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

Fri Aug 12 10:14:20 UTC 2016

Grec
I totally agree with you on substance buy just want to reflect what had happened
I have suggested  to add just the word"Call No ...." Aftet CWG
THAT IS ALL
 
 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 11 Aug 2016, at 23:10, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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/20160812/27151c7e/attachment.html>