[CWG-Stewardship] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Aug 8 16:36:58 UTC 2016
I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH POLL
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
> On 8 Aug 2016, at 16:24, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> Kavouss,
>
> If you look at the charter you will see that voting is discouraged. The CWG is supposed to try to reach decisions that have as strong support as possible. When there is disagreement the CWG is supposed to try to find positions that most can support; full support is always desirable but that is not always possible. Still, everyone’s input must be considered before any final positions are determined. I believe the chairs may ask for an informal poll if needed but that would not be a vote in response to a motion; sometimes that is done simply by asking for those who disagree to express their views and if there is only disagreement from a small minority, they could decide that a position has strong enough support. Ultimately it is up to the chairs to evaluate the level of support.
>
> Chuck
>
> From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 9:53 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>; Lise Fuhr; Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
>
> Do you suggest to vote
> I disagree with the motion
> Any thing should based on consensus
> That is what GNSO moved during CCWG
> I STRONGLY AND CATEGORICALLY to vitong.
> The matter must be discussed.
> Best regards
> Kavousd
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 8 Aug 2016, at 15:35, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> Kavous,
>
> I don’t think anyone is being unkind or unfair. In my case and I think Cheryl as well, we were just expressing our opinion just like you did. Disagreeing should not be deemed as ‘CATEGORICALLY rejecting”. It is up to the CWG to decide whether there is enough support to accept your views, not up to me or Cheryl.
>
> Chuck
>
> From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 9:31 AM
> To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Gomes, Chuck; <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>; Lise Fuhr; Andrew Sullivan
> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
>
> Dear experts
> It is inappropriate and surprising that you self proclaimed highly top qualified expert CATEGORICALLY reject legitimate comments without even been debated?
> Pls be fair and kind
> Refard
>
>
> 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/f041a93d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list