[CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016

Sun Aug 7 13:19:35 UTC 2016

Thanks for the share Greg, it just amazes me the level of back and forth
between CCG and the Trust that has been formalised by this agreement. This
IPR thing is not a bone of contention at moment yet everything functioned
well. Over 18 pages just feels too unnecessarily "robust" for a task that
has been far from being noticed so far and IMO continues to diminish the
concept of "trust" that has made the Internet flourish thus far.  Anyway
it's okay if the Trust and the two other OCs are fine.

That said, quick few points that I like to raise:

1. There is no doubt that the signatory for names would be ICANN. I don't
see any reason to consider any other entity for this purpose.

2. While I understand that the agreement is implementing the notion of
separation of the functions already implied in respective community
proposal, I think the OCs should try as much as possible to be in sync
hence I suggest communications from a OC chair should be known to other
members of CCG before transmission to the Trust(re: 2.3d). Ofcourse that
could be included in operating principles of CCG.

3. I am not a lawyer but reading section 3.1, it seem that section
technically seeds authority to CCG(which represents the respective
communities). Particularly the section below:

".....Accordingly, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, the
IETF Trust hereby delegates to the Operational Communities the IETF Trust’s
authority, as the record-owner of the IANA Trademarks,......"

It will be good to know that is not the case.

4. I hope the authority implied in 2c,d does not mean that the Trust cannot
ask questions; While I recognise that it's rare and unlikely for a co-chair
to use the power accrued to them without consulting their community. I feel
not giving the Trust option to authenticate/validate communication, opens
room for hack. ;-)

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 6 Aug 2016 11:24 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

CWG,

I am forwarding a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement
relating to the IANA IPR.  In addition to any other comments you may have,
I draw your attention to the two specific items in the email below: (1)
identifying an entity to sign for the names community, and (2) providing a
brief description of the IANA Services used by the names community (*see*
Exhibit A for descriptions provided by the other communities).

This will be the subject of further refinement by the IPR collaborative
group early in the week, with the goal of initiating a public comment
period as soon as possible after the CWG-IANA meeting on Thursday.

Greg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer at sidley.com>
Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:55 PM
Subject: [client com] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
To: Client <cwg-client at icann.org>

Dear Client Committee,

Attached please find a revised draft of the proposed Community Agreement
for your review and comment.  This is an iterative version prepared jointly
by counsel (Sidley) to the CWG and counsel to the IETF Trust to reflect the
7-point discussion items.  To be clear, it is still a work in progress, but
we believe ready for the CWG to have an opportunity for review.

Two important issues to highlight:

1) the Names Community needs to determine who will be the signatory party,
acting on behalf of the Names Community, to the Community Agreement.  For
your information, the attached draft has the organizations put forward to
represent the Numbers and Protocols Communities; and

2) we need a brief description of the IANA services to be provided on
behalf of the Names Community.  The following high-level description was
included in a draft of the Naming Functions Agreement.  If this is
acceptable for including here is well, please advise (or we ask the Client
Committee to provide a sufficient description):

The “*IANA Naming Function*” is comprised of:

(a)             Management of the DNS Root Zone (“*Root Zone Management*”);

(b)             Management of the .INT top-level domain;

(c)              Maintenance of a repository of internationalized domain
name tables and label generation rule sets; and

(d)             Provision of other services related to the management of
.INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and at ICANN’s
expense.

Please provide any comment or feedback as soon as practical, as we are
trying to finalize the draft for approval by the various stakeholders and
release for public comment by Thursday.

Thank you in advance.

Cheers,

Josh

*Joshua Hofheimer*

*Sidley Austin LLP*

*jhofheimer at sidley.com <jhofheimer at 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 at nro.net [mailto:iana-ipr-bounces at nro.net] *On
Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras
*Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 10:01 AM
*To:* iana-ipr at nro.net
*Subject:* [Iana-ipr] Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016

All – attached is a draft of the Community Agreement that Josh and I have
collaborated on over the past two days.  We believe that it reflects the
current requirements of the parties, and submit it for your review and
discussion.

A clean version, as well as a marked version against the draft of 07-30-16
(in PDF format) are attached.

Please note a few items that still need to be completed, including the
description of the IANA Names Service, the identities of the CCG
representatives, etc.

Best regards,

Jorge

Jorge L. Contreras

Contreras Legal Strategy LLC

1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710

Washington, DC 20036

contreraslegal at 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.

************************************************************
****************************************
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.

************************************************************
****************************************

_______________________________________________
Cwg-client mailing list
Cwg-client at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160807/f888d2a0/attachment.html>