Proposed Process for Executing Agreements
All; Below is a proposal for processing the documents for signing. Please advise if this works for you. Sam - Please advise when ICANN will be able to sign. Thanks Ray IANA Transition Proposed Doc Execution Process 1. The Trust will coordinate the execution of the Agreements with the Trust signing each document last. 2. Trust (Ray) will send the appropriate documents to the appropriate parties as follows: a. IANA IPR Assignment agreement to ICANN - Sam b. All IANA License agreements to ICANN - Sam c. Community Agreement sequence 1. RIRs - Alan Barrett to circulate among RIRs and return, then 2. Names - ICANN on behalf of Names - Sam, then 3. IETF - ISOC to execute after request by IAOC after request by IAB d. IETF Chair enters date at the top of each and signs all for the Trust “This ____ Agreement is entered into as of this ___ day of _____” e. Executed Agreements will be published online at: http://trustee.ietf.org/iana.html for retrieval by parties Note: all the Agreements have 21 Sept. 2016 in the upper LH corner e.g.: http://trustee.ietf.org/documents/Assignment_Agreement09-21-2016clean.htm All agreements: http://trustee.ietf.org/iana.html The purpose of this date was to identify the Agreements approved by the parties. We suggest deleting this.
I haven't seen any responses to this, so I'm curious how this is being handled. In the interests of time, it might make sense to sign in counterparts (i.e., each signatory signs on its own sheet of paper), rather than in sequence. This will be legally effective. Signatories can always execute on a single document later on, for posterity. (In other words, this should be signed in parallel, rather than serially.) Given the number of signatories and time zones, IETF would be signing a 6th generation scan that might take several days to get to it. Agree that the header should be deleted, that was just for version control of the drafts. On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> wrote:
All;
Below is a proposal for processing the documents for signing. Please advise if this works for you.
Sam - Please advise when ICANN will be able to sign.
Thanks Ray
IANA Transition Proposed Doc Execution Process
1. The Trust will coordinate the execution of the Agreements with the Trust signing each document last.
2. Trust (Ray) will send the appropriate documents to the appropriate parties as follows:
a. IANA IPR Assignment agreement to ICANN - Sam b. All IANA License agreements to ICANN - Sam c. Community Agreement sequence 1. RIRs - Alan Barrett to circulate among RIRs and return, then 2. Names - ICANN on behalf of Names - Sam, then 3. IETF - ISOC to execute after request by IAOC after request by IAB
d. IETF Chair enters date at the top of each and signs all for the Trust “This ____ Agreement is entered into as of this ___ day of _____”
e. Executed Agreements will be published online at: http://trustee.ietf.org/iana.html for retrieval by parties
Note: all the Agreements have 21 Sept. 2016 in the upper LH corner e.g.: http://trustee.ietf.org/documents/Assignment_ Agreement09-21-2016clean.htm All agreements: http://trustee.ietf.org/iana.html
The purpose of this date was to identify the Agreements approved by the parties. We suggest deleting this.
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
On 27 Sep 2016, at 22:13, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I haven't seen any responses to this, so I'm curious how this is being handled.
In the interests of time, it might make sense to sign in counterparts (i.e., each signatory signs on its own sheet of paper), rather than in sequence. This will be legally effective. Signatories can always execute on a single document later on, for posterity. (In other words, this should be signed in parallel, rather than serially.)
I agree with signing in parallel. The documents explicitly allow this; for example, clause 7.9 of the Commuity Agreement says: 7.9 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute together the same document. Alan Barrett
Ray, Sam, does signing in parallel work for you? If so, and if we hear back from you before Wednesday’s call, I think we can cancel the call since this is the main item we would need to discuss. Please advise. Thanks, Alissa
On Sep 27, 2016, at 2:25 PM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett@afrinic.net> wrote:
On 27 Sep 2016, at 22:13, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I haven't seen any responses to this, so I'm curious how this is being handled.
In the interests of time, it might make sense to sign in counterparts (i.e., each signatory signs on its own sheet of paper), rather than in sequence. This will be legally effective. Signatories can always execute on a single document later on, for posterity. (In other words, this should be signed in parallel, rather than serially.)
I agree with signing in parallel. The documents explicitly allow this; for example, clause 7.9 of the Commuity Agreement says:
7.9 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute together the same document.
