[CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the "Names Community"

Mon Sep 5 12:59:30 UTC 2016

Dear  Mr. Robinson
We can not established a legal entity through CWG .
If the issue of chartering organisations was simplified some times ago as
you have mentioned that was not aimed to establish " Names Community"
through CWG which established by Chartering organizations
That does not work
We are facing a legal issue and must process it legally and not by CUT and
Paste
Regards
Arasteh

2016-09-05 11:23 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>:

> Greg and others,
>
>
>
> Apologies, for the slow response.
>
>
>
> I recall it very slightly differently in that, we provisionally ended up
> with:
>
>
>
> The Chartering Organisations (of the CWG) through:
>
>
>
> a)      The CWG, so long as it exists, and thereafter
>
> b)      Their Chairs
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 01 September 2016 22:55
> *To:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the
> "Names Community"
>
>
>
> Provisionally, we have ended up with:
>
>
>
> a) the CWG so long as it exists, followed by
>
> b) the Chartering Organizations, acting by their Chairs.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Lost audio[1] at the time Jonathan was making suggestions about the "names
> community". I think the phrase suggested; on behalf of "members of the CWG"
> may be somewhat personal. On behalf the "chartering organisations of CWG"
> may be more ideal.
>
> On another note, suggestion about exploring memberships drawn the CO to
> form a group smaller than current CWG for the task is worth exploring
> future.
>
> Regards
> 1. Looks like Brenda is not on her Skype either so I couldn't get a quick
> redial, if the meeting is still pretty much on I will appreciate a dialout.
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
>
>
> On 1 Sep 2016 8:46 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> #3 might be worth exploring further.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 2:34 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Seun Ojedeji; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the
> "Names Community"
>
>
>
> Thank you for these very helpful comments.
>
>
>
> We may be overthinking things a bit.
>
>
>
> The CWG has been acting in the interests of the "Names Community" and has
> done some very significant things acting in that capacity.  Our report and
> recommendations were considered to be and treated as the proposal of the
> "Names Community."  This isn't much more than an implementation detail of
> that report.  So thinking that we need to come up with a whole new
> understanding of the "Names Community" and how to action on its behalf on
> this small aspect of our work seems out of scale and out of scope.
>
>
>
> Much of the operational work will take place in the CSC, IFR and SCWG,
> with the CCG representatives and/or the signatory acting primarily as a
> delivery mechanism or point of contact.  Both the CCG and the actions taken
> by the signatory will be dependent on actions of these other groups.
>
>
>
> Overall, I tend to agree with Seun, that the oversight should be handled
> by the Chartering Organizations and to the extent applicable, by the
> methods we've created (CSC, IFR, SCWG) communicated by the CCG
> representatives.
>
>
>
> ICANN as the signatory also makes sense, though its role should be that of
> a conduit.  ICANN itself should not have an operational role, since the
> oversight involved here is either (a) oversight of ICANN or (b) oversight
> of an entity contracting with ICANN (IETF Trust).  As indicated above and
> in my earlier email, we already have operational solutions for most (if not
> all) of the tasks of the CCG and signatory.
>
>
>
> At the next level the question is: how should the Chartering Organizations
> function in order to deal with the tasks at hand (choosing the CCG members,
> etc., etc.).  So we're back to using or creating a group that draws from
> the Chartering Organizations in some fashion.  This is probably a subset of
> the groups listed in my prior email (but without they idea that any of them
> *are* the Names Community).  Leading candidates in my mind are:
>
> 1.     The CWG
>
> 2.     All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC,
> GAC, SSAC) but not acting through the CWG
>
> 3.     An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from
> the CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations)
>
> 4.     The CSC
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> I like breaking step 2 into the 2 steps Seun suggested.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 12:53 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Greg Shatan
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the
> "Names Community"
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 1 Sep 2016 1:45 a.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
> >
> > Greg,
> >
> >
> > I see it as two steps: 1) define the community;
>
> SO: We can take this up from your proposed definition which I think it's a
> good start:
>
> “All current and future stakeholders of Internet domain names including
> individuals and organizations.”
>
> 2) decide who can best represent that community.
>
> SO: I see two aspects here:
>
> 1. Who to represent as signatory and perform operational tasks: I believe
> this should be ICANN
>
> 2. Who should have an oversight role: I believe this can be the chartering
> organisations that developed the names proposal which is the CWG.
>
> >
> Whoever that is, they need to understand who the community is to
> accurately do their job.
> >
> SO: Indeed and I believe though the CWG prepared the names proposal, it
> has ensured that it's operations covers the description of a global
> community in that anyone with a view is welcome to contribute, including
> those who are not members/participants of CWG.
>
> Regards
> >
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:32 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the
> "Names Community"
> >
> >
> >
> > Chuck,
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for getting the ball rolling.
> >
> >
> >
> > Philosophically you may well be right, but I don't think that is a
> practical answer under these circumstances.  It does however help clarify
> and tighten the question, always a good thing in the search for an answer.
> >
> >
> >
> > The need for a definition or identification of the Names Community is
> driven by the need for some group (or group of groups) to take various
> actions on behalf of the Names Community (outlined in my email).  The way
> the Agreement is structured it may appear to ask for a definition of the
> Names Community.  Thinking about this after your email, I think what we
> need to find (or create) instead is a valid representative group (or group
> of groups) that can act on behalf of the Names Community in the context of
> this Agreement.
> >
> >
> >
> > Consider the following:
> >
> >
> >
> > How would the community you suggest (All current and future stakeholders
> of Internet domain names including individuals and organizations) take the
> actions needed underthe Community Agreement ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Approached another way, assuming for the moment that you have correctly
> defined the "Names Community," broadly speaking, what group (or group of
> groups) would (practically speaking) best represent this Community?
> >
> >
> >
> > As a corollary, consider that the IANA transition transfers oversight of
> certain critical Internet functions from the NTIA to the "Global
> Multistakeholder Community" -- a community even broader than the Names
> Community.  Yet we have (imperfectly perhaps) determined that various
> existing bodies (and some newly formed combinations of these bodies) will
> adequately represent the "global multistakeholder community" in exercising
> stewardship and accountability functions.
> >
> >
> >
> > As another corollary, consider how the Numbers Community and Protocol
> Parameters Community are defined in this Agreement -- as the Regional
> Internet Registries (and as the NRO) and the IETF respectively.  Consider
> how the definition you propose compares to these definitions.
> Alternatively consider how the NRO and the IETF compare with the following
> parallel definitions:
> >
> >
> >
> > Numbers Community: All current and future stakeholders of Internet IP
> address numbers including individuals and organizations
> >
> > RIRs: All current and future stakeholders of Internet protocol
> parameters including individuals and organizations
> >
> >
> >
> > While these definitions are not incorrect, and are certainly far
> broader than the NRO and the IETF, they are not being used in the Community
> Agreement, and could not practically be used in the Community Agreement.
> Instead we need to rely on groups that are (hopefully) representative of
> those communities, while not being selected by those (much) larger
> communities.  We need to do the same thing here for the Names Community.
> >
> >
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for getting this started Greg.  Here are my first reactions.
> >
> > ·         I think everyone one of these leave some members of the name
> community out.
> >
> > ·         Most of them are what I think are legitimate subsets of the
> ‘Names Community’.
> >
> > ·         It doesn’t seem to me that the ‘Names Community’ has to be a
> structure; in fact I think it may be difficult to find or create a
> structure inside or outside ICANN that would include all members of the
> ‘Names Community’.
> >
> > ·         A general definition may be the best way to go, one that
> doesn’t try to list specific members because as soon as we do that we will
> likely leave some out.
