[CWG-Stewardship] Comments on Comments

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Grec,
It is couter productive to exchange any views with you.
You take yourself as representing the entire community  having participated
or drafted 800 legal VIEWS ,who care about it
You just MAY SPEAK ON YOUR OWN BEHALF AND EVEN NOT ON BEHAF OF ANY OTHER
ENTITY INCLUDING IPC
THERE IS NO PROXY IN THIS PROCESS.
I prefer NOT TO REPLY TO YOUR MESSAGE since you have no logic but
insistance..
I do not know who is " your lawyers.?
The process is a collective one and there is not " our lawyers " nor your
lawyer,
You do not accept any compromise.
You insist on what has been dictated to you .
It may be better not to REPLY TO YOUR MAIL
Have nice and enjoyable afternoon



2016-08-08 20:18 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:

> My replies are in-line.
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Grec
>> Here is my reply
>> I am re-sending these responses to Kavouss's comments to the list with
>> two notes:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Comments
>> Read my comments in regard with the use of the term Unanimously.
>> 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
>>
>
> ​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.​
>
> 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.
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/joint_and_several_liability  (one of
>> many available on the web):
>>
>> COMMENTS
>> Once again  jointly and severally are incompatible.
>> 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
>>  which could be applied to all cases.MOREOVER, IT DEPENDS WHICH COURT (
>> DISTRICT PREMIER INSTANCE, Appeal , or Federal ONES )
>> Select another term instead of " severally"
>>
>> I have had many other comments
>> I spent three hours of omy time of unday
>> I do expect that people do not insist on their wrong vision
>>
>> please kindly reconsider the matter and accept two of my recent
>> alternative proposal plus my other proposal
>>
>
> ​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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> I agree with your statement "I do expect that people do not insist on
> their wrong vision" and hope that it will be applied here.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160808/1c1f1423/attachment.html>