<div dir="ltr"><div>Grec,</div><div>It is couter productive to exchange any views with you.</div><div>You take yourself as representing the entire community having participated or drafted 800 legal VIEWS ,who care about it</div><div>You just MAY SPEAK ON YOUR OWN BEHALF AND EVEN NOT ON BEHAF OF ANY OTHER ENTITY INCLUDING IPC</div><div>THERE IS NO PROXY IN THIS PROCESS.</div><div>I prefer NOT TO REPLY TO YOUR MESSAGE since you have no logic but insistance..</div><div>I do not know who is " your lawyers.?<br>The process is a collective one and there is not " our lawyers " nor your lawyer,</div><div>You do not accept any compromise.</div><div>You insist on what has been dictated to you .</div><div>It may be better not to REPLY TO YOUR MAIL</div><div>Have nice and enjoyable afternoon</div><div> </div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-08-08 20:18 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">My replies are in-line.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span>On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Grec</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Here is my reply</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I am re-sending these responses to Kavouss's comments to the list with two notes:</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">1. The use of "unanimous" in the preamble was discussed. The reason for this use is to make it clear that the RIRs must act unanimously as the "numbers community" "party" to the agreement. This is language the numbers community feels comfortable with, and it apparently tracks language used in the IANA numbers MoU (but I haven't checked). This verbiage may change as other alternatives are considered, but the concept remains the same.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#ff0000">Comments </font></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#ff0000">Read my comments in regard with the use of the term Unanimously.</font></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#ff0000">If you want to introduce some thing more than of and in addition to Collective , at the maximum use " and by consensus " instead of UNANIMOUSLY 2</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">This is the word the RIRs chose to indicate how they operate as a group. Consensus is not the same thing as unanimity. It would be absolutely wrong to say consensus when it is not conensus and it would be a breach of process and respect for other communities to impose a description of their process. The CWG has no business telling the RIRs how to characterize their process when acting as a group, especially when we would be wrong as a matter of fact when doing so.</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">This may change because the current use is in a "definition" (maybe not the best place to capture the concept) and it may be better expressed elsewhere in the document.</div></div><span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">2. In response to the comment on Section 6.5 regarding "joint and several liability," in which Kavouss commented that "joint cannot be associated with several." "Joint and several liability" is a fundamental legal concept and well-understood term, at least under U.S. law. Here is a definition from the Cornell Legal Information Institute <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/joint_and_several_liability" target="_blank">https://www.law.cornell.edu/we<wbr>x/joint_and_several_liability</a> (one of many available on the web):</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#ff0000">COMMENTS</font></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#ff0000">Once again jointly and severally are incompatible.</font></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#ff0000">You refer to US Court are different at different cases and can change- Thus There no single agreed opinion ,decision or order of a court in this regard</font></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#ff0000"> which could be applied to all cases.MOREOVER, IT DEPENDS WHICH COURT ( DISTRICT PREMIER INSTANCE, Appeal , or Federal ONES )</font></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#ff0000">Select another term instead of " severally"</font></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#ff0000"></font><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#ff0000">I have had many other comments </font></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#ff0000">I spent three hours of omy time of unday</font></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#ff0000">I do expect that people do not insist on their wrong vision</font></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#ff0000"></font><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#ff0000">please kindly reconsider the matter and accept two of my recent alternative proposal plus my other proposal</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Kavouss, "joint and several liability" is an absolutely standard concept of liability under US law (i.e., so-called "black letter law"). There is no point in trying to build a case otherwise. It is completely understood and well-settled regardless of the court or jurisdiction in the US. While parties may dispute how to apply the concept in a given case's fact pattern, and due to the fact that the US is a common-law jurisdiction and precedent has a great deal of influence, interpretation may differ slightly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the concept is well-settled and term is completely standard. In any event, the agreement is governed by California law and any issue of interpretation would be governed by California law.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I have reconsidered these suggestions but I see no reason to change my opinion of them. I'll send this and your prior communications to the Client Committee list, but I don't expect any disagreement.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I want to be clear that I am not insisting on any personal vision or concept here; rather I am looking at these issues with the best interests of the ICANN community at heart. I'm also relying on the fact that I have been a practicing lawyer since 1986 and I've learned a few things since then, as well as at Columbia Law School, where I was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar and the Editor-in-Chief of one of the law journals.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I agree with your statement "<span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)">I do expect that people do not insist on their wrong vision</span>" and hope that it will be applied here.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#ff0000">Regards</font></div><span><font color="#888888"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#ff0000">Kavouss </font></div></font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>