Fwd: [Iana-ipr] [contreraslegal@att.net: Final documents]
All, For the sake of completeness, I am re-forwarding the set of documents with one additional change to the Community Agreement, which covers the situation where a community (e.g., the protocol parameters community) wanted to switch the entity that signed the agreement (e.g, a switch from the IETF to a new entity). This is more fully described below by Josh Hofheimer. Other than that, these agreements are unchanged from the drafts previously sent. Greg *From:* Hofheimer, Joshua T. *Sent:* Wednesday, August 10, 2016 5:42 PM *To:* 'Jorge Contreras'; Greg Shatan *Cc:* iana-ipr@nro.net; Alissa Cooper; Andrew Sullivan *Subject:* RE: [Iana-ipr] [contreraslegal@att.net: Final documents] To all, I identified one requested change to the Community Agreement that, in the flurry of revisions in the last few days, did not make it into the document. The relevant Section is 5.2 (Withdrawal of an Operational Community). The revision is attached here in Track Changes, and accounts for the fact that in the future, a community may want to change its representative “Operational Community.” This may be a straight withdrawal, which is contemplated in the Agreement, or may be a switch to another Party. This last part is not picked up and language has been added to address. Jorge communicated that he has no objection to the proposed text. I am attaching the redline here, but will follow in another email with clean and PDF copies. I am including all six documents again, just for ease of forwarding. There are no changes to the License or the Assignment Agreement. Thank you, Josh *Joshua Hofheimer* *Sidley Austin LLP* *jhofheimer@sidley.com <jhofheimer@sidley.com>* *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* *From:* iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net <iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net>] *On Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras *Sent:* Wednesday, August 10, 2016 4:19 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* iana-ipr@nro.net; Alissa Cooper; Andrew Sullivan *Subject:* Re: [Iana-ipr] [contreraslegal@att.net: Final documents] Here they are, in PDF and DOC, with yellow highlighting restored to the License, and “TBD prior to signing” in 6.1 of the Assignment. Jorge L. Contreras Contreras Legal Strategy LLC 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 Washington, DC 20036 contreraslegal@att.net The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message immediately. *From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 5:08 PM *To: *Jorge Contreras <contreraslegal@att.net> *Cc: *Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, <iana-ipr@nro.net>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> *Subject: *Re: [Iana-ipr] [contreraslegal@att.net: Final documents] Can we get Word documents as well as the PDFs? I expect to get this request from people in the CWG, and I'd rather be able to meet it than say no. Thanks. Greg On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Jorge Contreras <contreraslegal@att.net> wrote: Ok. I will do that and the yellow highlighting. Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 10, 2016, at 4:32 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
On Aug 10, 2016, at 3:22 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hmm, I thought this was the form we chose on the call today. I'm ok with [TBD before signing]. Would that do?
Yes, that works. Alissa
A
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:15:32PM -0700, Alissa Cooper wrote: I think the [TBD] in 6.1 of the assignment agreement needs a footnote
of explanation. Commenters will not know whether the parties intent to sign the agreement as-is and decide on the value of X afterward, or whether the parties intend to specify X before signing.
Alissa
On Aug 10, 2016, at 2:38 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
wrote:
Hi,
Here are the documents.
The license still says something about "things highlighted in yellow" but I think they've all been changed to bold. Jorge had to go, but I told him and presumably he can regenerate later.
