[client com] Signatory to the Community Agreement

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Wed Aug 17 14:47:33 UTC 2016


Thank you, Jonathan, for rolling the ball forward, and Sharon, for your
prompt and helpful responses.

I hope to attend the upcoming call.  The 2am to 4am timeframe in my time
zone is a challenge.

Greg

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
wrote:

> Thank-you Sharon,
>
>
>
> This and the preceding email are helpful.
>
>
>
> The agenda will be finalised at 17h00 UTC.
>
> The form will be essentially similar to the past few CWG calls.
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com]
> *Sent:* 17 August 2016 15:09
> *To:* 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* jrobinson at afilias.info; Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer at sidley.com>;
> cwg-client at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [client com] Signatory to the Community Agreement
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <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>
> 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
>
>
>
> *From*: Jonathan Robinson [mailto: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>
> *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/20160817/63738f56/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Cwg-client mailing list