<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Chris,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" target="_blank">lists@christopherwilkinson.eu</a><wbr>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Dear Greg:<div><br></div><div>Thankyou. I trust that I am by now more enlightened.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Enlightenment is an ongoing process.</div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>1.<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>That I may have misread matters is a minor concern that I shall endeavour to correct in the next few days. What is of greater import is that, as I rather suspect, a wide range of interested parties ('stakeholders') may not have read all these documents atall. I propose that each and all of the CWG proposed contracts and agreements should be posted for public comment in translation to the ICANN working languages.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">T<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">hese</div> documents have already been the subject of a public comment period, <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">announced August 11 and closed September 12 </div>. See: <a href="https://www.ianacg.org/" target="_blank">https://www.ianacg.org/</a><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"> and </div></span><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><a href="https://www.ianacg.org/call-for-public-comment-on-iana-ipr-agreements/" target="_blank">https://www.ianacg.org/call-fo<wbr>r-public-comment-on-iana-ipr-<wbr>agreements/</a></font><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"> This was announced in various places to the names, numbers and protocol parameters communities, and an email was sent to the CWG-Stewardship mailing list on that date as well.</div></span></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>2.<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I understand that the CCG has been 'created' to regulate the relationships between the Naming Community and the IETF Trust, thus the interest in IPR. </div><div> <span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>To which we have volunteered to contribute time and - I trust - understanding. However,</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Not really. The CCG was created (or 'created') because of the IANA IPR, not to regulate relationships between the Naming Community and the IETF more generally. Since the IANA IPR benefits the three communities, and the IETF Trust is holding the IPR (in a sense) as a favor to these communities, it was appropriate for the communities to have some oversight of and input to the IETF Trust solely in relation to the IPR. </div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">The Community Agreement and the CCG is the method for doing so.</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>3.<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>The leap from the IETF Trust to directing ICANN - as indicated in the draft Letter of Instruction - has not been explained. As far as I can see, the small number of delegates to the CCG (Representatives and Co-Chairs, including apparently ourselves) have no mandate to direct ICANN about anything. What is the eventual scope of these instructions?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">It has been explained several times. I'll do it one more time to assist in your ongoing process of enlightenment.</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">a. The Names Community is a party to the Community Agreement.</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">b. However, there is no existing self-evident legal entity to sign the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community.</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">c. After considerable discussion in the CWG and weighing of alternatives (both in meetings and on the email list), the CWG determined that it would be acceptable for ICANN to sign <u>on behalf of the Names Community</u> (i.e., not for its own benefit). ICANN was asked if it would do so, and ICANN returned with a "yes" answer.</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">d. The letter of instruction was 'created' to memorialize the terms under which ICANN would act as signatory. The letter was then drafted and first shared with the CWG on September 1. Again, there was discussion of the letter in meetings and on the list, and the letter was revised, all over the course of the last 3 weeks or so. This included input from ICANN's legal counsel.</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">e. The purpose of the letter of instruction is to instruct ICANN to sign the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community and to appoint (as signatory) the Names Community representatives to the CCG. The letter of instruction makes it clear that ICANN, in the role of signatory, will act only at the direction of the Names Community. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">f. The scope of instructions is limited to instructions to ICANN in the role of signatory of the Community Agreement, and does not go beyond that limited purpose. These instructions relate solely to responsibilities under the Community Agreement, which might appear to accrue to ICANN as signatory, but which in fact accrue to the Names Community as the real party in interest.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">g. The letter of instruction is only between the Names Community and ICANN. It does not involve the numbers or protocol parameters communities. (The legal entities related to these communities are mentioned only because they are signatories to the Community Agreement, and it is customary to name all of the signatories to an agreement when identifying that agreement.)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">h. The letter states that the names community directs ICANN. The letter does not state that the CCG (which also includes reps of the numbers and protocol parameter communities) or the names community CCG reps direct ICANN.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">i. The names community directs ICANN through the CWG as long as it exists, and then through decisions facilitated by the chairs of the Chartering Organizations. Consistent with the Community Agreement, these directions may be communicated to ICANN by the Names Community CCG co-chair.</div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>4.