Ray,

Good point. I think it makes more sense to discuss the CA only among the parties to the CA (the operational communities and the Trust).

On the other hand, the operational community reps need to be part of the discussion of the license agreement (which I think will run to ICANN and not direct to PTI) and the IPR assignment.

Greg

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> wrote:
Alan,

I asked ICANN about this and they confirmed this list below.

But let’s discuss:

The Communities are discussing Agreements with the Trust,
the Community Agreement (CA) and the License Agreement to PTI.

The Trust is also discussing the IPR Assignment to the Trust.
And, of course, will need to discuss the License Agreement to the
PTI.

Is there clear desire on everyone’s part that you’d like to
invite ICANN to the CA discussion?

Ray


   Akram Atallah        akram.atallah@icann.org
   Sam Eisner           Samantha.Eisner@icann.org
   Trang Nguyen trang.nguyen@icann.org
   John Jeffrey         john.jeffrey@icann.org
   Elise Gerich         elise.gerich@icann.org




> On Jul 20, 2016, at 7:42 AM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett@afrinic.net> wrote:
>
> While we were discussion the draft principal terms document, we didn’t have any ICANN representatives in the iana-ipr group.  Now that we are moving on to discussion the agreements, I think we should have some ICANN participation, including both legal and other staff.
>
> Who would be the right people?
>
> I’d suggest that any ICANN people who want to be involved end a request to German Valdez <german@nro.net>.
>
> Alan Barrett
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-ipr mailing list
> Iana-ipr@nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr


_______________________________________________
Iana-ipr mailing list
Iana-ipr@nro.net
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr