<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Esteemed Co-Chairs,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">My responses are inline.</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><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:39 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:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">Dear
distinguished and respectful Co- Chairs</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">Since
yesterday, 07 August around 18, 00 UTC till today, 08 August 20126, among some
60 messages exchanged, I have sent more than 20 message, trying to express my
comments7 views on the draft agreement.</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">Someone,
who claimed to represent the entire ICANN Community, repeatedly and
categorically opposed to my comments referring to a Particular Country law and
particular cour and particular individual attempting to provide supports with
his views.</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I never claimed to represent the entire ICANN Community. The comments related to an agreement drafted under and subject to California law; it's only logical to make such references. I did not oppose your comments categorically. I considered them one by one. It just so happened that I couldn't agree with any of them. In one case, I provided an article by a well-regarded authority on contract drafting regarding the "shall vs. will" issue; I thought that was only fair to supply views in addition to my own. There are quite a number of others with that same view (both in the US and elsewhere): that there is little if any difference between will and shall, and that shall is becoming disfavored in contract drafting.</div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">This person,
like me is a simple participant in CWG and does not hold any representation
from any group due to the fact that such representation does nor prevails in
the process..</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I've never said I was anything other than that.</div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">I do not
know his duty and his responsibility. Apparently he speaks for everybody.</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I've never said that. I am trying to facilitate the drafting negotiation, comment and ultimately signing of this agreement, which is in the best interests of this and every other group involved in this process.</div></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">I have made
some valid comments but he rejected that in arguing that the text agreed by
such and such community.</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">In my opinion, the comments were not valid. The particular comments in question related to issues in the agreement of primary concern to the RIRs. In one case, the language being objected to was proposed by the RIRs to summarize the way in which they come to decisions as a group. Another phrase with a different meaning was proposed. I assume the RIRs have a firm grip on how they make decisions. That said, I brought this concern up on the IPR collaborative group call, and this drafting may change. However, if in fact the RIRs make decisions unanimously and not by any different means, I would expect to see this somewhere in the document. I should point out that most of Mr. Arasteh's remaining comments did not relate to language proposed by the RIRs and thus their validity or lack thereof did not relate to the RIRs or their positions.</div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">If that is
the case, then what is the usefulness and utility and existence of CWG.</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I would say that it has been extremely useful for the past two years. How else would we have developed our transition proposal. To question the usefulness and utility and existence of CWG solely because one participant's views did not gain traction in the group and were kindly responded to by another participant who provided views on why those views should not be adopted, strikes me as rather narcissistic. But I'm a lawyer, not a psychologist.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">Those community
could get together and agree with each other without corrupt the CWG reputation
and prestige.</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">In this particular instance, we are reviewing an agreement to be signed by the RIRs, IETF, IETF Trust and the names community. Representatives of all of those parties are coming together to put forth a draft document for public comment. I don't see anything in this process that "corrupts the CWG's reputation and prestige." Quite the opposite.</div></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">We are not
under any particular law regime not any particular court. This is an international,
open transparent. Button –up multistakeholder process which should take into
account all views</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I think we are taking into account all views. That doesn't mean that all view should prevail. Again, this is an agreement that is drafted and will be interpreted under California law. The CWG itself is of course not under any legal regime and I think we have proceeded under just the process described above (though I would say "bottom-up" rather than "button up").</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span><br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">I DO NOT
AGREE WITH ANY VOTING PROCESS as the CWG chatter normally prohibits that.</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">No one suggested a vote.</div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">Some people
might have particular Agenda to support particular views. This must be
discouraged.</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'm not sure what other people's agenda's are. In any event, in a multistakeholder process, people are expected to hold particular stakes and thus to support particular views, so a blanket object to agendas and views is misplaced. In any event, my only agenda is to assist us in accomplishing our collective objective, decided through a long, arduous multistakeholder process. Aspersions to the contrary should be ignored. I will make clear that no one is paying me to take these positions (much to the chagrin of my employer and my wife); I'm just trying to help us get through this process. I guess no good deed goes unpunished, and no good intention goes without an attempt to tarnish it.</div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">This should
be an open, transparent and healthy process. Any proposal must be debated and
agreed upon by consensus WITHOUT ANY RECOURSE TO VOTING OR POLL.</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I think the process has been open, transparent and healthy, and there has been a debate. I've seen no support for your views, but they are still open for debate. The draft community agreement does need to be supported by the CWG as a document we can support and put out for public comment, in conjunction with the other participants in this multi-community, multi-stakeholder process. If there are significant objections to this draft by a significant number of people in this group, that is a significant issue that needs to be addressed. I'll leave it to our co-chairs to judge where we stand.</div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">Your duty
as co – chairs are incumbent to you to consider all proposals no matter who
makes that proposal and without any political polarization.</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">That's not quite their job descripion, but close enough for jazz. I'm confident our co-chairs will take care of this issue.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">I have
spent many many hours to study and make comments as well as to reply to many
unjustified objections</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">As have I. I do have to say that my "objections" were entirely justified and appropriately explained. While I appreciate the time and effort taken to provide these views, that does not in any way make them more likely to be valid.</div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">Now the
ball is in your camp to organize a call and discuss the matter.</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Balls go in courts, not camps. (Of course, I'm monolingual, so fluency with one language is hardly as impressive as great facility in several, and not nearly as useful, either.) </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">In that