<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I would agree to your suggestion that some tutorials might be in order. If so, these should take place well before anything is finalised, and after public consultation (see 1. above)</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">As noted above, the public consultation has already occurred. The documents have already been finalized. This has all been discussed within the CWG over the course of the last several weeks. As Andrew indicated, the transfer of the IANA IPR is a necessary part of the overall IANA transition. The License Agreement and the Community Agreement are a necessary part of the transfer of the IANA IPR, and setting up the CCG is a necessary part of the Community Agreement. The letter of instruction is a necessary part of getting the Community Agreement signed. So, if these steps do not move forward, neither does the IANA Transition. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">As such the tutorials/review will need to take place after the transition takes place (assuming it takes place on October 1).</div></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div> <span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Thus it is perhaps premature to demand that ICANN accept the draft Letter of Instructions.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The "demand" (note: I would not characterize "Please can you accept..." as a demand) is really just a formality. The form of the letter should be acceptable to ICANN and the substance is certainly acceptable to ICANN. Also this letter is not a "draft"; it is essentially in its final form (though I might like to see the change discussed by Chuck and Steve Crocker made, so that the meaning of CCG is more clear). </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Finally, this is far from premature; if anything, it is overdue, given the likely timing of the IANA transition. As noted above, if ICANN did not accept the instructions, it would not be in a position to sign the Community Agreement and (for want of a shoe, etc., ...) the transition would not occur. So, I think your suggestion cannot be accepted because it would block (at least, temporarily) the IANA transition -- although it would be ironic (and, in a way, impressive) if you could accomplish what certain US political interests do not appear to have been able to do.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I trust that this has assisted you with some further enlightenment.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Based on this exchange, I'm curious to know why you volunteered to be a representative on the CCG. I suppose that if we had had more candidates, we might have had candidate statements, but we did not. It could be useful to understand your viewpoint, approach and commitment to this position as we move forward.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Best regards,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>Regards</div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>CW</div></font></span><div><div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On 24 Sep 2016, at 21:22, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Chris,</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">You're misreading the agreement and the letter.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The language you quote regarding "<span style="font-size:12.8px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals</span>" is from the Community Agreement and refers to the relationship between the Community Coordination Group and the IETF Trust. This should be readily apparent when looking at the entire Section 2.1, from which you pulled that quote:</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><p class="MsoNormal">"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."<span></span></p></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The language you quote regarding "Instructs" and "directs" is from the Letter of Instruction and refers to the relationship between the Names Community and ICANN acting as a signatory on behalf of the Names Community. This can be seen in Section 3 of the Letter of Instruction </span><font face="verdana, sans-serif">("ICANN will follow the instructions of the Names
Community") as well as in Section 7 ("ICANN will act solely at the direction of the
Names Community").</font><br></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Each is appropriate for their respective circumstances.</font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Please let me know if I can be of further assistance in understanding the agreements. It strikes me that, once the CCG representatives have all been selected, a webinar or other presentation on the agreements might be in order. This will help those who were relatively less involved in the process understand the agreements and the relationships among the parties.</font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Best regards,</font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Greg</font></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Christopher Wilkinson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" target="_blank">lists@christopherwilkinson.eu</a><wbr>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Umm … then how did we get from:<br>
<br>
<<…guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals…>><br>
<br>
to " instructs" and "directs" - ?<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
CW<br>
</font></span><div><div><br>
On 24 Sep 2016, at 11:22, Jaap Akkerhuis <<a href="mailto:jaap@nlnetlabs.nl" target="_blank">jaap@nlnetlabs.nl</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Morning Steve,<br>
><br>
>> On Sep 23, 2016, at 22:23, Steve Crocker <<a href="mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org" target="_blank">steve.crocker@board.icann.org</a><wbr>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks for this. What does CCG stand for? Apologies if it’s there and I missed it. My eyes glazed over with the plethora of acronyms.<br>
><br>
> I'm nog sure whether anybody bothered to answer this, but since I'm<br>
> too loosing track of the acronyms and especially this one as well (it is<br>
> used for different groups I counted at least three), I looked up a<br>
> reference (again). In this case it is the Community Community Group<br>
> created in the "IANA IPR Community Agreement" [1] to "to provide<br>
> guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement,<br>
> approvals, to the IETF Trust regarding the stewardship of the IANA<br>
> Intellectual Property".<br>
><br>
> jaap<br>
><br>
><br>
> [1]<br>
> <<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/Community-Agreement%20-%2008-05-2016%20marked%20against%2007-30-2016.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1473771319000&api=v2" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/d<wbr>ownload/attachments/49351404/C<wbr>ommunity-Agreement%20-%2008-05<wbr>-2016%20marked%20against%2007-<wbr>30-2016.pdf?version=1&modifica<wbr>tionDate=1473771319000&api=v2</a>><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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>