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

[Sweeting, John]

I am good with contract

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 28, 2014, at 6:53 PM, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>
> 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/
>> _______________________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.