Maybe we could have a "default" max of one per firm on WP calls and the same on CCWG calls, with more allowed if the subject matter in the agenda demands it?

I too share Roelof's view...

best

Jordan

On 20 June 2015 at 17:03, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:

Speaking as a lawyer……give lawyers a maximum and they will use it!

Cheers,

Chris

On 21 Jun 2015, at 05:49 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:

Thanks Roelof,

This is a maximum, not a minimum. Therefore, this doesn’t mean we will be having 4 lawyers a call but rather limit their attendance to 4 whereas before we had no limit and I can recall meetings where we had more than 4 lawyers attending.

I hope this is more clear.

Best regards,

León

El 20/06/2015, a las 16:44, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> escribió:

Léon, Mathieu,

You can¹t be serious. I see no reason whatsoever why we would need 2
lawyers per firm and so 4 lawyers per call/meeting. These are reputed
firms and expert lawyers, one of each firm should suffice.
I really take an issue with the amount of money we¹re spending on legal
advice

Best,

Roelof

On 20-06-15 16:35, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on
behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía"
<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of
leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:

Dear all,

Just as a follow up to Mathieu¹s email, I would like to clarify that
lawyers maximum attendance per call/meeting is 2 lawyers per firm.

Best regards,

León

El 20/06/2015, a las 16:24, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>
escribió:

Dear Colleagues,

During last week's call, we agreed that the co-chair would engage with
the lawyers in order to optimize interactions between our group and the
independent legal counsel, taking into account the importance of quality
advice as well as the concerns regarding expenses.

We have met today with Holly and Rosemary and this is to report on the
ways forward we have agreed on :

* to avoid any misunderstanding on questions, as well as enable a
better assessment of costs, we will refrain from certifying questions
until :
* a discussion has taken place between lawyers and the colleague
asking the question, either through a regular call or through ad hoc
calls (such ad hoc calls would obviously be transcribed and open)
* such a discussion has, if need be, produced a clarified version of
the question, an estimate of whether the response would require a lot of
research, and an indication of the potential value of the research for
the group's further deliberations.

* participation of lawyers to meetings and calls will be limited to a
maximum of 2. As a consequence, lawyers may not always be able to
respond to our questions instantly. In such cases, we will rely on the
above certification process.

* a "punch list" of issues will be produced avec Buenos Aires and
shared with the group as a project management tool.

We are convinced these simple steps will be useful to get the best
value out of the outstanding expertise of our cousel.

Best regards,

--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill@afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

A better world through a better Internet