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is my initial suggestion: “All current and future stakeholders of
> Internet domain names including individuals and organizations.”  I welcome
> critique of my thoughts and my suggestion.
> >
> >
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >
> >
> > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:00 PM
> > To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Possible Definitions/Compositions of the
> "Names Community"
> >
> >
> >
> > On our last call, I volunteered to put together this email.
> >
> >
> >
> > We need to define or identify the composition of the "Names Community"
> for purposes of the IANA IPR Community Agreement.  The role of the Names
> Community in this Agreement is outlined below.
> >
> >
> >
> > Here are some non-exhaustive possibilities for the "Names Community,"
> which I am throwing out without any judgment as to their appropriateness
> and in no particular order:
> >
> >
> >
> > The CWG
> > All of the Chartering Organizations of the CWG (GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC,
> SSAC) but not acting through the CWG
> > An Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (drawn in some fashion from the
> CWG and/or its Chartering Organizations)
> > GNSO and ccNSO
> > GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC
> > GNSO, ccNSO and GAC
> > GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC
> > Any other combination of some but not all Chartering Organizations
> > The CSC (representing those organizations and in the proportions
> represented on the CSC)
> > The organizations contributing members to the CSC (but not necessarily
> acting through the CSC or in the proportions represented in the CSC)
> > Any other combination of ICANN-created structures
> > An existing non-ICANN-created structure
> > A combination of ICANN-created and non-ICANN created structures
> > A completely new structure
> >
> > ICANN (the corporation) will be the signatory on behalf of the "Names
> Community."
> >
> >
> >
> > The "Names Community" (and not ICANN the corporation) will need to be
> responsible for the substance of all Names Community actions under the
> Community Agreement and instructing its CCG representatives where
> appropriate, including:
> >
> >
> >
> > Appointing, removing and replacing three members of the CCG (Community
> Coordinating Group) representing the Names Community
> > Appointing one of the three Names Community members as a Co-Chair and
> primary point of contact for the IETF Trust
> > Determining whether the IANA Services are consistent with the standards
> set forth by the Names Community (determined through a "specified process
> of community engagement, feedback, contract and dispute resolution," which
> is expected to be the CSC, and when the time comes, the IFR process)
> > Instructing the CCG Representatives
> > Notifying the IETF Trust that the IANA Operator (initially, ICANN) is
> being replaced. (This would be the result of a SCWG decision.)
> > Requesting that the IETF Trust enter into an IANA IPR License Agreement
> with a new IANA Operator and participating in these
> interactions/negotiations (particularly if the Trust or the Operator wants
> to vary the terms of the License Agreement) including mediation if the
> parties are unable to come to an agreement on terms of the new License
> Agreement
> > Monitoring the IANA Operator’s use of the IANA IPR with respect to its
> designated IANA Service for the purposes of quality control under the
> License Agreement and notifying the IETF Trust of any failures or
> deficiencies in the quality of service provided by the IANA Operator that
> would violate such quality control provisions (again, this is likely to be
> CSC/IFR work in substance).
> > Being consulted (through the CCG Co-Chair) by the IETF Trust if the
> Trust believes the IANA Operator has materially breached the terms of its
> License Agreement.
> > Withdrawing from the Community Agreement
> > Selecting or creating a new entity to replace ICANN as the signatory to
> this Agreement on behalf of the Names Community (which could be a
> responsibility of the CWG or some successor to the CWG)
> > Determining a process for doing each of the above (to the extent it
> doesn't fall into an existing group with a process for doing things)
> >
> > Please respond to this email with any thoughts you have on the possible
> ways (including additional ways) to identify/define the Names Community for
> this purpose, and with any questions you may have (and any answers you may
> have, as well).
> >
> >
> >
> > Please keep in mind the relatively limited purposes for which this needs
> to be answered (just dealing with the Community Agreement) and the very
> limited time-frame we have to figure this out (at least, initially).
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160905/c0df7378/attachment-0001.html>