<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html><head><meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"></head>Nope. The new RoP are now in effect which means we no longer need seconds for most motions, but thanks for the thought!<br>
<br>
Alan <br>
-- <br>
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On October 1, 2016 5:50:17 AM EDT, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><p dir="ltr">I guess you will need a seconder for this? If yes then I second. Otherwise you have my +1 as well</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos</p>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 30 Sep 2016 7:23 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
Given no opposition raised by any ALAC Members, the ALT has unanimously
supported this process and specifics on behalf of the ALAC and I have so
informed ICANN.<br><br>
Through this e-mail, I am requesting a Consensus Call of the ALAC
ratifying the ALT decision. <br><br>
<b><u>With this message, I am initiating a Consensus Call of the ALAC
</u></b>ratifying the ALT decision as per Paragraph 6.2 of our Rules of
Procedure.<br><br>
The Consensus Call will end at 23:59 on Thursday, 06 October
2016.<br><br>
If there are any questions of comments, please direct them to either this
list or to me directly. <br><br>
Although message indicating support are welcome, they are not necessary.
Should this Consensus Call fail due to significant opposition (greater
than 20% as specified by ALAC RoP 12.3.3.1), we will revert to a formal
vote.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
<br>
At 29/09/2016 02:03 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="m_295375743144279337cite">The following has just been
brought to my attention.<br><br>
As described in the message forwarded below, the ALAC, as a Chartering
Organization of the CWG-Stewardship, is being asked if we support the
proposal regarding the handling of the IANA-related intellectual property
and domain names. They will be transferred to the IETF Trust with the
three IANA communities overseeing IETF Trust. The oversight will be
carried out through a Community Coordinating Committee (CCG).<br><br>
In summary:<br>
- ICANN will act as the signatory to the agreements on behalf of the
Names Community<br>
- The CWG, as long as it exists, will provide direction to ICANN in this
respect.<br>
- In the event that the CWG no longer exists, the Chairs of the
consenting AC/SOs will collectively direct ICANN in this respect.<br>
- Initial Names Community CCG representatives shall be the CWG co-chairs
plus Greg Shatan who has overseen the entire IP process.<br><br>
There has been extensive discussion within the CWG on this and I believe
that the resultant plan more than meets ICANN's needs.<br><br>
The US Congress has not blocked the transition, but a number of US States
are attempting to do so through the courts. At this point we are
presuming that the Stewardship will go through and accordingly, the
IP-related contracts need to be signed by tomorrow.<br><br>
Under ALAC RoP 6.2: The ALT shall have no other explicit responsibilities
and is not empowered to make substantive decisions on the part of the
ALAC unless urgency or confidentiality precludes consulting the ALAC. In
such a case, the decision needs to be ratified with the ALAC as soon as
practical.<br><br>
I will be asking the ALT to provide ALAC agreement by tomorrow and if the
ALT does so, I will come back to the ALAC for ratification.<br><br>
IF ANYONE HAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE ALAC SUPPORTING THIS ACTION,
PLEASE CONTACT ME IMMEDIATELY.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="m_295375743144279337cite">From: Trang Nguyen
<<a href="mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org" target="_blank">trang.nguyen@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the
CWG-Stewardship<br>
Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property
Right<br>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:37:38 +0000<br><br>
Dear Chairs,<br><br>
Please see below a note from the Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr,
Co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship.<br>
--<br>
Dear SO/AC chairs and co-chairs,<br><br>
As part of the transition implementation work, representatives from the
names community, the numbers community, the protocol parameters
community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have drafted a set of agreements to
effectuate the transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust and
to govern the relationships amongst the parties with respect to the IPR
after the transfer. <br><br>
These agreements are:<br><br>
- IANA IPR Assignment Agreement: This agreement transfers the IPR from
ICANN to the IETF Trust.<br><br>
- 3 IANA IPR License Agreements (one each for the names, numbers, and
protocol parameters IANA services.): These agreements allows for the IANA
functions operator to use the IPR. <br><br>
- IANA - IPR Community Agreement: This agreement explains the rights and
obligations of the IETF Trust and each operational community as regards
the IPR.<br>
<br>
After a public comment period last month, the agreements have been
finalized and are ready to be executed.<br><br>
One of the decisions that the CWG had to make as part of the work was to
identify who would be the signatory of the Community Agreement on behalf
of the Naming Community. The decision made by the group, with input from
CWG external counsel, was to ask ICANN to play that role. An instruction
letter has been assembled for that purpose. <br><br>
The Instruction Letter says: "This letter confirms the request of
the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship
Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (“CWG”) for the benefit
of those of its listed chartering organizations – the Country Code Names
Supporting Organization (“ccNSO”), the Security and Stability Advisory
Committee (“SSAC”), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (“GNSO”),
the At Large Advisory Committee (“ALAC”) and the Governmental Advisory
Committee (“GAC”) – that have affirmed or hereafter affirm in writing
that they agree to be included herein (each a “Consenting SO/AC” and
collectively, the “Names Community”) that ICANN serve as the signatory
for the Names Community under the Community Agreement."<br><br>
This makes reference to the COs affirming in writing that they agree to
be included in the instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC.<br><br>
As ICANN might formally reach out to us to obtain confirmation that one
or more COs have agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby kindly ask
that you provide such a written confirmation as a matter of urgency by
replying to this email, preferably on or before September 30th, 2016, so
that the signing of the agreement may proceed as planned.<br><br>
Thank you for your cooperation,<br><br>
Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson, CWG
co-chairs.</blockquote></blockquote></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
ALAC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<br>
At-Large Online: <a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
ALAC Working Wiki: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/<wbr>display/atlarge/At-Large+<wbr>Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a><br></blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></html>