[CWG-Stewardship] CCG Reps for names community

[Seun Ojedeji]

My instinct is that not counting IPC as GNSO in this case ensures that we
are able to fill the three seats and we are assured of at least one with IP
expertise as a specialisation. So it's basically 1 from ccNSO and 2 from
GNSO (with at least 1 from the IPC)

Though I recognise that we could indeed get those skills within other COs
but that of IPC may be ready-made. Otherwise the puzzle is since/if we
agree that a slot each goes to ccNSO and GNSO, how do we distribute the
last slot across the rest of the COs.

In anycase, I will have no issues however the composition is done so long
as it's clear that the CCG members are not "sole" decision makers hence are
accountable to all the COs irrespective of where they are sourced.

Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 14 Sep 2016 10:03 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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-bounces 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-bounces 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/fb026cd7/attachment-0001.html>