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 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