would slightly improve the readability of the letter (spelling out "Community Coordination Group" the first time it is used, instead of saying "CCG"). Whether or not this is done, the letter is ready to be signed. I don't think any significant confusion came out of the meeting itself. After the meeting, one participant (who appears not to have kept up with the CWG's work) started an exchange on this thread raising a number of 12th hour objections. This exchange may have created an appearance of more general confusion. The confusion is actually quite isolated, as far as I can tell. Andrew Sullivan and I both responded with explanations, which I thought cleared up any confusion on the very minor subject of this "letter of instruction." The high-level explanation is this: The "Names Community" is a party to the Community Agreement (relating to the IANA IPR). The Names Community needs a legal entity to sign the Agreement on its behalf, because there is no existing legal entity that encompasses the Names Community. ICANN was asked if it could perform the limited function of signing on behalf of the Names Community. ICANN said that it could. The "Letter of Instruction" formally instructs ICANN to sign on behalf of the Names Community and sets out the parameters of ICANN's limited role as signatory. This is needed because signing the Agreement without any explanation makes it look like ICANN has full authority and discretion to act as the Names Community under the Agreement. The rest of the discussion turned to the effects (if any) of this confusion, both on implementing our work and on the composition of the CCG. In my view, this confusion has absolutely no effect on implementing our work. If working group results could be undone after the fact by a single confused participant, ICANN probably would not even exist. Greg On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:22 PM, avri doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

I have gotten lost in this discussion.

Has all been completed on the letter? Can ICANN sign if the transition is freed to move ahead?

If not, what is missing? I unfortunately missed the last meeting, but am amazed at the confusion that came out of that meeting.

thanks

avri

On 25-Sep-16 01:58, Greg Shatan wrote:

...

Milton,

I don't think any one person can be in a position to hold up this process. This is the end result of an exhaustive (and exhausting) multistakeholder process. We put in months (really, years) of thorough and well-considered work on the IPR issues alone. This involved a significant group of stakeholders (in this case, across the names, protocol parameters and numbers communities). The result of this work has been put through the public comment process, and fully agreed and brought to conclusion with the broad support of diverse stakeholders.

It would make a mockery of the multistakeholder process to allow any one person to hold up implementation at this point, when the work is done.

In working groups, we do try to be open to questions and opinions from all angles, sometimes to a fault. This is especially true early on, when it's important to consider all viewpoints. But we are far, far past that point. Our decisions have been made. Our commitments are clear. It's time to get it done.

Greg

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote:

I am not sure I understand why someone who clearly does not understand what is going on in the IPR transition process, and who actually never seemed to understand what IANA is, should be in a position to hold up this process.

Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology

> On Sep 24, 2016, at 18:45, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > As usual, I note that I am a trustee of the IETF Trust, and I do not > wish anyone to understand that I am promoting any IETF or Trust > interest here. But I am concerned that we not delay the transition by > organizational mmisunderstanding. In particular, > >> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:03:43AM +0200, Christopher Wilkinson wrote: >> 2. I understand that the CCG has been 'created' to regulate the relationships between the Naming Community and the IETF Trust, thus the interest in IPR. > > I think it would be better to say that the CCG is being created to > ensure that each operational community's interests are properly > represented to the Trust, which will own the IPR. The Trust is > undertaking to manage this IPR according to the needs and wishes of > the various communities, consistent with the Trust's responsibilities > in respect of the IPR. > >> 3. The leap from the IETF Trust to directing ICANN - as indicated in the draft Letter of Instruction - has not been explained. As far as I can see, the small number of delegates to the CCG (Representatives and Co-Chairs, including apparently ourselves) have no mandate to direct ICANN about anything. What is the eventual scope of these instructions? > > The scope -- which I believe is already completely outlined in the > relevant documents for the IPR issues -- is to advise and direct the > Trust about the appropriate use of the IPR for a given community's > needs. In the case of the names community, this necessarily involves > instructing both ICANN and PTI about specific uses of the IANA > trademarks and the iana.org <http://iana.org> domain name (and maybe some others, but > iana.org <http://iana.org> is the bit one). > >> 4. I would agree to your suggestion that some tutorials might be in order. If so, these should take place well before anything is finalised, and after public consultation (see 1. above) >> Thus it is perhaps premature to demand that ICANN accept the draft Letter of Instructions. > > In my opinion, claiming that this is "premature" suggests that the > issues have not been completely vented in the CWG. Given the amount > of time that's already been spent on this issue, I am a little worried > (not to say alarmed) at the suggestion that more time is needed. The > IPR transfer and the resulting arrangements for each community need in > fact to be in place in a week, assuming the transition is to happen on > schedule. I don't really understand why there could be any confusion > about this. > > Best regards, > > A > > -- > 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://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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>