Alan Barrett _______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
Alan is correct. That is exactly why 7.9 is there. On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Ray, Sam, does signing in parallel work for you? If so, and if we hear back from you before Wednesday’s call, I think we can cancel the call since this is the main item we would need to discuss. Please advise.
Thanks, Alissa
On Sep 27, 2016, at 2:25 PM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett@afrinic.net> wrote:
On 27 Sep 2016, at 22:13, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I haven't seen any responses to this, so I'm curious how this is being handled.
In the interests of time, it might make sense to sign in counterparts (i.e., each signatory signs on its own sheet of paper), rather than in sequence. This will be legally effective. Signatories can always execute on a single document later on, for posterity. (In other words, this should be signed in parallel, rather than serially.)
I agree with signing in parallel. The documents explicitly allow this; for example, clause 7.9 of the Commuity Agreement says:
7.9 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute together the same document.
Alan Barrett _______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
Signing in parallel is acceptable to ICANN. ‹ Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 USA Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 On 9/27/16, 12:43 PM, "iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net on behalf of Alissa Cooper" <iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net on behalf of alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Ray, Sam, does signing in parallel work for you? If so, and if we hear back from you before Wednesday¹s call, I think we can cancel the call since this is the main item we would need to discuss. Please advise.
Thanks, Alissa
On Sep 27, 2016, at 2:25 PM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett@afrinic.net> wrote:
On 27 Sep 2016, at 22:13, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I haven't seen any responses to this, so I'm curious how this is being handled.
In the interests of time, it might make sense to sign in counterparts (i.e., each signatory signs on its own sheet of paper), rather than in sequence. This will be legally effective. Signatories can always execute on a single document later on, for posterity. (In other words, this should be signed in parallel, rather than serially.)
I agree with signing in parallel. The documents explicitly allow this; for example, clause 7.9 of the Commuity Agreement says:
7.9 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute together the same document.
Alan Barrett _______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nro.net_mailman_ listinfo_iana-2Dipr&d=DQIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5c M&r=w1jlqVWntmqtI5dedIDLQ6uBxH_Jh-uBee_4imohzko&m=G79w4rYiceshoXAci--tE83 rc250CDyQ8yVATzp1mUQ&s=ZNdk0MDnhHYVSQ-Jg8JqdbaqUs76Ow2SlnJJObyIXJ0&e=
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nro.net_mailman_l istinfo_iana-2Dipr&d=DQIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM& r=w1jlqVWntmqtI5dedIDLQ6uBxH_Jh-uBee_4imohzko&m=G79w4rYiceshoXAci--tE83rc2 50CDyQ8yVATzp1mUQ&s=ZNdk0MDnhHYVSQ-Jg8JqdbaqUs76Ow2SlnJJObyIXJ0&e=
I thought we already discussed the simultaneous signature by all and exchange of PDF signature pages. This method is fine under the agreements and when we asked, nobody raised an objection under local law. So this method would work and is better than scanning the same document multiple times in succession. On 9/27/16, 1:43 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net on behalf of alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Ray, Sam, does signing in parallel work for you? If so, and if we hear back from you before Wednesday¹s call, I think we can cancel the call since this is the main item we would need to discuss. Please advise.
Thanks, Alissa
On Sep 27, 2016, at 2:25 PM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett@afrinic.net> wrote:
On 27 Sep 2016, at 22:13, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I haven't seen any responses to this, so I'm curious how this is being handled.
In the interests of time, it might make sense to sign in counterparts (i.e., each signatory signs on its own sheet of paper), rather than in sequence. This will be legally effective. Signatories can always execute on a single document later on, for posterity. (In other words, this should be signed in parallel, rather than serially.)
I agree with signing in parallel. The documents explicitly allow this; for example, clause 7.9 of the Commuity Agreement says:
7.9 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute together the same document.
Alan Barrett _______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
+1 and there is no objection raised from any of the RIRs on this execution mechanism of signing in counterparts. Thanks, -Michael -- Michael R. Abejuela Associate General Counsel ARIN PO Box 232290 Centreville, VA 20120 (703) 227-9875 (p) (703) 263-0111 (f) mabejuela@arin.net Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. On 9/27/16, 4:08 PM, "iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net on behalf of Jorge Contreras" <iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net on behalf of contreraslegal@att.net> wrote:
I thought we already discussed the simultaneous signature by all and exchange of PDF signature pages. This method is fine under the agreements and when we asked, nobody raised an objection under local law. So this method would work and is better than scanning the same document multiple times in succession.
