[CWG-Stewardship] Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016

Mon Aug 8 18:45:40 UTC 2016

My responses in-line.

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dea all,
>
> Please KINDLY SLOW DOWN " Expert" “ Expert”
>
> There are other legal experts than those two law firms that are eligible
> to comments
>

There's no reason to go shopping around for legal experts at this time on
this document.  We have lawyers representing each operational community and
the Trust involved, as well as other practicing lawyers.  If you want to
invite other law firms to comment, they can do so in the public comment
period.

> How many ideas we have received from these firms which did not suit our
> case during CCWG WS1? `.
>

Very, very few, and virtually none when it came to legal concepts (as
opposed to policy matters).

> We MUST respect other people having considerable experience and strong
> legal background than those firs.
>

Good idea.  Better idea if they have experience reading, drafting,
negotiating and handling disputes relating to US legal documents.  FYI,
I've worked on about 800 U.S. and cross-border transactions, many involving
multiple agreements.

> When you said in the draft" Breaching repeatedly "  and legal people on
> which you have full trust  does not say " repeated " may means two , three
> or more thus without specifying the frequency of breeching, the term "
> Breaching repeatedly " has no meaning
>

I've seen this commonly used in agreements.  We don't have to be
absolutely proscriptive in each instance.  We can leave it to the parties
to determine whether any given set of failures is sufficient to rise to the
level required by 4.4; depending on the gravity of each failure, the number
of failures necessary to trigger 4.4 would differ.  Trying to pin this down
now would be like nailing mercury to the wall.

> When you say OCS collectively and unanimously agreed instead of
> «collectively agreed without objections or abstention still you reject the
> idea
>
This was only a definition and it only applied to the RIRs, and it was
correct as regards their method of operation.  See my prior note.

 In the draft, at several occasion the term “will “ has been used.

> In a legal document either we use the mandatory term “ shall “ or
> optional/ quasi mandatory term “ should 2
>
Reasonable people can differ on this point, and the trend in legal
drafting is actually away from "shall" and toward "will." Please read the
attached articles from one of the leading and most respected commentators
on legal drafting.  There's more where this came from, and from other
commentators.

Please read my comments carefully
>
I have.  As I said, I will pass this on to the Client Committee list where
they can be seen by counsel.  We can have counsel respond, but I doubt that
they will differ from what I've offered here on a volunteer basis.

Greg

> KAVOUSS
>
> 2016-08-08 19:22 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>:
>
>> Jonathan/Lise,
>>
>> You are probably ahead of me but, if there is time in our CWG call this
>> week, it might be a good idea to discuss Kavouss's comments.  Allowing the
>> 'experts' to respond to his comments and other CWG members to discuss as
>> well might help although I am not sure he will easily concede.  It would at
>> least document the discussion in a very visible way.
>>
>> I of course will respect your decision on how to handle this.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce
>> s at icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh
>> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 12:46 PM
>> To: Jari Arkko
>> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Revised Community Agreement Draft:
>> 08-05-2016
>>
>> Dear Jari
>> I have made many comments during public comment period for CCWG. Non of
>> them were consulted???
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On 8 Aug 2016, at 18:44, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> That does not mean that my comments be ignored
>> >
>> > No, of course not. What I said was that we have more time to consider
>> additional comments during the public comment period.
>> >
>> > Jari
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160808/91ff7ac2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Banishing-Shall-from-Business-Contracts-ACLA.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 497776 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160808/91ff7ac2/Banishing-Shall-from-Business-Contracts-ACLA-0001.pdf>