[CWG-Stewardship] CCG Reps for names community

Wed Sep 14 21:03:53 UTC 2016

Seun
I do not understand why IPC is not counted as part of GNSO
Regards
Kavouss

2016-09-14 20:21 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:

> Hello,
>
> There aspects comes to mind here:
>
> 1. The initial names community CCG members which is currently suggested to
> be Co-Chairs with Greg - Seem to be getting traction (though my preference
> would have been not to include Co-Chairs)
>
> 2. All the 9 CCG members are accountable to their respective operational
> communities hence members from names should be accountable to all the COs
> (which represents the names community)
>
> 3. The third aspect which have not been discussed is post CCG for names;
> What's the formality for replacing the CCG members, how long does the
> inaugural members serve, what's a typical term of a CCG member, who
> selects/appoints the members, how is the CCG Co-Chair selected, and from
> what communities/COs should CCG member be picked from.
>
> Speaking on a personal basis, I have no issues with having at most one
> member each from ccNSO, GNSO(except IPC), and the IPC. So long as the group
> remains accountable to the names community. The COs having one votes each
> can then appoint a Co-Chair amongst the three members. I don't think we
> should lock-in the Co-Chair position to IPC.
>
> Cheers!
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 14 Sep 2016 6:46 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
>> Kavous,
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you not think that intellectual property law expertise has some value
>> for this task?  As far as I understand, neither of the co-chairs have
>> expertise in intellectual property law.  Considering that the CCG will be
>> dealing with IANA IPRs, it seems reasonable to me that having one of the
>> three who has IPR expertise makes very good sense.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, unless I  am misunderstanding you, you are continuing to question
>> why the Names Community needs more than two representatives on the CCG.  I
>> thought that it was already agreed that each of the three communities would
>> have three representatives.  Do you think that the Names community should
>> only have two representatives while the numbers and protocol communities
>> have three each?
>>
>>
>>
>> I can understand that you might propose that the third person could come
>> from another SO/AC besides the GNSO & ccNSO, but in my opinion whoever it
>> is should have good IPR expertise and should  be accountable to the entire
>> Names Community.  One of the advantages of selecting someone from the IPC
>> is that the IPC has an abundance of IPR experts. And in the case of Greg
>> Shatan, he not only has IPR expertise but also has been representing the
>> Names Community in all the IPR work that has been going on over the last
>> many months.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sidley is just advising the CWG.  They are not making decisions.  It is
>> us to the CWG as a whole and the overall Names Community to make the
>> decisions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce
>> s at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 14, 2016 1:29 PM
>> *To:* Seun Ojedeji
>> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Reps for names community
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Jonathan,
>>
>> I do not see any valid justification for what Sidley said.
>>
>> Why there should be, in addition of two co-chairs the third person and
>> why from IPC
>>
>> The co-chairs are from ccNSO   and GNSO
>>
>> Why not the third person, if really necessary should not be from other
>> SO/AC
>>
>> GNSO IS ALREADY REPRESENTED.
>>
>> What is the role of Sidley supporting IPC?
>>
>> I am not convinced with these behind the scene agreement
>>
>> Kavouss
>>
>>
>>
>> 2016-09-14 19:03 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Sent from my LG G4
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>> On 14 Sep 2016 5:23 p.m., "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > All,
>> >
>> >
>> > to review the role and function of the CWG in order to understand:
>> >
>>
>> SO: Sure you meant CCG here.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > 1.      Skills and expertise required for the CCG reps
>> >
>> > 2.      Skills and expertise required for the CCG co-chair in particular
>> > (Sidley’s guidance on the last call was that intellectual property
>> experience is necessary)
>> >
>>
>> SO:Will be good to have IPC among the 3 but I don't think the Co-Chair
>> "must" be from IPC in that Co-Chair only serve as communication medium.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> > 3.      Likely time commitment required for the CCG reps
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > To this extent, we wanted to remind you of the description of the CCG
>> in the community agreement (ARTICLE 2). We have copied ARTICLE 2 into the
>> body text below.