On 9/27/16, 1:43 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net on behalf of alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Ray, Sam, does signing in parallel work for you? If so, and if we hear back from you before Wednesday¹s call, I think we can cancel the call since this is the main item we would need to discuss. Please advise.
Thanks, Alissa
On Sep 27, 2016, at 2:25 PM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett@afrinic.net> wrote:
On 27 Sep 2016, at 22:13, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I haven't seen any responses to this, so I'm curious how this is being handled.
In the interests of time, it might make sense to sign in counterparts (i.e., each signatory signs on its own sheet of paper), rather than in sequence. This will be legally effective. Signatories can always execute on a single document later on, for posterity. (In other words, this should be signed in parallel, rather than serially.)
I agree with signing in parallel. The documents explicitly allow this; for example, clause 7.9 of the Commuity Agreement says:
7.9 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute together the same document.
Alan Barrett _______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
Ok, great. With the final documents already available at https://trustee.ietf.org/iana.html <https://trustee.ietf.org/iana.html> folks can go forth and sign and exchange, and we’ll expect the signed agreements to be posted at http://trustee.ietf.org/iana.html <http://trustee.ietf.org/iana.html> before the end of the day ET on Friday. We can cancel the Wednesday call. Staff, please send cancellation notices. Thanks, Alissa
On Sep 27, 2016, at 4:08 PM, Jorge Contreras <contreraslegal@att.net> wrote:
I thought we already discussed the simultaneous signature by all and exchange of PDF signature pages. This method is fine under the agreements and when we asked, nobody raised an objection under local law. So this method would work and is better than scanning the same document multiple times in succession.
On 9/27/16, 1:43 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net <mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net> on behalf of alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> wrote:
Ray, Sam, does signing in parallel work for you? If so, and if we hear back from you before Wednesday¹s call, I think we can cancel the call since this is the main item we would need to discuss. Please advise.
Thanks, Alissa
On Sep 27, 2016, at 2:25 PM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett@afrinic.net> wrote:
On 27 Sep 2016, at 22:13, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I haven't seen any responses to this, so I'm curious how this is being handled.
In the interests of time, it might make sense to sign in counterparts (i.e., each signatory signs on its own sheet of paper), rather than in sequence. This will be legally effective. Signatories can always execute on a single document later on, for posterity. (In other words, this should be signed in parallel, rather than serially.)
I agree with signing in parallel. The documents explicitly allow this; for example, clause 7.9 of the Commuity Agreement says:
7.9 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute together the same document.
Alan Barrett _______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net <mailto:Iana-ipr@nro.net> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr>
On 28 Sep 2016, at 00:08, Jorge Contreras <contreraslegal@att.net> wrote:
I thought we already discussed the simultaneous signature by all and exchange of PDF signature pages. This method is fine under the agreements and when we asked, nobody raised an objection under local law. So this method would work and is better than scanning the same document multiple times in succession.
These documents collectively take up hundreds of pages. Just the Community Agreement is 75 pages including all attached exhibits, or 13 pages excluding the exhibits. Should I initial each of the 75 pages (including the exhibits), or initial each page excluding the exhibits, or just sign the signature page and not bother with initialing? Alan Barrett
Alan, It's my understanding the parties are only exchanging signature pages. Under US law and practice, this is the most common way to handle such things, speaking from my experience. "Counterparts" are always limited to signature pages, in my experience. I understand that in many jurisdictions it's standard practice (or even required) to initial all pages of an agreement, but that's not the case in the US, and these are US law documents. Greg On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett@afrinic.net> wrote:
On 28 Sep 2016, at 00:08, Jorge Contreras <contreraslegal@att.net <javascript:;>> wrote:
I thought we already discussed the simultaneous signature by all and exchange of PDF signature pages. This method is fine under the agreements and when we asked, nobody raised an objection under local law. So this method would work and is better than scanning the same document multiple times in succession.