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

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

Chris, On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Christopher Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

Dear Greg:

Thankyou. I trust that I am by now more enlightened.

​Enlightenment is an ongoing process.​

1. That I may have misread matters is a minor concern that I shall endeavour to correct in the next few days. What is of greater import is that, as I rather suspect, a wide range of interested parties ('stakeholders') may not have read all these documents atall. I propose that each and all of the CWG proposed contracts and agreements should be posted for public comment in translation to the ICANN working languages.

T ​hese​ documents have already been the subject of a public comment period, ​announced August 11 and closed September 12 ​ . See: https://www.ianacg.org/ ​ and ​ https://www.ianacg.org/call-for-public-comment-on-iana-ipr-agreements/. ​ This was announced in various places to the names, numbers and protocol parameters communities, and an email was sent to the CWG-Stewardship mailing list on that date as well.

2. I understand that the CCG has been 'created' to regulate the relationships between the Naming Community and the IETF Trust, thus the interest in IPR. To which we have volunteered to contribute time and - I trust - understanding. However,

Not really. The CCG was created (or 'created') because of the IANA IPR, not to regulate relationships between the Naming Community ​and the IETF more generally. Since the IANA IPR benefits the three communities, and the IETF Trust is holding the IPR (in a sense) as a favor to these communities, it was appropriate for the communities to have some oversight of and input to the IETF Trust solely in relation to the IPR. ​The Community Agreement and the CCG is the method for doing so.​

3. The leap from the IETF Trust to directing ICANN - as indicated in the draft Letter of Instruction - has not been explained. As far as I can see, the small number of delegates to the CCG (Representatives and Co-Chairs, including apparently ourselves) have no mandate to direct ICANN about anything. What is the eventual scope of these instructions?

​It has been explained several times. I'll do it one more time to assist in your ongoing process of enlightenment. a. The Names Community is a party to the Community Agreement. b. However, there is no existing self-evident legal entity to sign the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. c. After considerable discussion in the CWG and weighing of alternatives (both in meetings and on the email list), the CWG determined that it would be acceptable for ICANN to sign *on behalf of the Names Community* (i.e., not for its own benefit). ICANN was asked if it would do so, and ICANN returned with a "yes" answer. d. The letter of instruction was 'created' to memorialize the terms under which ICANN would act as signatory. The letter was then drafted and first shared with the CWG on September 1. Again, there was discussion of the letter in meetings and on the list, and the letter was revised, all over the course of the last 3 weeks or so. This included input from ICANN's legal counsel. ​e. The purpose of the letter of instruction is to instruct ICANN to sign the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community and to appoint (as signatory) the Names Community representatives to the CCG. The letter of instruction makes it clear that ICANN, in the role of signatory, will act only at the direction of the Names Community. f. The scope of instructions is limited to instructions to ICANN in the role of signatory of the Community Agreement, and does not go beyond that limited purpose. These instructions relate solely to responsibilities under the Community Agreement, which might appear to accrue to ICANN as signatory, but which in fact accrue to the Names Community as the real party in interest. g. The letter of instruction is only between the Names Community and ICANN. It does not involve the numbers or protocol parameters communities. (The legal entities related to these communities are mentioned only because they are signatories to the Community Agreement, and it is customary to name all of the signatories to an agreement when identifying that agreement.) h. The letter states that the names community directs ICANN. The letter does not state that the CCG (which also includes reps of the numbers and protocol parameter communities) or the names community CCG reps direct ICANN. i. The names community directs ICANN through the CWG as long as it exists, and then through decisions facilitated by the chairs of the Chartering Organizations. Consistent with the Community Agreement, these directions may be communicated to ICANN by the Names Community CCG co-chair.

