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

[Jari Arkko]

First, I wanted to agree with Andrew as he wrote:

> 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.

And all of that is very important.

I would also like to add the point that we need the contracts to be ready enough that are in principle in good shape and broadly acceptable, but we *do* have a public comment period which enables further adjustment as needed, from CWG and others. If people can think about their further comments also in this light, that would be helpful.

Thanks,

Jari

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160808/d76e7404/signature.asc>