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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Aug 14 13:14:01 UTC 2016 

Dear  Co Chairs,

You were selected or elected  to lead the process of CWG

You need and even required to fulfill your responsibilities and obligations

You cannot decide on rush on something which crucial, fundamental and legal

The issue of signatories to the agreement 8 a legally binding document )
must be legally addressed and legally valid

The signatories must have legal status or to be legal entity

Names Community is not a legal entity and thus does not have legal status

A signatory to the agreement while it signs the agreement is legally
responsible to discharge its responsibility at every and all stages of a
long term agreement up to and including standing at any court

In order  that names community  be able to sign the agreement there are two
options

Option 1

It should establish an unincorporated association among the various players
to provide it the legal status

Option 2

To delegate its authority and responsibilities on not only sign the
agreement but rendering its rights and obligation during the validity
period of the agreement to another entity ,such as ICANN either represented
by its Board  or its President and Chief Executive officer .

To do so CWG which currently performing the required tasks expected form
Names Community must formally ask ICANN IF IT IS READY TO ACT AS DESCRIBED

To this effect

   1.

   The draft of the text of the request must be discussed and approved
   by/in a CWG call.
   2.

   The text must be prepared as a draft letter to be a) approved by the
   entire CWG ( to be put 7 posted on CWG web site or CWG mailing for comment
   from the entire group , if any and b) finalized  by inclusing of the
   comments, if any .
   3.

   The definitive text as approved should be signed by Co –Chairs and sent
   to ICANN Board, together with the terms and condition associated with such
   delegation of responsibilities and obligations. This latter part  may be
   postponed for the time being after receiving public comments
   4.

   ICANN Board needs to formally reply to the request indicating that it
   accepts the request and fully and unconditionally agreed to the terms and
   conditions associated with such delegation of authorities and
   responsibilities

Consequently, it is inappropriate to undermine the importance of this very
delicate and legal matter and by cut and paste rushing to shortcut the
process.

Please be aware that you are not expected to breach, contravene, infringe
and contradicts the process as legally required .

Some people oppose to my valid point and categorize it as minority view

That is inappropriate.

We must properly examine the matter, analyses the situation and decide
appropriately
I remind you once again to be prudent, responsive and accountable .
If you are not in a position to act and proceed as proposed, YOU ARE KINDLY
REQUESTED TO RECORD THESE COMMENTS AS MY FORMAL PUBLIC COMMENTS AND ADVISE
THE SECRETARIAT TO INSERT IT IN THE CORRESPONDING COLUMN UNDER PULIC
COMMENTS

Regards

Kavouss

2016-08-12 17:10 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

> I do not understand why we could not simply say
> At the request of CWG CALL 83, ICANN...
> What is the problem that some people insist on something which does not
> reflect the reality
> CWG has not formally requested ICANN we just did something at lower level
> That ids all
> Please be fair
> Kavouss
>
> 2016-08-12 16:40 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:
>
>> I think Kavous implies that when we say "...*At the request of the
>> CWG-Stewardship..." *We were actually saying “the entire CWG has
>> unanimously or by consensus requested ICANN to do so” which is not the
>> case. Even if it were the case, i guess the important thing is that the
>> substance of all these (which is the actual proposal) is not yet final and
>> there is still room to make any required correction on the substance of the
>> proposal during the public comment period.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that we cannot say “the entire CWG has unanimously or by
>>> consensus requested ICANN to do so”; moreover I don’t think anyone has
>>> said that.  All we did was to put one option on the table for public
>>> comment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 12, 2016 2:05 AM
>>> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan; cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Burr, Becky
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of
>>> ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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-bounce
>>> s 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
>> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
>> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>>
>> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160814/3eff62c9/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list