4. I would agree to your suggestion that some tutorials might be in order. If so, these should take place well before anything is finalised, and after public consultation (see 1. above)

​As noted above, the public consultation has already occurred. The documents have already been finalized. This has all been discussed within the CWG over the course of the last several weeks. As Andrew indicated, the transfer of the IANA IPR is a necessary part of the overall IANA transition. The License Agreement and the Community Agreement are a necessary​ part of the transfer of the IANA IPR, and setting up the CCG is a necessary part of the Community Agreement. The letter of instruction is a necessary part of getting the Community Agreement signed. So, if these steps do not move forward, neither does the IANA Transition. As such the tutorials/review will need to take place after the transition takes place (assuming it takes place on October 1).

Thus it is perhaps premature to demand that ICANN accept the draft Letter of Instructions.

​The "demand" (note: I would not characterize "Please can you accept..." as a demand) is really just a formality.​ The form of the letter should be acceptable to ICANN and the substance is certainly acceptable to ICANN. Also this letter is not a "draft"; it is essentially in its final form (though I might like to see the change discussed by Chuck and Steve Crocker made, so that the meaning of CCG is more clear). Finally, this is far from premature; if anything, it is overdue, given the likely timing of the IANA transition. As noted above, if ICANN did not accept the instructions, it would not be in a position to sign the Community Agreement and (for want of a shoe, etc., ...) the transition would not occur. So, I think your suggestion cannot be accepted because it would block (at least, temporarily) the IANA transition -- although it would be ironic (and, in a way, impressive) if you could accomplish what certain US political interests do not appear to have been able to do. I trust that this has assisted you with some further enlightenment. Based on this exchange, I'm curious to know why you volunteered to be a representative on the CCG. I suppose that if we had had more candidates, we might have had candidate statements, but we did not. It could be useful to understand your viewpoint, approach and commitment to this position as we move forward. Best regards, Greg

Regards

CW

On 24 Sep 2016, at 21:22, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Chris,

You're misreading the agreement and the letter.

The language you quote regarding "guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals" is from the Community Agreement and refers to the relationship between the Community Coordination Group and the IETF Trust. This should be readily apparent when looking at the entire Section 2.1, from which you pulled that quote:

"The CCG is hereby formed, and shall operate in accordance with the terms set forth below, to provide guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals, to the IETF Trust regarding the stewardship of the IANA Intellectual Property."

The language you quote regarding "Instructs" and "directs" is from the Letter of Instruction and refers to the relationship between the Names Community and ICANN acting as a signatory on behalf of the Names Community. This can be seen in Section 3 of the Letter of Instruction ("ICANN will follow the instructions of the Names Community") as well as in Section 7 ("ICANN will act solely at the direction of the Names Community").

Each is appropriate for their respective circumstances.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance in understanding the agreements. It strikes me that, once the CCG representatives have all been selected, a webinar or other presentation on the agreements might be in order. This will help those who were relatively less involved in the process understand the agreements and the relationships among the parties.

Best regards,

Greg

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Christopher Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

...

Umm … then how did we get from:

<<…guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals…>>

to " instructs" and "directs" - ?

CW

On 24 Sep 2016, at 11:22, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:

...

Morning Steve,

...

On Sep 23, 2016, at 22:23, Steve Crocker < steve.crocker@board.icann.org> wrote:

Thanks for this. What does CCG stand for? Apologies if it’s there and I missed it. My eyes glazed over with the plethora of acronyms.

I'm nog sure whether anybody bothered to answer this, but since I'm too loosing track of the acronyms and especially this one as well (it is used for different groups I counted at least three), I looked up a reference (again). In this case it is the Community Community Group created in the "IANA IPR Community Agreement" [1] to "to provide guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals, to the IETF Trust regarding the stewardship of the IANA Intellectual Property".

jaap

[1] <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/C ommunity-Agreement%20-%2008-05-2016%20marked%20against%2007- 30-2016.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1473771319000&api=v2> _______________________________________________ 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

+1 On 26-Sep-16 08:05, Lindeberg, Elise wrote:

Greg, yes, - a webinar or other presentation on the agreements is a good idea. This will be informative also for Chairs of the SO/ACs that will be the “Consenting” after CWG.

