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

Thu Sep 8 06:22:36 UTC 2016

Noted since there is time constraint. I just felt that because the COs
would be part of the EC would give some strength/more community sense to
the agreement. I don't think we've signed any document with ICANN before as
CWG, so don't know how formal/binding this would be and I thought having
COs sign may bring such formality and sense of commitment on both sides.

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 8 Sep 2016 06:49, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for clarifying. When you said the agreement, I thought you mant the
> Community Agreement.  In any event, I am fine having the Co-Chairs
> sign,especially since we are time-constrained; we need this signed  and
> sent well before September 30.
>
> On Thursday, September 8, 2016, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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-bounces 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/20160908/215f7377/attachment-0001.html>