These documents collectively take up hundreds of pages. Just the Community Agreement is 75 pages including all attached exhibits, or 13 pages excluding the exhibits.
Should I initial each of the 75 pages (including the exhibits), or initial each page excluding the exhibits, or just sign the signature page and not bother with initialing?
Alan Barrett _______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net <javascript:;> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
I concur with Greg. Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 28, 2016, at 5:37 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan,
It's my understanding the parties are only exchanging signature pages. Under US law and practice, this is the most common way to handle such things, speaking from my experience. "Counterparts" are always limited to signature pages, in my experience.
I understand that in many jurisdictions it's standard practice (or even required) to initial all pages of an agreement, but that's not the case in the US, and these are US law documents.
Greg
On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett@afrinic.net> wrote:
On 28 Sep 2016, at 00:08, Jorge Contreras <contreraslegal@att.net> wrote:
I thought we already discussed the simultaneous signature by all and exchange of PDF signature pages. This method is fine under the agreements and when we asked, nobody raised an objection under local law. So this method would work and is better than scanning the same document multiple times in succession.
These documents collectively take up hundreds of pages. Just the Community Agreement is 75 pages including all attached exhibits, or 13 pages excluding the exhibits.
Should I initial each of the 75 pages (including the exhibits), or initial each page excluding the exhibits, or just sign the signature page and not bother with initialing?
Alan Barrett _______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
Dear All, As far as AFRINIC is concerned, Mauritius civil law is applicable { which is french law in fact] it is not a legal obligation to initial the pages of an agreement unless it is a notarial. deed. Ashok. On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 06:49:49 -0600 Jorge Contreras <contreraslegal@att.net> wrote:
I concur with Greg.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 28, 2016, at 5:37 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan,
It's my understanding the parties are only exchanging signature pages. Under US law and practice, this is the most common way to handle such things, speaking from my experience. "Counterparts" are always limited to signature pages, in my experience.
I understand that in many jurisdictions it's standard practice (or even required) to initial all pages of an agreement, but that's not the case in the US, and these are US law documents.
Greg
On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett@afrinic.net> wrote:
On 28 Sep 2016, at 00:08, Jorge Contreras <contreraslegal@att.net> wrote:
I thought we already discussed the simultaneous signature by all and exchange of PDF signature pages. This method is fine under the agreements and when we asked, nobody raised an objection under local law. So this method would work and is better than scanning the same document multiple times in succession.
These documents collectively take up hundreds of pages. Just the Community Agreement is 75 pages including all attached exhibits, or 13 pages excluding the exhibits.
Should I initial each of the 75 pages (including the exhibits), or initial each page excluding the exhibits, or just sign the signature page and not bother with initialing?
Alan Barrett _______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
On 28 Sep 2016, at 15:37, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan,
It's my understanding the parties are only exchanging signature pages. Under US law and practice, this is the most common way to handle such things, speaking from my experience. "Counterparts" are always limited to signature pages, in my experience.
I understand that in many jurisdictions it's standard practice (or even required) to initial all pages of an agreement, but that's not the case in the US, and these are US law documents.
Thank you. I have already initialed some pages, but I expect that can be ignored. Alan Barrett
Alissa That will work Ray
On Sep 27, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Ray, Sam, does signing in parallel work for you? If so, and if we hear back from you before Wednesday’s call, I think we can cancel the call since this is the main item we would need to discuss. Please advise.
Thanks, Alissa
On Sep 27, 2016, at 2:25 PM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett@afrinic.net> wrote:
On 27 Sep 2016, at 22:13, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I haven't seen any responses to this, so I'm curious how this is being handled.
In the interests of time, it might make sense to sign in counterparts (i.e., each signatory signs on its own sheet of paper), rather than in sequence. This will be legally effective. Signatories can always execute on a single document later on, for posterity. (In other words, this should be signed in parallel, rather than serially.)
I agree with signing in parallel. The documents explicitly allow this; for example, clause 7.9 of the Commuity Agreement says:
7.9 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute together the same document.
Alan Barrett _______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
participants (8)
-
Alan Barrett -
Alissa Cooper -
arad -
Greg Shatan -
Jorge Contreras -
Michael Abejuela -
Ray Pelletier -
Samantha Eisner