[CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX

[Seun Ojedeji]

Greg,

I think there may be some confusion here. I am referring to the letter we
are sending to ICANN which was included in this thread(that currently has
the Co-Chairs as signatory, attaching for convenience). Ofcourse i was one
of those  who believe that the EC isn't setup to sign the main agreement
and that's why i proposed(or supported) we use ICANN for that, assuming
they agree.

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 8 Sep 2016 03:59, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

The Chartering Organizations aren't legal entities, so they can't be
signatories to the Community Agreement (whether by their Chairs or
otherwise).  Signing this agreement would not be in scope for the Empowered
Community, so that doesn't work either.  We have a legal entity that will
be the signatory -- ICANN, which I believe has already agreed to do so.
 (Similarly, the IETF is not a legal entity, but rather an "activity" of
ISOC, so I believe ISOC will be signing on behalf of the IETF as the
"Protocol Parameters Community.")

I don't know whether we *need* formal Chartering Organization approval for
this set-up.  That said, it would probably be good to inform the COs of
this set-up and see if there are any objections.

Greg

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Chuck,
>
> I think item 1 is required, though it may perhaps be good to hear from
> ICANN first on whether they would accept to act on behalf subject to the
> conditions stated(or a modification of it), before reaching the COs for an
> ack.
>
> On another note, assuming we are not constraint on timing, it may be
> better for the Chair(s)(or their representatives in the EC) of the CO to
> sign the agreement instead. This would however not be possible until the EC
> is formerly setup. That would give more formality to it and may also
> address part of Kavouss concern which I sense is around getting an entity
> to sign.
>
> Regards
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 6 Sep 2016 15:14, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
>> Pending input from Sidley, this looks pretty good to me.  I do have two
>> very important questions, assuming the CWG supports this letter of
>> instruction as modified by Greg and any subsequent revisions proposed by
>> Sidley:
>>
>> 1.       Won’t we have to get approval from the ccNSO, SSAC, GNSO, ALAC
>> and GAC in advance of sending the letter?
>>
>> 2.       Realizing that each of the five organizations have their own
>> approval processes that can take considerable time, how will we get all
>> five approvals in the very short window we have?
>>
>>
>>
>> If the answer to question 1 is affirmative, I think we need to start
>> working on question 2 immediately.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce
>> s at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
>> *Sent:* Monday, September 05, 2016 8:47 PM
>> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Letter of Instruction from CWG to
>> ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX
>>
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I've given a good deal of thought to this Letter of Instruction and how
>> the Names Community will operate under the Community Agreement.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Community Agreement allows each of the Operational Communities to
>> communicate to the IETF Trust through the CCG Co-Chair appointed by that
>> community.  Given this ability, it's actually unnecessary to route any of
>> the Names Community's actions through ICANN (as signatory) after the
>> appointment of the Names Community co-chair.
>>
>>
>>
>> We really only need ICANN to do two things -- sign the agreement and
>> communicate the appointment of the CCG Representatives (including the
>> Co-Chair).  Routing other actions through ICANN just causes unnecessary
>> complications.
>>
>>
>>
>> In order to implement this working model, I've proposed fairly extensive
>> changes to the Letter of Instruction.  I'm attaching a clean copy (easier
>> to read) as well as a track changes copy (to show the changes).  The
>> original version is also attached for convenience.
>>
>>
>>
>> We will still need to appoint the CCG reps, and figure out how the CWG
>> (and the Chartering Organization Co-Chairs, when there is no CCG) instructs
>> the CCG reps, and how the CCG reps carry out their duties generally. But
>> that is not part of this Letter of Instruction.
>>
>>
>>
>> I look forward to comments.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Hofheimer, Joshua T.* <jhofheimer at sidley.com>
>> Date: Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:05 AM
>> Subject: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community
>> Agreement.DOCX
>> To: Client <cwg-client at icann.org>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>,
>> "jrobinson at afilias.info" <jrobinson at afilias.info>, Lise Fuhr <
>> lise.fuhr at difo.dk>
>> Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan at sidley.com>, "Resnick, Yael" <
>> yresnick at sidley.com>, "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory at sidley.com>,
>> "Grapsas, Rebecca" <rebecca.grapsas at sidley.com>
>>
>> Dear Client Committee,
>>
>>
>>
>> Attached is a draft letter of instruction from the “Names Community” to
>> ICANN regarding it acting as the signatory to the Community Agreement.  Per
>> the instruction from CWG, namely that we pursue Scenario 1 from the prior
>> Sidley memo, we have drafted this request to come from the CWG co-chairs,
>> and look to Greg Shatan to help with the description of the “Names
>> Community”.  We look forward to discussing on our call on Thursday.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Josh
>>
>>
>>
>> *JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER*
>> Partner
>>
>> *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP*
>> +1 650 565 7561 (PA direct)
>> +1 213 896 6061 (LA direct)
>> +1 323 708 2405 (Cell)
>> jhofheimer at sidley.com
>> www.sidley.com
>>
>> *[image: SIDLEY]*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ************************************************************
>> ****************************************
>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
>> privileged or confidential.
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
>> attachments and notify us
>> immediately.
>>
>> ************************************************************
>> ****************************************
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160908/96528e24/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement (2).DOCX
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 20515 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160908/96528e24/LetterofInstructionfromCWGtoICANNreCommunityAgreement2-0001.DOCX>