Best

Elise

*Fra:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *På vegne av* Greg Shatan *Sendt:* 24. september 2016 21:22 *Til:* Christopher Wilkinson *Kopi:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Emne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Letter of instruction from the CWG to ICANN regarding the IANA IPR Community Agreement.

Chris,

You're misreading the agreement and the letter.

The language you quote regarding "guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals" is from the Community Agreement and refers to the relationship between the Community Coordination Group and the IETF Trust. This should be readily apparent when looking at the entire Section 2.1, from which you pulled that quote:

"The CCG is hereby formed, and shall operate in accordance with the terms set forth below, to provide guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals, to the IETF Trust regarding the stewardship of the IANA Intellectual Property."

The language you quote regarding "Instructs" and "directs" is from the Letter of Instruction and refers to the relationship between the Names Community and ICANN acting as a signatory on behalf of the Names Community. This can be seen in Section 3 of the Letter of Instruction ("ICANN will follow the instructions of the Names Community") as well as in Section 7 ("ICANN will act solely at the direction of the Names Community").

Each is appropriate for their respective circumstances.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance in understanding the agreements. It strikes me that, once the CCG representatives have all been selected, a webinar or other presentation on the agreements might be in order. This will help those who were relatively less involved in the process understand the agreements and the relationships among the parties.

Best regards,

Greg

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:

Umm … then how did we get from:

<<…guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals…>>

to " instructs" and "directs" - ?

CW

On 24 Sep 2016, at 11:22, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@nlnetlabs.nl <mailto:jaap@nlnetlabs.nl>> wrote:

...

Morning Steve,

...

On Sep 23, 2016, at 22:23, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org <mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>> wrote:

Thanks for this. What does CCG stand for? Apologies if it’s there and I missed it. My eyes glazed over with the plethora of acronyms.

I'm nog sure whether anybody bothered to answer this, but since I'm too loosing track of the acronyms and especially this one as well (it is used for different groups I counted at least three), I looked up a reference (again). In this case it is the Community Community Group created in the "IANA IPR Community Agreement" [1] to "to provide guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals, to the IETF Trust regarding the stewardship of the IANA Intellectual Property".

jaap

[1]

<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/Community-Agreemen...>

...

_______________________________________________ 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

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

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

All, Picking up on a few of the points raised in this thread. 1. Apologies that the acronym never got defined in the final letter. It wasn’t strictly necessary but would have made it clearer as had been suggested. 2. Some form of more detailed communication (Webinar or other) will indeed be helpful 3. Appointment letters need to be signed by the three CCG reps. You will have seen these posted to the list just prior to this email. Thank-you. Lise & Jonathan From: Olawale Bakare via CWG-Stewardship [mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org] Sent: 26 September 2016 18:16 To: Lindeberg, Elise <elise.lindeberg@nkom.no> Cc: CWG on IANA Stewardship Transition <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Letter of instruction from the CWG to ICANN regarding the IANA IPR Community Agreement. +1 Regards, Wale On 26 Sep 2016 13:06, "Lindeberg, Elise" <elise.lindeberg@nkom.no <mailto:elise.lindeberg@nkom.no> > wrote: Greg, yes, - a webinar or other presentation on the agreements is a good idea. This will be informative also for Chairs of the SO/ACs that will be the “Consenting” after CWG. Best Elise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> ] På vegne av Greg Shatan Sendt: 24. september 2016 21:22 Til: Christopher Wilkinson Kopi: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Letter of instruction from the CWG to ICANN regarding the IANA IPR Community Agreement. Chris, You're misreading the agreement and the letter. The language you quote regarding "guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals" is from the Community Agreement and refers to the relationship between the Community Coordination Group and the IETF Trust. This should be readily apparent when looking at the entire Section 2.1, from which you pulled that quote: "The CCG is hereby formed, and shall operate in accordance with the terms set forth below, to provide guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals, to the IETF Trust regarding the stewardship of the IANA Intellectual Property." The language you quote regarding "Instructs" and "directs" is from the Letter of Instruction and refers to the relationship between the Names Community and ICANN acting as a signatory on behalf of the Names Community. This can be seen in Section 3 of the Letter of Instruction ("ICANN will follow the instructions of the Names Community") as well as in Section 7 ("ICANN will act solely at the direction of the Names Community"). Each is appropriate for their respective circumstances. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance in understanding the agreements. It strikes me that, once the CCG representatives have all been selected, a webinar or other presentation on the agreements might be in order. This will help those who were relatively less involved in the process understand the agreements and the relationships among the parties. Best regards, Greg On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> > wrote: Umm … then how did we get from: <<…guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals…>> to " instructs" and "directs" - ? CW On 24 Sep 2016, at 11:22, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@nlnetlabs.nl <mailto:jaap@nlnetlabs.nl> > wrote:

Morning Steve,

...

On Sep 23, 2016, at 22:23, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org <mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org> > wrote:

Thanks for this. What does CCG stand for? Apologies if it’s there and I missed it. My eyes glazed over with the plethora of acronyms.

I'm nog sure whether anybody bothered to answer this, but since I'm too loosing track of the acronyms and especially this one as well (it is used for different groups I counted at least three), I looked up a reference (again). In this case it is the Community Community Group created in the "IANA IPR Community Agreement" [1] to "to provide guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals, to the IETF Trust regarding the stewardship of the IANA Intellectual Property".

jaap

[1] <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/Community-Agreemen... <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/Community-Agreemen...> &modificationDate=1473771319000&api=v2> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

I suggested week before last that we define CCG. Just because it was not essential to do so, it seems to me that it would have been helpful. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 7:33 PM To: Christopher Wilkinson Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Letter of instruction from the CWG to ICANN regarding the IANA IPR Community Agreement. It was my understanding that the text of this letter was already agreed by the CWG. In any event, I find the tone of the letter unexceptional and fit for purpose. This is a "letter of instruction" which needs to clearly state that ICANN will act at the direction of the Names Community, so avoiding the terms "instruction" and "direction" would be counterproductive. I think that the IANA IPR agreements are quite clear that they cannot be used as end-run around the separation procedures; I don't think there's any need to state that here, particularly because paragraph 5(e) exists only to state that the CCG and not ICANN will provide any notices under Section 5(e). It's not necessary to define CCG here as the letter states "Any capitalized terms used but not defined in this letter agreement have the meanings set forth in the Community Agreement." That said, I can see from Steve Crocker's note that it would be preferable to define CCG here, since it is an important term to understanding the letter and we certainly have enough other definitions in the letter anyway. So I would support changing the letter to do that (if it can still be done at this point). As for the bigger picture, I do agree that there should be guidelines for the names community CCG reps, and (separately) procedures for the activities of the CCG. (IETF and RIRs will want to draft their own procedures for how they deal with their reps). Greg On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Good evening: Thankyou. Noted. I look forward to working with you in this matter. Meanwhile, I would have a few suggestions regarding the draft letter. - Style: the general tone sounds unnecessarily aggressive which might not be conducive to cooperation in the future. Could we avoid 'instructs' and 'directs' without unduly diluting the underlying intentions? - Separation: those clauses which refer to possible separation of the Names Community from the IETF Trust, and thus from ICANN and IANA, should be expressly qualified by reference to the agreed EEE procedure set out in the Transition proposal. Paragraph 5e of the draft letter refers. Articles 5 and 6 of the IETF License agreement also refer to this and should be qualified in the same way. More generally, the Community Agreement, the Naming Functions Agreement and the IETF Trust License Agreement cannot provide for an 'end-run' as against the agreed procedures for an eventual separation decision by the Community, as set out in the Transition proposal. - Accountability and Transparency: It would be desirable in the near future to agree guidelines as to the accountability of the Co-Chairs and Representatives in the CCG and transparency about how the positions that they may be called upon to support have been adopted. - Definitions: please include an explanation as to what is the CCG. Regards CW On 23 Sep 2016, at 19:28, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: Dear Trang, Please can you accept the attached letter of instruction from the CWG to ICANN regarding the IANA IPR Community Agreement. Yours sincerely, Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson For and on behalf of the CWG IANA Stewardship Transition <Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.docx>