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

Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Aug 8 14:26:38 UTC 2016 

Dear All
The Transition  process must be 100% transparent , in a  Button Up  multistakeholder approach with full equality of participation without any superiority or inferiority status in a fair, healthy
Environment.
It is not a private club for certain people or group of people
My comments must be discussed.
For instance at the beginning the initial text is amended by so- called expert adding  the term collectively and unanimously.
The second term  is irrelevant for the reasons given , thus collectively is enough
Kavouss.


Sent from my iPhone

> On 8 Aug 2016, at 15:44, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Co- Chair
> I thought that the process was transparent. Multistakehdet approach, democratic. And healthy.
> I now heard that only few self auto claimed so- called " Top Expert"has the right to put something  together totally and inappropriately rejecting comments from others accusing the commenter as non expert.
> What a wrong idea?
> I strongly request you to discuss my comments before proceeding
> Best regards
> Kavouss
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 8 Aug 2016, at 06:07, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Agree totally with you, in this,  Chuck
>> 
>> 
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr ...  (CLO)
>> 
>> about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>> On 8 August 2016 at 13:32, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>>> I for one trust the experts who have put this together. Unless others with comparable expertise can point out any significant problems, I am willing to trust those who are representing us.  If there are any serious problems, we will have the public comment period to catch them.
>>> 
>>> Chuck
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> > On Aug 7, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > Full disclosure: I'm a trustee and part of the group that is
>>> > negotiating this agreement on behalf of the IETF Trust.
>>> >
>>> > I want first of all to agree in general with Greg's responses.  But I
>>> > also implore people to think very hard about fussing with the text
>>> > from the lawyers when the CWG negotiating team brings it to you.  We
>>> > really only have a few days to do this.  These agreements need to go
>>> > out to public comment before ICANN prepares its report for NTIA.  That
>>> > happens Friday, so comment needs to start on Thursday.  If we miss
>>> > this window, then the IPR piece (which is a prerequisite for the
>>> > transition) will not be complete in NTIA's evaluation, and they may
>>> > decide to renew the IANA contract.  In effect, we have to be done
>>> > everything but document preparation on Wednesday.
>>> >
>>> > It would be a terrible shame if the transition fell apart on a small
>>> > matter like the IPR.  I believe the better thing to ask in every case
>>> > is not whether something is exactly the way you would do it, but
>>> > whether it is something you can live with.  If the answer is, "Yes," I
>>> > would encourage you to say so.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks and best regards,
>>> >
>>> > A
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:07:17PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>> >> All,
>>> >>
>>> >> Please see my responses (in "balloon" comments) to Kavouss's comments.
>>> >>
>>> >> Greg
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Dear All,
>>> >>> No matter who made the changes, I am commenting on the text not on the
>>> >>> author's identity.
>>> >>> I have had to convert the PDF in word and have done my verifications and
>>> >>> attached my comments
>>> >>> There are serious problems in some of the terms.
>>> >>> I have indicated all in terms of deletion with reasons and/or with
>>> >>> comments in round bracket.
>>> >>> Regartds
>>> >>> Kavouss
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 2016-08-07 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> The changes were not made by me. The changes were made by the CWG's
>>> >>>> counsel and the IETF Trust's counsel working collaboratively, which came
>>> >>>> after discussion of the IANA IPR collaborative group (including reps of all
>>> >>>> the communities and the Trust).
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I don't have the redline in Word. I sent to the list everything that was
>>> >>>> initially sent by the IETF Trust's counsel to CWG's counsel to the Client
>>> >>>> Committee list.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Greg
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Sunday, August 7, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> Dear ALL
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I HAVE no comments on the initial text before being changed
>>> >>>>> Regards
>>> >>>>> Kavouss
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> 2016-08-07 18:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Seun
>>> >>>>>> NO
>>> >>>>>> PLS DO NOT MAKE MY JOB HARD..
>>> >>>>>> WHY NOT A RED MARK WORD VERSION
>>> >>>>>> Regards
>>> >>>>>> Kavouss
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> 2016-08-07 17:42 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Hello Kavous,
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> An option could be that you look at the PDF and make your comment on
>>> >>>>>>> the word version(though you can make comment on the pdf as well)
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Another option is if you (or someone) has the previous clean version
>>> >>>>>>> then one can produce a redline off the two clean versions.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Regards
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my LG G4
>>> >>>>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 4:37 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Andrew,
>>> >>>>>>>> Tks again for your kind reply.
>>> >>>>>>>> Please send me a red mark  Word Version and I Will reply today.
>>> >>>>>>>> I HAVE SOME CONCERS ON SOME OF THE  CHANGED MADE  BY GREC
>>> >>>>>>>> Regards
>>> >>>>>>>> Kavouss
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> 2016-08-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>:
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't know whetheer you will get that before tomorrow, and that is
>>> >>>>>>>>> really rather late.  Can you at least say what your concerns are?
>>> >>>>>>>>> There really isn't a lot of time: this needs to go to public comment
>>> >>>>>>>>> on Thursday.  An additional day to wait for the comments would be
>>> >>>>>>>>> bad.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> A
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>> Seun,
>>> >>>>>>>>>> I know that a word version was included but the Word Version is a
>>> >>>>>>>>> clean
>>> >>>>>>>>>> Text and it is difficult to identify the changes .I wish to see
>>> >>>>>>>>> what was
>>> >>>>>>>>>> the changes introduced by Greg
>>> >>>>>>>>>> I still need the red mark text in WORD VERSION.
>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>> >>>>>>>>>> Kavouss
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2016-08-07 14:09 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A word version was included in Greg's mail
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my LG G4
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <
>>> >>>>>>>>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Grec,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for the amendments. I do not agree with
>>> >>>>>>>>> some of them
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In order to enable me to provide my counter comments to you,
>>> >>>>>>>>> pls provide
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> a word version of your amendment as soon as convinient
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kavouss
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2016-08-07 0:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> >>>>>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>> >>>>>>>>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> --
>>> >>>>>>>>> Andrew Sullivan
>>> >>>>>>>>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Andrew Sullivan
>>> > ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160808/cb24163d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list