[CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community

Thu Aug 11 21:35:21 UTC 2016

Grec
Can you tell me how an unclear  evidence convincing? You said that we
either need both or none
That is not sensible
A convincing argument or evidence must be CLEAR, VALID MEANINGFULL, LOGICAL
AND RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT.
You take me as not understanding THE MEANING OF THE TEXT.
Once again I disagree with you totally.
Convicing evidence is the right word
I do not care about ICANN STAFF WHETHER HTHEY AGREE OR DISAGREE
Pls withdraw your TEXT.
Kavouss

2016-08-11 23:22 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

> I oppose  to that formulation .
> I can not agree that CWG requested .
> What is CWG ,.
> WE HAVE VERY FEW PEOPLE
> HOW YOU COULD TALK ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE GROUP.
> There was no consensus on that . In fact we have not requested ICANN
> pLS SHOW ME THE TEXT OF THE REQUEST
> We must not mislead the community
> We must telling the truth
> One again with clear and convincing evidence or with convincing evidence
> for the reasons that I have mentioned
> What you are saying is your understanding $
> I do not share that understanding
> It seems to me that whatever I say or I propose you  categorically oppose
> to that
> There must be some other reasons that I do not know
> Kavouss
>
> 2016-08-11 23:10 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
>
>> I'm sorry you feel that way.  What is your objection to the sentence you
>> deleted?
>>
>> As for the position that the sentence was needed in order to put ICANN's
>> name as the signatory -- that was ICANN's position.  We could not put
>> ICANN's name in the document without a statement like the one in that
>> sentence.  If we did not do that, we would not have been asking for comment
>> on ICANN  as a potential signatory.
>>
>> On the more general question of the decisional processes, I'll leave that
>> to the co-chairs.
>>
>> I will note that requiring 60 participants in the CWG to affirmatively
>> approve a sentence in a footnote that clearly says it is not a final
>> decision of the CWG does not strike me as a viable working method.
>>
>> I will also note that only a single objection was stated, among all those
>> on the call and reading the list.  Since we do not operate by full
>> consensus, this does not strike me as a viable basis to accept the
>> objection, since that would place the objection above all of the
>> non-objections and expressions of support.
>>
>> Further, this needs to be considered in context.  There is considerable
>> value in seeking public comment on ICANN as the potential signatory.  This
>> needed to be weighed against concerns expressed that would have prevented
>> that outcome, which was broadly supported on the call.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <
>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am sorry , once again we state something which does not reflect the
>>> reality.
>>> 20 people shall not represent the entire community
>>> You taking an unfair position and pushing for your own position
>>> WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS INAPPROPRIATE.
>>> Your unilateral conclusions supported by Beckie and Andrew DID GET THE
>>> AGREEMENT OF THE ENTIRE 130 PEOPLE of CWG
>>> we need to  have  at least 60 participants
>>> I am not going to get in another battle with any one
>>> We fabricate a conclusion which is false and untrue
>>> regards
>>> Kavouss
>>>
>>>
>>> 2016-08-11 19:32 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Kavouss, thank you for your comment.  However, Andrew is correct, so we
>>>> can't delete that sentence and still include ICANN as the proposed
>>>> signatory.  I regret that your comment cannot be accommodated.
>>>>
>>>> As Andrew also notes, this is the last open item before the documents
>>>> are set out for public comment.  So that the process may move forward, I've
>>>> now sent the proposed signatory and the footnote to the IANA IPR email list
>>>> so the documents can be finalized and distributed.
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Andrew Sullivan <
>>>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sam was quite clear that the agreement to put ICANN in there requires
>>>>> a note that this was at the request of the CWG.
>>>>>
>>>>> A
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 06:42:49PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>>>>> > Grec
>>>>> > This is my suggestion
>>>>> > Kavouss
>>>>> > *CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the
>>>>> signatory
>>>>> > to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. ICANN
>>>>> has been
>>>>> > included in this draft.  ICANN (or another counterparty) would be
>>>>> subject
>>>>> > to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.*
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 2016-08-11 18:16 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > All,
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > As discussed, the following is the proposed footnote to accompany
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > inclusion of ICANN (in square brackets to indicate the non-final
>>>>> nature of
>>>>> > > that proposal) as the potential signatory to the Community
>>>>> Agreement on
>>>>> > > behalf of the Names Community.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > This will need to be finalized in the next 1-2 hours so that the
>>>>> documents
>>>>> > > can be put out for public comment today.  No objections were heard
>>>>> on
>>>>> > > today's call.  Any violent objections or genius revisions should
>>>>> be sent in
>>>>> > > reply to this email.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > *CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the
>>>>> signatory
>>>>> > > to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community.  At
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated that it could
>>>>> serve as
>>>>> > > the counterparty to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names
>>>>> > > Community and ICANN has been included in this draft.  ICANN (or
>>>>> another
>>>>> > > counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as
>>>>> determined by
>>>>> > > CWG-Stewardship.*
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Greg
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > 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
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/20160811/ffd9ab78/attachment-0001.html>