>> >
>> > The whole agreement is also attached for your ease of reference.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thank-you for your attention to this detail point.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Lise & Jonathan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ARTICLE 2      COMMUNITY COORDINATION GROUP
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2.1       Formation and Purpose of CCG.  The CCG is hereby formed, and
>> shall operate in accordance with the terms set forth below, to provide
>> guidance, advice, and if expressly specified in this Agreement, approvals,
>> to the IETF Trust regarding the stewardship of the IANA Intellectual
>> Property.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2.2       Composition of CCG.  The CCG shall be comprised of nine (9)
>> individuals, three (3) appointed by each of the Operational Communities
>> (such nine (9) individuals, the “CCG Representatives”). Each Operational
>> Community shall have the right to change any of its CCG Representatives
>> upon written notice to the other Operational Communities and the IETF
>> Trust.  An Operational Community may remove or replace its CCG
>> Representatives at any time and in its sole discretion.  The means and
>> procedures by which an Operational Community elects to select, appoint and
>> remove its own CCG Representatives shall be determined solely by that
>> Operational Community and such procedures and compliance therewith are
>> beyond the scope of this Agreement.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2.3       CCG Co-Chairs.
>> >
>> >   a.  Each Operational Community shall appoint one of its CCG
>> Representatives as a co-chair of the CCG. An Operational Community shall
>> have the right to change its CCG co-chair upon written notice to the other
>> Operational Communities and the IETF Trust.  An Operational Community may
>> remove or replace its CCG co-chair at any time and in its sole discretion.
>> >
>> >   b.  The CCG co-chairs shall be the IETF Trust’s primary points of
>> contact with the CCG for purposes of this Agreement, and the CCG co-chair
>> appointed by a particular Operational Community shall be the IETF Trust’s
>> primary point of contact with such Operational Community for purposes of
>> this Agreement.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >   c.  The IETF Trust shall be authorized hereunder to treat a
>> communication from the CCG co-chairs collectively as a communication from
>> the CCG as a whole when the communication identifies itself as such, and
>> the IETF Trust shall not be required to make any additional inquiry
>> regarding the authority or validity of instructions or requests made by the
>> co-chairs collectively on behalf of the CCG. Any such communication shall
>> be sent to the CCG Representatives contemporaneously with being sent to the
>> IETF Trust.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >   d.  The IETF Trust shall be authorized hereunder to treat a
>> communication from any CCG co-chair as a communication from that co-chair’s
>> Operational Community when the communication identifies itself as such, and
>> the IETF Trust shall not be required to make any additional inquiry
>> regarding the authority or validity of instructions or requests made by any
>> co-chair on behalf of that co-chair’s Operational Community. Any such
>> communication shall be sent to the CCG Representatives contemporaneously
>> with being sent to the IETF Trust.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >   e.  If the IETF Trust is required under this Agreement, or otherwise
>> elects, to consult with and seek the advice of the CCG with respect to the
>> matters set forth in this Agreement, the IETF Trust will consider in good
>> faith the advice and recommendations provided by the CCG.  There is a
>> rebuttable presumption that the IETF Trust will accept the advice and
>> recommendations of the CCG.  If the IETF Trust, in its reasonable
>> discretion, determines that it is not advisable to accept such advice or
>> recommendation, it will meet and confer with the CCG to explain the IETF
>> Trust’s rationale for desiring to elect a different course of action, and
>> the CCG and the IETF Trust shall in good faith use reasonable best efforts
>> to come to consensus on a resolution.  If the IETF Trust and the CCG are
>> not successful in achieving consensus with respect to the handling of the
>> advice and recommendations of the CCG, the IETF Trust is entitled, without
>> breaching this Agreement, to adopt or implement a position different from
>> such CCG advice or recommendation.  To be clear, this Section 2.3(e) does
>> not supersede the IETF Trust’s obligations to the CCG and the Operational
>> Communities under Section 3.2(d), 3.2(e) or Section 3.2(g).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2.4       CCG Operational Procedures.  The CCG shall adopt, by
>> consensus, its own operational rules and procedures, including requirements
>> relating to voting, quorum, calling of meetings, actions taken by the CCG
>> co-chairs (individually or collectively), action taken outside of meetings
>> and the like, at its first meeting, and shall thereafter revise such rules
>> and procedures as permitted thereby.  Such procedures shall not constitute
>> a part of this Agreement, and compliance with such procedures shall be
>> beyond the scope of this Agreement.  The CCG may invite representatives of
>> the IETF Trust to attend its meetings, but such attendance is not required,
>> or the CCG may request the IETF Trust to appoint a liaison/non-voting ex
>> officio member to the CCG.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
>> > Sent: 12 September 2016 07:58
>> > To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> >
>> > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Reps for names community
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Chuck
>> >
>> > I did not say that .
