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

Fri Aug 12 07:22:09 UTC 2016

Dear Co- Chairs
Yes the Ship is on the way BUT HAS NOT YET REACHED ITS DESTINATION
But What I proposed to co Chairs to simply add the word Call Before CWG and
the number of call I.E
At the request made at CWG CALL NO  X ,ICANN indicated
Still that can be corrected if there is good will by the Co Chairs
It is still not too late
Regards
kAVOUSS  ......

2016-08-12 8:29 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:

> Hello Kavous,
>
> If ICANN's requirement/condition was not meet, the following text would
> not have been included:
>
> "...*ICANN** has indicated that it could serve as the counterparty to the
> Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community*..."
>
> That said, the request actually emanated initially from the CWG( I made
> the request) which Greg then forwarded to CWG client and the client then
> asked ICANN. Sidley confirmed during the call that they have made the
> request and awaiting response(I guess the response must have come
> subsequently).
>
> Anyway, I think the ship has sailed on this one though it's still on the
> move and has not reached final destination yet. Anything that requires
> changes can be done during the PC. If ICANN feels they were misinterpreted,
> that can be corrected.
>
> Regards
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> On 12 Aug 2016 7:11 a.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I understand that we did have a blocking points that who could sign for
>> Names Community
>>
>> I also understand that someone propose that we put ICANN
>>
>> Similarly I understood that ICANN STAFF indicated that without being
>> requested they hesitate to self-nomination
>>
>> Then someone proposed the following:
>> “ *At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated ……”*
>>
>> What I am saying  is from  the procedural view we cannot say immediately
>> after such suggestion the entire CWG has unanimously or by consensus
>> requested ICANN to do so since ,there was no such request was made by CWG
>> to ICANN to sign on our behalf.
>>
>> However, we could resolve the matter by just instead of CWG we say CWG
>> call ,,,,,
>>
>> That formulation is reflect what has spontaneously happened
>>
>> That is all
>>
>> REGARDS
>>
>> Kavouss
>>
>>
>> 2016-08-12 7:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Go ahead with that 20 supporte
>>> Regards
>>> KAVOUSS
>>>
>>> 2016-08-12 1:10 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>:
>>>
>>>> 20 support > 1 opposed especially considering no one else opposed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chuck
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>>>> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 11, 2016 4:53 PM
>>>> *To:* Greg Shatan
>>>> *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 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160812/106c6c10/attachment-0001.html>