My responses in-line.

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dea all,

Please KINDLY SLOW DOWN " Expert" “ Expert”

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

There's no reason to go shopping around for legal experts at this time on this document. We have lawyers representing each operational community and the Trust involved, as well as other practicing lawyers. If you want to invite other law firms to comment, they can do so in the public comment period.

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

Very, very few, and virtually none when it came to legal concepts (as opposed to policy matters).

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

Good idea. Better idea if they have experience reading, drafting, negotiating and handling disputes relating to US legal documents. FYI, I've worked on about 800 U.S. and cross-border transactions, many involving multiple agreements.

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

I've seen this commonly used in agreements. We don't have to be absolutely proscriptive in each instance. We can leave it to the parties to determine whether any given set of failures is sufficient to rise to the level required by 4.4; depending on the gravity of each failure, the number of failures necessary to trigger 4.4 would differ. Trying to pin this down now would be like nailing mercury to the wall.

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

This was only a definition and it only applied to the RIRs, and it was correct as regards their method of operation. See my prior note.

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

Reasonable people can differ on this point, and the trend in legal drafting is actually away from "shall" and toward "will." Please read the attached articles from one of the leading and most respected commentators on legal drafting. There's more where this came from, and from other commentators.

Please read my comments carefully

I have. As I said, I will pass this on to the Client Committee list where they can be seen by counsel. We can have counsel respond, but I doubt that they will differ from what I've offered here on a volunteer basis.

Greg

KAVOUSS

2016-08-08 19:22 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@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@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 12:46 PM
To: Jari Arkko
Cc: cwg-stewardship@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@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@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship