[CWG-Stewardship] Comments on Comments

[Greg Shatan]

Responses inline.

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20160808/491038e3/attachment-0001.html>