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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dea all,

Please KINDLY SLOW DOWN " Expert" “ Expert”

There are other legal experts than those two law firms that are eligible to
comments

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

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

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

When you say OCS collectively and unanimously agreed instead of
«collectively agreed without objections or abstention still you reject the
idea

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

Please read my comments carefully
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-
> bounces 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160808/b01b1114/attachment.html>