<p dir="ltr">Hello,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Do find inline:</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos</p>
<p dir="ltr">On 28 Jul 2016 11:36 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Replies inline.<br>
><br>
> Greg<br>
><br>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> There are quite a number of segments in the agreement that makes it clear that the CCG is in control while the trust is just an implementation medium;<br>
><br>
> I really don't think this is an accurate characterization of the agreements. The Trust initiates virtually all activities......<snip>.... The CCG's approval role is not complex and is required to be reasonable (ie, not at the CCG's sole discretion).<br>
><br>
SO: Well you still made my point about CCG. Okay let's just say the CCG in this case is synonymous with the stewardship role of NTIA to ICANN. Infact that may not even be entire accurate because NTIA only concerns itself with critical related changes to RZ and NOT everything IANA department does as is proposed for the CCG.</p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
> Here I would note that these agreements are still a work in progress. If something is imperfect, that is something we'll work out. The first draft tilted strongly in the other direction -- there were no consents or approvals whatsoever, which did not reflect what was in the Principal Terms document. <br>
>><br>
SO: What part of the CWG principle/proposal or part of the OCs principle terms document requires approval of the community for *every* IANA related action of the Trust?<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">>> This IMO is an overkill and is not acceptable, not just because i feel it's technical wrong to control a Trust in such manner but because it's improper to put such power in the hands of volunteer community (Infact it's in the hand of 1 person from each community since the agreement suggests that the trust should not question communication from respective Co-Chairs)<br>
><br>
> That particular feature (regarding communications from the co-Chairs) was in the first draft; (we did change this to require the Chair(s) to represent that they were speaking on behalf of their community). In any event, I think it is exceptionally unlikely that the one or more Chairs will go rogue; they would be criticized (and probably removed) by their community. At the same time, there need to be relatively streamlined communications, so the right balance needs to be achieved.<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">SO: Well there was no "approval of everything" requirement attached to the first draft. So that is probably why I was not concerned with the communications of the Co-Chairs then.</p>
<p dir="ltr">> I don't see the objection to "volunteer communities" being involved -- that is the basis of the multistakeholder process. Even many who are here in their professional capacity are to a greater or lesser extent volunteers.<br>
><br>
SO: You misinterpreted me here, I never said they shouldn't but I said volunteer role in this should be advisory and not managerial in nature.</p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
In an important sense, the IETF are all volunteers, and I doubt you object to their oversight of the IETF Trust.<br>
>><br>
SO: I really don't have significant understanding of the extent of *formal* oversight that the IETF volunteers/community has over the Trust. I understand that the Trust serves for the benefit of the IETF as a whole so is quite independent of IETF individual community members but the community informally follows and may provide their views/suggestions as may be requested or otherwise. Only the trustees of the IETF Trust are the ones that have legal control over the Trust activities. The CCG in its current form seem to be effectively replacing the trustees, which is contrary to the terms of the IETF Trust[1]</p>
<p dir="ltr">>> I thought the CCG was going to act in a review mode; while providing advice to their respective communities(or directly to the trust) whenever issues are identified but this is way beyond the scope. I believe any official communication to the Trust that are critical MUST always come from executives of the respective communities and NOT from CCG. Afterall the executives will be the signatories to the agreement.<br>
><br>
> This is not what was envisioned and it's entirely consistent with the way other representative groups in this space work.<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">SO: May I have a reference to where "what was envisioned" is documented and agreed to by the CWG(and ofcourse by the other 2 OCs)?</p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
"Executives" (and I'm not sure who that would even be in some communities or parts thereof) are free to be part of the CCG.<br>
>><br>
SO: I am basically referring to whoever are the signatories of the agreement. However if the CCG members would sign legal documents that makes them legally accountable for their actions and if the signatories of the community agreement are fine with that, then I will have no further issue.</p>
<p dir="ltr">>> Overall i am quite uncomfortable with the community agreement and I hope that this issue would be addressed amicably.<br>
><br>
> I don't think addressing issues "amicably" is in any way at odds with having a robust agreement. <br>
><br>
SO: Well a robust agreement has different interpretation for various people. I have stated what the supposed robustness of the current write-up seem to me. </p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
I do hope that the differences in how the agreement works will be addressed amicably, and I have every confidence they will be.<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">SO: I am as well, although I am somewhat concerned about how we are utilising legal working hours for all these. I am also concerned that the items we agreed to not include in the principles document seem to have made it back to the agreement. Maybe after the transition, we can further look at this kind of robustness being proposed but for now and in the interest of transition, I will say a lightweight process is desirable and such process should maintain the ability for each OC to transfer their stuff from IETF Trust whenever required.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
1. <a href="https://trustee.ietf.org/trust-agreement.html">https://trustee.ietf.org/trust-agreement.html</a></p>
<p dir="ltr">>> As I have always said, the protocol is the source of all these and I don't see why we are overloading this particular part of the transition unnecessarily.<br>
>><br>
>> Regards<br>
>> Sent from my LG G4<br>
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 28 Jul 2016 11:29 a.m., "Jonathan Robinson" <<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> All,<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> Please see attached for the revised drafts of the IPR License and the Community Agreement.<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> Jonathan<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T. [mailto:<a href="mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com">jhofheimer@sidley.com</a>] <br>
>>> Sent: 27 July 2016 01:03<br>
>>> To: Client Committee <<a href="mailto:cwg-client@icann.org">cwg-client@icann.org</a>><br>
>>> Subject: [client com] IANA IPR License & Community Agreement Template<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> Greg and all,<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> Attached are the final CWG revised drafts of the IPR License and the Community Agreement, clean and marked against the originals. Per my prior note Greg, are you going to post, or do you want Sidley to do so.<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> Cheers,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Josh<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> Joshua Hofheimer<br>
>>><br>
>>> Sidley Austin LLP<br>
>>><br>
>>> <a href="mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com">jhofheimer@sidley.com</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> (213) 896-6061 (LA direct)<br>
>>><br>
>>> (650) 565-7561 (Palo Alto direct)<br>
>>><br>
>>> (323) 708-2405 (cell)<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> ****************************************************************************************************<br>
>>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.<br>
>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us<br>
>>> immediately.<br>
>>><br>
>>> ****************************************************************************************************<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
>><br>
></p>