<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Jari Arkko response to comments.</div><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Jari Arkko</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net">jari.arkko@piuha.net</a>></span><br>Date: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 11:15 AM<br>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016<br>To: Andrew Sullivan <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>><br>Cc: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br><br><br><span class="">First, I wanted to agree with Andrew as he wrote:<br>
<br>
> Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is<br>
> negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.<br>
><br>
> I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses. But I<br>
> also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text<br>
> from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you. We<br>
> really only have a few days to do this. These agreements need to go<br>
> out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA. That<br>
> happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday. If we miss<br>
> this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the<br>
> transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may<br>
> decide to renew the IANA contract. In effect, we have to be done<br>
> everything but document preparation on Wednesday.<br>
><br>
> It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small<br>
> matter like the IPR. I believe the better thing to ask in every case<br>
> is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but<br>
> whether it is something you can live with. If the answer is, "Yes," I<br>
> would encourage you to say so.<br>
<br>
</span>And all of that is very important.<br>
<br>
I would also like to add the point that we need the contracts to be ready enough that are in principle in good shape and broadly acceptable, but we *do* have a public comment period which enables further adjustment as needed, from CWG and others. If people can think about their further comments also in this light, that would be helpful.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Jari<br>
<br>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br></div><br></div>