<div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-family:"calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"arial","sans-serif";font-size:7pt"><font color="#ff0000">Dear Chuck</font></span></p><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"arial","sans-serif";font-size:7pt"><font color="#ff0000">This is my reply</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Do you not
think that intellectual property law expertise has some value for this
task? As far as I understand, neither of the co-chairs have expertise in
intellectual property law. Considering that the CCG will be dealing with
IANA IPRs, it seems reasonable to me that having one of the three who has IPR
expertise makes very good sense. </span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red"><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span></span></u></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red">Every SO7AC could
add values to the management team </span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></u></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Also, unless
I am misunderstanding you, you are continuing to question why the Names
Community needs more than two representatives on the CCG. I thought that
it was already agreed that each of the three communities would have three
representatives. Do you think that the Names community should only have
two representatives while the numbers and protocol communities have three each?</span></u></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red"> </span></u></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red">No you
misunderstood me as usual; I did not say that at all</span></u></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"times new roman","serif";font-size:12pt"> </span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">I can
understand that you might propose that the third person could come from another
SO/AC besides the GNSO & ccNSO, but in my opinion whoever it is should have
good IPR expertise and should be accountable to the entire Names
Community. One of the advantages of selecting someone from the IPC is
that the IPC has an abundance of IPR experts. And in the case of Greg Shatan,
he not only has IPR expertise but also has been representing the Names
Community in all the IPR work that has been going on over the last many months.</span></u></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"times new roman","serif";font-size:12pt"> </span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"><u>
</u></font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red"><u>I think there are
many people who have IRT expertise in ICANN FAMLIY.</u></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"><u>
</u></font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red"><u>it is a
shortcoming if only one person is qualified for that position</u></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span></span></u></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Sidley is
just advising the CWG. They are not making decisions. It is us to
the CWG as a whole and the overall Names Community to make the decisions.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"times new roman","serif";font-size:12pt"> </span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red">Sidley is kindly requested that provide advice when
requested but not taking any initiative </span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></font></span></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><font color="#ff0000">Regards</font></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><font color="#ff0000">Kavouss </font></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u><u><u><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><span><span><br></span></span></span></u></u></u></p></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-09-14 23:03 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Seun</div><div>I do not understand why IPC is not counted as part of GNSO</div><div>Regards</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>Kavouss </div></font></span></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-09-14 20:21 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><p dir="ltr">Hello,</p>
<p dir="ltr">There aspects comes to mind here:</p>
<p dir="ltr">1. The initial names community CCG members which is currently suggested to be Co-Chairs with Greg - Seem to be getting traction (though my preference would have been not to include Co-Chairs)</p>
<p dir="ltr">2. All the 9 CCG members are accountable to their respective operational communities hence members from names should be accountable to all the COs (which represents the names community)</p>
<p dir="ltr">3. The third aspect which have not been discussed is post CCG for names; What's the formality for replacing the CCG members, how long does the inaugural members serve, what's a typical term of a CCG member, who selects/appoints the members, how is the CCG Co-Chair selected, and from what communities/COs should CCG member be picked from.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Speaking on a personal basis, I have no issues with having at most one member each from ccNSO, GNSO(except IPC), and the IPC. So long as the group remains accountable to the names community. The COs having one votes each can then appoint a Co-Chair amongst the three members. I don't think we should lock-in the Co-Chair position to IPC.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!<span><br>
Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos</span></p><div><div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 14 Sep 2016 6:46 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div lang="EN-US" vlink="purple" link="blue">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Kavous,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Do you not think that intellectual property law expertise has some value for this task? As far as I understand, neither of the co-chairs have expertise in
intellectual property law. Considering that the CCG will be dealing with IANA IPRs, it seems reasonable to me that having one of the three who has IPR expertise makes very good sense.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Also, unless I am misunderstanding you, you are continuing to question why the Names Community needs more than two representatives on the CCG. I thought that
it was already agreed that each of the three communities would have three representatives. Do you think that the Names community should only have two representatives while the numbers and protocol communities have three each?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">I can understand that you might propose that the third person could come from another SO/AC besides the GNSO & ccNSO, but in my opinion whoever it is should
have good IPR expertise and should be accountable to the entire Names Community. One of the advantages of selecting someone from the IPC is that the IPC has an abundance of IPR experts. And in the case of Greg Shatan, he not only has IPR expertise but also