call you are expected to allow everyone to freely express its views.</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'm sure they will do so, consistent with their management of this entire process to date. Of course, free expression of views has to take place within a realistic timeframe.</div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">The objective
is to find a consensus solution and not voting</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Of course it is. I expect the consensus to be that the CWG should support putting out the Community Agreement for public comment substantially in the shape in which it is delivered to us, but I'll leave that to the process, our co-chairs and our esteemed colleagues in this group.</div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">Regards</font></span></p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><font size="3"><font color="#000000">Kavouss <span> </span></font></font></font></span></p></font></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Greg</div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></font></span></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-08-08 22:31 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 style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Responses inline:</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span>On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:50 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>Grec,</div><div>It is couter productive to exchange any views with you.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">I'm sorry you feel that way.</div></div><span><div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"></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>You take yourself as representing the entire community </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I never said that. On the other hand, you said I was acting out of a particular "vision" so I needed to refute that.</div></div><span><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>having participated or drafted 800 legal VIEWS ,who care about it</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I said I've participated in over 800 transactions, many with multiple agreements being negotiated and drafted. If you don't care about experience or knowledge, that's your prerogative.</div></div><span><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>You just MAY SPEAK ON YOUR OWN BEHALF AND EVEN NOT ON BEHAF OF ANY OTHER ENTITY INCLUDING IPC</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I never said I was speaking on behalf of anyone but myself. There may be times when I speak on behalf of the IPC, but this (entire subject) is not one of them. On the other hand, my purpose is to speak and act in what appear to be the best interests of the community. I didn't want any confusion about that. </div></div><span><div> <br></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>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></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I think my responses to your comments were quite logical and well-informed. You've complained that no-one responds to your comments, yet you tar-and-feather someone who does. That is no way to encourage further engagement with your opinions. If you prefer not to reply to my message, that's also your prerogative. I may take that prerogative as well, and let your comments die on the vine. I think I've been more than fair in dealing with them.</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>.</div><div>I do not know who is " your lawyers.?<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I do not have any lawyers. The CWG, however, has lawyers: Sidley Austin, led in this particular case by Josh Hofheimer, an experienced IP and Technology Transactions partner in their Silicon Valley and Los Angeles offices, with the support of experienced transactional and IP lawyers, several of whom, like Josh, have been advising the CWG and the CCWG for nearly two years. I thought you knew this by now.</div></div><span><div> <br></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>The process is a collective one and there is not " our lawyers " nor your lawyer,</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Please see above.</div></div><span><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>You do not accept any compromise.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I accept compromises all the time, and many in this CWG. As a transactional lawyer, one can't close deals without compromises. As such, this document represents compromises among the several communities. However, one can't compromise just for the sake of compromising. There needs to be merit in the position proposed and merit in any compromise position -- and in this case it needs to be of sufficient merit that it's likely to convince the other operational communities and the IETF Trust to adopt the change. I did not see anything sufficiently meritorious in either category. For example, arguing that "joint and several liability" is not a standard concept of US law has no merit, and there is no meritorious compromise between saying "joint and several liability" (which has a well-settled and well-understood meaning) and saying some other thing, which has no well-accepted meaning. Joint and several liability simply means that all of the parties are jointly liable for the amount in question, and each party is liable for the full amount (but not allowing for duplicative recovery); this allows for full recovery by the plaintiff even where some defendants can't pay toward the recovery. There's no reason to choose any other way to say this. In legal drafting, it's important to use well-settled terminology that will not be ambiguous when interpreted. The use of such "terms of art" can be weighed against the use of "plain english" for readability by non-lawyers, but these are judgment calls in drafting. I see no reason to change a clear and well-known term of art just because you refuse to acknowledge that "joint and several liability" is a well-settled phrase for a standard legal concept. And I see no chance that anyone could convince the other drafters of this document to make that change. Finally, I would note that this phrase is being used only in connection with the relationship between the RIRs and the IETF Trust, so it's relevance to this group is questionable at best.</div><br></div><span><div><br></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>You insist on what has been dictated to you .</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Nothing has been dictated to me. I'm not entirely sure what this means, but I've made every choice here out of my own free will, including the rather Quixotic choice to continue to engage with you.</div><span><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></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>It may be better not to REPLY TO YOUR MAIL</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Again, that's your preregative. I'm not sure how that serves to convince anyone of the merits of any of your changes. I tend to think it does the opposite.</div><br></div><span><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>Have nice and enjoyable afternoon</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Have a good evening.</div> </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> </div><div><br></div></div><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: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">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 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 style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div 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 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 style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div 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 style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div 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 style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div 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 style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div 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>
</div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>