[CWG-Stewardship] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Aug 8 14:38:09 UTC 2016
Dear Chuke
Thank you for your understanding.
All of my comments are legally based on facts and figure.
Regards
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
> On 8 Aug 2016, at 16:29, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> I don’t disagree with anything you said Kavouss; moreover, I believe that is what is happening. My opinions are no more valuable than yours and both must be evaluated by the full CWG.
>
> Chuck
>
> From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 10:27 AM
> To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Gomes, Chuck; Andrew Sullivan; <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>; Lise Fuhr
> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
>
> 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/20160808/54b8b34f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list