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

Thu Aug 11 22:23:19 UTC 2016

Totally lost!

-ed

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 5:42 PM James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:

> I must admit I have no idea what is even being objected to at this stage.
> The IPR documents have been posted for comment… are we still debating them
> somehow???
>
> From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Becky Burr <
> Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>
> Date: Thursday 11 August 2016 at 22:38
> To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>, Greg Shatan <
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as
> potential signatory on behalf of Names Community
>
> Kavouss, I think you are mixing up two distinct threads here.  One is the
> CWG agreement issue and the other is the IRP standard issue.
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 11, 2016 5:23 PM
> *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN
> as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community
>
>
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kTZWqT-zUrfdIhLihRnNISv1UGiniQ_A2epoOgyy_j0&s=Miq4PuCokDUGjlzgqnNU5IitWvCZZ7Jw_dHL61JFKU8&e=>
> > >
> > >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kTZWqT-zUrfdIhLihRnNISv1UGiniQ_A2epoOgyy_j0&s=Miq4PuCokDUGjlzgqnNU5IitWvCZZ7Jw_dHL61JFKU8&e=>
>
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kTZWqT-zUrfdIhLihRnNISv1UGiniQ_A2epoOgyy_j0&s=Miq4PuCokDUGjlzgqnNU5IitWvCZZ7Jw_dHL61JFKU8&e=>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kTZWqT-zUrfdIhLihRnNISv1UGiniQ_A2epoOgyy_j0&s=Miq4PuCokDUGjlzgqnNU5IitWvCZZ7Jw_dHL61JFKU8&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f9f2cb98/attachment-0001.html>