[CWG-Stewardship] Process and the last mile

Wed Aug 10 00:59:44 UTC 2016

2016-08-10 2:53 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

> Dear Co Chairs,
>
> Dear CWG members and participants
>
> This the time that everybody come to the aid of the PART and demonstrate
> the utmost level of tolerance, flexibility and highest degree of
> collaboration  .
>
> The reactions shown by one person to my comments were unfair,
> inappropriate and outside the code of conduct .Perhaps its author was tired
> and exhausted
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> Dear CWG members and
>
> There are structural and legal terms used in the draft which are
> incoherent and incompatible with each other. This has been subject to
> exchange of tens of mails among members.
>
> Having totally rejected the counter comments made by one participant, on
> the one hand, and having understood that except one person, everybody else
> agreed that the comments that I made are relevant and valid.
>
> Now, in reply to the comprehensive message and appeals made by various
> distinguish colleagues on mailing list and off list and having carefully
> considered the reasons given by our Chair Jonathan, and being always
> supportive of reaching compromise, in the interest of transition process, I
> joint the consensus emerged and have no objection to proceed with the
> approval of the draft
>
> I hope this will put on record that we need to understand each other
> problem and be collaborative to the maximum possible extent
>
>
>
>
>
> 2016-08-09 16:11 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>:
>
>> Dear Kavous and CWG Colleagues,
>>
>>
>>
>> The discussion over the past few days has suddenly become more
>> challenging, especially around the IANA IPR. We have come a considerable
>> distance together and produced a widely appreciated proposal. We are now
>> under some time and logistical pressure to complete the task. In my
>> capacity as co-chair, I decided to put down a some thoughts around where we
>> are right now. These are my own thoughts although I am in almost daily
>> contact with Lise on all matters relating to the CWG.
>>
>>
>>
>> As I understand it, our primary objective at the present time is to
>> ensure that implementation of the CWG (“Names”) proposal is executed (by
>> ICANN staff) in a manner which is consistent with the letter and spirit of
>> our proposal. Since much of the implementation entails legal or legally
>> oriented work undertaken by ICANN staff (including ICANN legal staff), we
>> need to rely on lawyers to advise us in relation to that work. We are still
>> using Sidley Austin (“Sidley”) for that purpose and have explicitly
>> authorised Sidley (through the CWG Client Committee) to work directly with
>> ICANN legal on our behalf, where appropriate. Timing constraints have meant
>> that some of our feedback on ICANN staff’s implementation work is
>> necessarily delivered during the public comment period on the relevant
>> document/s. Again, we have leaned on Sidley to assist us with drafting the
>> appropriate and complete form of response via the public comment (primarily
>> mindful of the point relating to execution consistent with the CWG
>> proposal).
>>
>>
>>
>> In addition to all the work described above, we have also had the need to
>> resolve the open issue of the IANA IPR. This was not resolved in the CWG
>> proposal and we explicitly committed to resolve how to deal with it as part
>> of the implementation work. Moreover, Alissa Cooper has made it crystal
>> clear on more than one occasion that the transfer of the IANA IPR to its
>> post-IANA Transition home is a necessary condition for the IANA Transition.
>> Therefore, we must get this issue resolved and we need to get it resolved
>> to the mutual satisfaction of the three affected “operational communities”.
>> To this extent, it is not a CWG issue as such but an issue of common
>> interest.
>>
>>
>>
>> Lise and I held regular co-ordination meetings with the other OCs
>> throughout our work. More recently, we (the CWG) formed a group comprising
>> the co-chairs and Greg Shatan, to work in conjunction with the other two
>> OCs on IANA IPR. That group successfully produced a set of principles for
>> the transfer of the IANA IPR which the CWG has previously reviewed and
>> supported. The most recent work has seen the CWG IANA IPR group come
>> together with the other OCs as well as our respective legal advisors and to
>> turn the principles into agreements. This was initially very challenging
>> and common ground was not obvious. But, with the efforts of all and a
>> reminder that this was a necessary condition for the IANA Transition, very
>> good progress has been made. We have relied on Josh Hofheimer from Sidley
>> who has managed to produce an excellent blend of firm advice and
>> willingness to compromise. Many of the issues are specialist areas (e.g.
>> trademark & trust law) and we need to rely on Sidley’s specialist expertise
>> to guide us.
>>
>>
>>
>> I should note that Greg was put onto the IANA IPR group together with
>> Lise & myself because this (IP Law) is his personal area of expertise. My
>> experience of his work on the IANA IPR is that he has been exceptionally
>> hard working and an excellent resource to the CWG. In my view, we owe him
>> thanks for that and more!
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, looking ahead, we urgently need to get the IANA IPR documents posted
>> for public comment so that they do not cause us a problem in the overall
>> timing. We still have a key issue to resolve in that we need to agree on an
>> entity sign the community agreement on behalf of the Names Community.
>> Again, a suitable and appropriate compromise may be required.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please can we all remain together and focussed on only the essential,
>> necessary and appropriate issues as we work through the “last mile” on our
>> journey towards the successful IANA Transition.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank-you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160810/77a19508/attachment.html>