[client com] Signatory to the Community Agreement

[Flanagan, Sharon]

Yes, we can discuss that on the call as well.  We would not see a need for CWG to authorize ICANN to serve in any legal sense.  It’s more of a decision by CWG (through the consensus process) that ICANN is the entity that should sign.  We would view it as a decision CWG would make as it has made many decisions along the way on transition.

We agree that selecting the 3 representatives to CCG is a key process point regardless of which entity is the signatory to the community agreement.

Is there an agenda for the call?

- Sharon
SHARON R. FLANAGAN


SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
+1 415 772 1271
sflanagan at sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com>

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 9:03 AM
To: Flanagan, Sharon
Cc: jrobinson at afilias.info; Hofheimer, Joshua T.; cwg-client at icann.org
Subject: Re: [client com] Signatory to the Community Agreement

A related question is how the Names Community would authorize ICANN (or another entity) to sign on its behalf. One member of the CWG believes this would require the CWG to become an unincorporated association to do so. I tend to think it could be done by CWG or by SO/ACs working within the ICANN structure.  Perhaps some thought can be given to this as well.

Downstream questions include how will the Names Community control the signatory's actions (e.g., will this fall to its CCG reps?), how will its CCG reps be chosen and controlled, and what is the Names Community?

Greg

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016, Flanagan, Sharon <sflanagan at sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com>> wrote:

Dear all,

We will work today to prepare this table. I believe we can have that ready for the call tonight our time.

Best regards,
Sharon


Sharon R. Flanagan
Sidley Austin LLP
SF tel: 415-772-1271
PA tel: 650-565-7008
Email: sflanagan at sidley.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sflanagan at sidley.com');>


From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jrobinson at afilias.info');>]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 03:24 AM
To: Flanagan, Sharon; Hofheimer, Joshua T.
Cc: Gregory, Holly; Client <cwg-client at icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client at icann.org');>>
Subject: Signatory to the Community Agreement

Dear Sidley,

As you are aware:


1.      A key issue for the CWG in dealing with the IANA IPR will be a decision on the signatory on behalf of the Names Community.

2.      Currently we have some potential options:

a.      ICANN as signatory (assuming ICANN is willing)

b.      The formation of an unincorporated entity (a to be defined)

c.      Other possibilities such as the Empowered Community

It will be helpful to the CWG to have some structured input on this, possibly in the form of a table, in order to inform and aid that decision.
Please can you provide such input and/or advice and indicate if this will be possible at the meeting of the CWG scheduled for tomorrow (18 August) @ 06h00 UTC.

Thank-you,


Jonathan
(on behalf of the Client Committee)



****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
immediately.

****************************************************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20160817/c6d62edb/attachment-0001.html>