>> >
>> > If you or we have decided that two seats be filled by two co-chairs, I
>> have no problem at all.
>> >
>> > For the third one ,we need to discuss to see if there is only one self
>> candidate for one seat that tacit élection ruiles apply .If it is more than
>> one and we need to decide.
>> >
>> > By the way people should not pretend that they do not uinderstand me.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > KAVOUSS
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2016-09-12 3:23 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>:
>> >>
>> >> I don’t understand Kavouss.  Are you suggesting that the Names
>> Community should not fill all three seats on the CCG?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Also, what did I say that conveys my support of anything in my message
>> below?  I simply reported what happened in the meeting and associated it to
>> Seun’s suggestion.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Chuck
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce
>> s at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
>> >> Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 3:45 PM
>> >> To: Jonathan Robinson; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Reps for names community
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Jonathan,
>> >>
>> >> I do not understand the argument of Seun that all of the sudden he
>> becomes smeared supporter of Intellectual property.
>> >>
>> >> I do not understand that nor the support of Chuck.
>> >>
>> >> I do not think that we need additional person at all
>> >>
>> >> Kavouss
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2016-09-10 16:51 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>:
>> >>
>> >> Seun,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Please note that the drafting of the letter of appointment (as per the
>> action you refer to) does not in any way pre-suppose the names of the
>> actual appointees.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As the call records will show, I put a strawman out for the IANA IPR
>> Group as the initial appointees for the CCG reps; 2 x Co-chairs (of CWG)
>> plus Greg Shatan (as CCG Co-Chair).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Any other suggestions / proposals are clearly very welcome.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Jonathan
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
>> >> Sent: 10 September 2016 13:51
>> >> To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>; Brenda Brewer <
>> brenda.brewer at icann.org>
>> >> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Reps for names community
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Seun,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Note that it was suggested that Greg Shatan serve as one of the
>> interim CCG members; if we do that, it clearly would satisfy your
>> recommendation that “a third interim member is selected from the
>> intellectual property constituency”.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Chuck
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce
>> s at icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji
>> >> Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 4:46 AM
>> >> To: Brenda Brewer
>> >> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> >> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Reps for names community
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my LG G4
>> >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>> >>
>> >> On 10 Sep 2016 9:05 a.m., "Brenda Brewer" <brenda.brewer at icann.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> > Discussed selection of CCG representatives.
>> >> > Suggestion that CWG co-chairs act as interim CCG reps until
>> a process is figured out by the chartering organizations.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> SO: Like I raised on the call, I think we may be putting too much
>> responsibilities on the Co-Chairs who are volunteers. I expect quite a lot
>> of developmental/setup activity will commence once these various groups are
>> formed, which may imply significant amount of time commitment. I will like
>> to suggest we select other members within the CWG to serve as interim
>> instead. However, whoever we select should include someone from the
>> intellectual property constituency as I think this would be their area of
>> strength. The interims should agree to report to the CWG/COs and make
>> decisions based on their approval.
>> >>
>> >> > ACTION (Client committee): instruct Sidley to draft a letter
>>  of appointment of CCG reps.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> SO: I left the room during this discussion, does the action above
>> imply that it has been concluded that we use the Co-Chairs? If that is the
>> case, I suggest a third interim member is selected from the intellectual
>> property constituency.
>> >>
>> >> On a much lighter note, i hope it has been clarified that there is no
>> possible conflict in having PTI board members serve as CCG members.
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >>
>> >> > 5. AOB
>> >> >
>> >> > IRP will be functional by the time of the tra
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160914/dd0c8f14/attachment-0001.html>