has been representing the Names Community in all the IPR work that has been going on over the last many months.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Sidley is just advising the CWG. They are not making decisions. It is us to the CWG as a whole and the overall Names Community to make the decisions.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Chuck<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"> <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.<wbr>org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounce<wbr>s@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kavouss Arasteh<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 14, 2016 1:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Seun Ojedeji<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Reps for names community<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Jonathan,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="background:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">I do not see any valid justification for what Sidley said.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="background:white;margin:0in 0in 0pt;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Why there should be, in addition of two co-chairs the third person and why from IPC</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="background:white;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.75pt;margin-left:0in;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">The co-chairs are from ccNSO and GNSO</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="background:white;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.75pt;margin-left:0in;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Why not the third person, if really necessary should not be from other SO/AC
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="background:white;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.75pt;margin-left:0in;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">GNSO IS ALREADY REPRESENTED.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="background:white;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.75pt;margin-left:0in;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">What is the role of Sidley supporting IPC?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="background:white;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.75pt;margin-left:0in;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">I am not convinced with these behind the scene agreement</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="background:white;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.75pt;margin-left:0in;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Kavouss </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2016-09-14 19:03 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>>:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>On 14 Sep 2016 5:23 p.m., "Jonathan Robinson" <<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info" target="_blank">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> All,<br>
><br>
> <br>
> to review the role and function of the CWG in order to understand:<br>
><u></u><u></u></p>
<p>SO: Sure you meant CCG here.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>> <br>
><br>
> 1. Skills and expertise required for the CCG reps<br>
><br>
> 2. Skills and expertise required for the CCG co-chair in particular<br>
> (Sidley’s guidance on the last call was that intellectual property experience is necessary)<br>
><u></u><u></u></p>
<p>SO:Will be good to have IPC among the 3 but I don't think the Co-Chair "must" be from IPC in that Co-Chair only serve as communication medium.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Regards<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p>> 3. Likely time commitment required for the CCG reps<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> To this extent, we wanted to remind you of the description of the CCG in the community agreement (ARTICLE 2). We have copied ARTICLE 2 into the body text below.<br>
><br>
> The whole agreement is also attached for your ease of reference.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Thank-you for your attention to this detail point.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Lise & Jonathan<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> ARTICLE 2 COMMUNITY COORDINATION GROUP<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 2.1 Formation and Purpose of CCG. The CCG is hereby formed, and shall operate in accordance with the terms set forth below, to provide guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals, to the IETF Trust regarding the stewardship
of the IANA Intellectual Property.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 2.2 Composition of CCG. The CCG shall be comprised of nine (9) individuals, three (3) appointed by each of the Operational Communities (such nine (9) individuals, the “CCG Representatives”). Each Operational Community shall have the right to change
any of its CCG Representatives upon written notice to the other Operational Communities and the IETF Trust. An Operational Community may remove or replace its CCG Representatives at any time and in its sole discretion. The means and procedures by which an
Operational Community elects to select, appoint and remove its own CCG Representatives shall be determined solely by that Operational Community and such procedures and compliance therewith are beyond the scope of this Agreement.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 2.3 CCG Co-Chairs. <br>
><br>
> a. Each Operational Community shall appoint one of its CCG Representatives as a co-chair of the CCG. An Operational Community shall have the right to change its CCG co-chair upon written notice to the other Operational Communities and the IETF Trust.
An Operational Community may remove or replace its CCG co-chair at any time and in its sole discretion.<br>
><br>
> b. The CCG co-chairs shall be the IETF Trust’s primary points of contact with the CCG for purposes of this Agreement, and the CCG co-chair appointed by a particular Operational Community shall be the IETF Trust’s primary point of contact with such Operational
Community for purposes of this Agreement.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> c. The IETF Trust shall be authorized hereunder to treat a communication from the CCG co-chairs collectively as a communication from the CCG as a whole when the communication identifies itself as such, and the IETF Trust shall not be required to make any
additional inquiry regarding the authority or validity of instructions or requests made by the co-chairs collectively on behalf of the CCG. Any such communication shall be sent to the CCG Representatives contemporaneously with being sent to the IETF Trust.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> d. The IETF Trust shall be authorized hereunder to treat a communication from any CCG co-chair as a communication from that co-chair’s Operational Community when the communication identifies itself as such, and the IETF Trust shall not be required to make
any additional inquiry regarding the authority or validity of instructions or requests made by any co-chair on behalf of that co-chair’s Operational Community. Any such communication shall be sent to the CCG Representatives contemporaneously with being sent
to the IETF Trust.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> e. If the IETF Trust is required under this Agreement, or otherwise elects, to consult with and seek the advice of the CCG with respect to the matters set forth in this Agreement, the IETF Trust will consider in good faith the advice and recommendations
provided by the CCG. There is a rebuttable presumption that the IETF Trust will accept the advice and recommendations of the CCG. If the IETF Trust, in its reasonable discretion, determines that it is not advisable to accept such advice or recommendation,