A
----- Forwarded message from Jorge Contreras <contreraslegal@att.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 15:30:48 -0600 From: Jorge Contreras <contreraslegal@att.net> To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Subject: Final documents
----- End forwarded message -----
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <Community-Agreement_-_08-10-2016_final_clean.pdf> <License_Agreement_IANA_IPR_08-10-2016_final_clean.pdf> <Assignment_Agreement_08-10-2016_final_clean.pdf> _______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nro.net_mailman_lis...>
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nro.net_mailman_lis...>
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nro.net_mailman_lis...>
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nro.net_mailman_lis...>
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nro.net_mailman_lis...> ************************************************************ **************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ************************************************************ ****************************************
All, As an occasional member of this group, I wanted to voice my opinion that it is very important that these documents move forward to a public comment process today. We on the IETF Trust side have a similar situation in that we also need to be ready to send them forward for community review. Our meeting on that is about to start and I plan to do all I can to make that happen. (And that meeting is the only reason I am not joining your call, as our meetings run at the same time.) I also wanted to say that I agree with the process as outlined by Jonathan and am personally happy with the latest document versions. I also wanted to thank everyone who has been involved in the process, it has been quite intensive last few weeks. Thanks Greg for your hard work, the lawyers, Jonathan & Lise, and thank you Kavouss for joining the consensus and understanding how important this is. It is wonderful to see how everyone is working hard to do the right thing, as always. And getting it done! Thanks, Jari
I think the CWG contribution (limited to the names community signatory) will be available almost immediately after our call, which was supposed to end two minutes ago. Greg On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
All,
As an occasional member of this group, I wanted to voice my opinion that it is very important that these documents move forward to a public comment process today. We on the IETF Trust side have a similar situation in that we also need to be ready to send them forward for community review. Our meeting on that is about to start and I plan to do all I can to make that happen. (And that meeting is the only reason I am not joining your call, as our meetings run at the same time.)
I also wanted to say that I agree with the process as outlined by Jonathan and am personally happy with the latest document versions.
I also wanted to thank everyone who has been involved in the process, it has been quite intensive last few weeks. Thanks Greg for your hard work, the lawyers, Jonathan & Lise, and thank you Kavouss for joining the consensus and understanding how important this is. It is wonderful to see how everyone is working hard to do the right thing, as always. And getting it done!
Thanks,
Jari
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Spoiler Alert: It's ICANN (in brackets) (i.e., [ICANN]). Along with a footnote. On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I think the CWG contribution (limited to the names community signatory) will be available almost immediately after our call, which was supposed to end two minutes ago.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
All,
As an occasional member of this group, I wanted to voice my opinion that it is very important that these documents move forward to a public comment process today. We on the IETF Trust side have a similar situation in that we also need to be ready to send them forward for community review. Our meeting on that is about to start and I plan to do all I can to make that happen. (And that meeting is the only reason I am not joining your call, as our meetings run at the same time.)
I also wanted to say that I agree with the process as outlined by Jonathan and am personally happy with the latest document versions.
I also wanted to thank everyone who has been involved in the process, it has been quite intensive last few weeks. Thanks Greg for your hard work, the lawyers, Jonathan & Lise, and thank you Kavouss for joining the consensus and understanding how important this is. It is wonderful to see how everyone is working hard to do the right thing, as always. And getting it done!
Thanks,
Jari
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Sorry, wrong list. On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Spoiler Alert: It's ICANN (in brackets) (i.e., [ICANN]). Along with a footnote.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I think the CWG contribution (limited to the names community signatory) will be available almost immediately after our call, which was supposed to end two minutes ago.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
All,
As an occasional member of this group, I wanted to voice my opinion that it is very important that these documents move forward to a public comment process today. We on the IETF Trust side have a similar situation in that we also need to be ready to send them forward for community review. Our meeting on that is about to start and I plan to do all I can to make that happen. (And that meeting is the only reason I am not joining your call, as our meetings run at the same time.)
I also wanted to say that I agree with the process as outlined by Jonathan and am personally happy with the latest document versions.
I also wanted to thank everyone who has been involved in the process, it has been quite intensive last few weeks. Thanks Greg for your hard work, the lawyers, Jonathan & Lise, and thank you Kavouss for joining the consensus and understanding how important this is. It is wonderful to see how everyone is working hard to do the right thing, as always. And getting it done!
Thanks,
Jari
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (2)
-
Greg Shatan -
Jari Arkko