[CRISP-TEAM] Term of the contract & wording agreement/contract

[Izumi Okutani]

Thank you Craig for clarifying.

Understood you point that; it is not necesary to change the wording.
If we want something legally binding, contract seems clearer to me as
well, based on your explanation. Anyone else have other opinions?

> I think he means that the SLA should be continuing, and can only be
> terminated if a "default" or "termination event" occurs, and should not
> otherwise have an end date. I am not sure if this point has been discussed
> at the CRISP team, or a consensus reached.

This is consistent with my observation - I also don't recall discussing
this at the CRISP team.

I'm not sure if this level of details are to be incorporated in the
proposal, and would like to hear inputs from the Team. On the otherhand,
if there are already clear reasons which would may make it difficult to
incoporate his suggestion at the time of developing SLA, I feel we
should explain to him.

Anyone has any thoughts about this - including the need to describe this
in the proposal?


Izumi

On 2014/12/29 7:37, Craig Ng wrote:
> On 26/12/2014 2:22 am, "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
> 
>> CRISP Team,
>>
>>
>> May I request for someone with legal background to help respond to these
>> two comments?
>>
>> On the first point, he seems to have agreed with the term "contract"
>> after discussions, so may not necessarily need a response, unless we
>> feel it's important to clarify.
>>
>> (snip)
>> - I suggest replacing the word contract in section III with agreement and
>> this will also largely require re-wording of 3rd paragraph of section IV
>>
> 
> I don't believe this is necessary. Technically speaking, all contracts are
> agreements, but not all agreements are contracts. The term "agreement"
> encompasses all agreements or meetings of minds, including those that may
> not be legally enforceable. So, it has a broader concept. "Contracts"
> means legally enforceable agreements.
> 
> But having said that, I see no necessity to make any change. I don't
> believe making the suggested change alter the meaning of section III.
> 
>> - The agreement (currently referred to as contract) should not be termed
>> based as presumed to be indicated in section III but should have
>> termination conditions
>> (snip)
>>
> 
> I think he means that the SLA should be continuing, and can only be
> terminated if a "default" or "termination event" occurs, and should not
> otherwise have an end date. I am not sure if this point has been discussed
> at the CRISP team, or a consensus reached.
> 
> Craig
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________
> Craig Ng
> General Counsel, APNIC
> e: craig at apnic.net
> p: +61 7 3858 3152
> m: +61 416 052 022
> www.apnic.net
> _______________________________________________________
> 
> Join the conversation:   https://blog.apnic.net/
> _______________________________________________________
>