it will meet and confer with the CCG to explain the IETF Trust’s rationale for desiring to elect a different course of action, and the CCG and the IETF Trust shall in good faith use reasonable best efforts to come to consensus on a resolution. If the IETF
Trust and the CCG are not successful in achieving consensus with respect to the handling of the advice and recommendations of the CCG, the IETF Trust is entitled, without breaching this Agreement, to adopt or implement a position different from such CCG advice
or recommendation. To be clear, this Section 2.3(e) does not supersede the IETF Trust’s obligations to the CCG and the Operational Communities under Section 3.2(d), 3.2(e) or Section 3.2(g).<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 2.4 CCG Operational Procedures. The CCG shall adopt, by consensus, its own operational rules and procedures, including requirements relating to voting, quorum, calling of meetings, actions taken by the CCG co-chairs (individually or collectively),
action taken outside of meetings and the like, at its first meeting, and shall thereafter revise such rules and procedures as permitted thereby. Such procedures shall not constitute a part of this Agreement, and compliance with such procedures shall be beyond
the scope of this Agreement. The CCG may invite representatives of the IETF Trust to attend its meetings, but such attendance is not required, or the CCG may request the IETF Trust to appoint a liaison/non-voting ex officio member to the CCG.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.<wbr>com</a>]
<br>
> Sent: 12 September 2016 07:58<br>
> To: Gomes, Chuck <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>>;
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
><br>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Reps for names community<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Chuck<br>
><br>
> I did not say that .<br>
><br>
> If you or we have decided that two seats be filled by two co-chairs, I have no problem at all.<br>
><br>
> For the third one ,we need to discuss to see if there is only one self candidate for one seat that tacit élection ruiles apply .If it is more than one and we need to decide.<br>
><br>
> By the way people should not pretend that they do not uinderstand me.<br>
><br>
> Regards<br>
><br>
> KAVOUSS<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 2016-09-12 3:23 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>>:<br>
>><br>
>> I don’t understand Kavouss. Are you suggesting that the Names Community should not fill all three seats on the CCG?<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Also, what did I say that conveys my support of anything in my message below? I simply reported what happened in the meeting and associated it to Seun’s suggestion.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Chuck<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.<wbr>org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounce<wbr>s@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh<br>
>> Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 3:45 PM<br>
>> To: Jonathan Robinson; <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">
cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Reps for names community<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Jonathan,<br>
>><br>
>> I do not understand the argument of Seun that all of the sudden he becomes smeared supporter of Intellectual property.<br>
>><br>
>> I do not understand that nor the support of Chuck.<br>
>><br>
>> I do not think that we need additional person at all<br>
>><br>
>> Kavouss<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> 2016-09-10 16:51 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Robinson <<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info" target="_blank">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>>:<br>
>><br>
>> Seun,<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Please note that the drafting of the letter of appointment (as per the action you refer to) does not in any way pre-suppose the names of the actual appointees.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> As the call records will show, I put a strawman out for the IANA IPR Group as the initial appointees for the CCG reps; 2 x Co-chairs (of CWG) plus Greg Shatan (as CCG Co-Chair).<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Any other suggestions / proposals are clearly very welcome.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Jonathan<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>]
<br>
>> Sent: 10 September 2016 13:51<br>
>> To: Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>>; Brenda Brewer <<a href="mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org" target="_blank">brenda.brewer@icann.org</a>><br>
>> Cc: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Reps for names community<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Seun,<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Note that it was suggested that Greg Shatan serve as one of the interim CCG members; if we do that, it clearly would satisfy your recommendation that “a third interim member is selected from the intellectual property constituency”.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Chuck<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.<wbr>org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounce<wbr>s@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji<br>
>> Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 4:46 AM<br>
>> To: Brenda Brewer<br>
>> Cc: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Reps for names community<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Sent from my LG G4<br>
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
>><br>
>> On 10 Sep 2016 9:05 a.m., "Brenda Brewer" <<a href="mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org" target="_blank">brenda.brewer@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > Discussed selection of CCG rep<wbr>resentatives.<br>
>> > Suggestion that CWG co-chairs <wbr>act as interim CCG reps until <wbr>a process is figured out by th<wbr>e chartering organizations.<br>
>> ><br>
>><br>
>> SO: Like I raised on the call, I think we may be putting too much responsibilities on the Co-Chairs who are volunteers. I expect quite a lot of developmental/setup activity will commence once these various groups are formed, which may imply significant amount
of time commitment. I will like to suggest we select other members within the CWG to serve as interim instead. However, whoever we select should include someone from the intellectual property constituency as I think this would be their area of strength. The
interims should agree to report to the CWG/COs and make decisions based on their approval.<br>
>><br>
>> > ACTION (Client committee): ins<wbr>truct Sidley to draft a letter<wbr> of appointment of CCG reps.<br>
>> ><br>
>><br>
>> SO: I left the room during this discussion, does the action above imply that it has been concluded that we use the Co-Chairs? If that is the case, I suggest a third interim member is selected from the intellectual property constituency.<br>
>><br>
>> On a much lighter note, i hope it has been clarified that there is no possible conflict in having PTI board members serve as CCG members.<br>
>><br>
>> Regards<br>
>><br>
>> > 5. AOB<br>
>> ><br>
>> > IRP will be functional by the <wbr>time of the tra<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>