I believe that the CCWG has already generally been informed when a question or issue has been referred to counsel -- at least by reference to the legal committee list, when decisions were made in that manner, and by statement of the Co-Chairs, when that was the approach. I don't think there's a need for a "rationale" to be prepared each time. This seems like "make-work," and/or a back-door attempt to introduce the "default" that has been broadly rejected. In any event, the rationale should be self-evident from the question presented by the subgroup seeking legal advice. Greg On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Paul,
That is fair enough, however if such decisions must be left to the committee to allow for efficiency, a proactive approach to notifying the CCWG needs to be put in place; such decisions should be documented with appropriate *rationale* as well.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 18 Jul 2016 6:15 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
With respect, I disagree. The question of whether or not to seek advice is a ministerial one that can and should be left to the good judgment of the co-chairs and the committee members. As we have seen in the last few days, the broader CCWG can get overwhelmed with disagreement on relatively inconsequential matters of process when for the most part our thinking and time are best devoted to substantive questions that require analysis and resolution
Cheers
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Monday, July 18, 2016 12:32 PM *To:* Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal Committee and WS2 budget - new proposal
Hello Mathieu,
The attached document indicated that decision will be handled based on case by case basis which is fine.
However I think sub-bullet 1 of item 2 on page 6 is not explicit about decision making process. I like to suggest that when independent council is required, the legal committee should rather recommend (not decide on behalf) to the group as it should be the decision of the CCWG-ACT to make. Such recommendation should also include adequate rationale on why external council is preferred over ICANN legal staff.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 18 Jul 2016 5:10 p.m., "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Based on the feedback received during last week’s call, as well as on the robust discussion on the list, we are suggesting a revised approach for the Legal Committee :
- Composition based on previous Legal executive team
- Co-chairs remain budget owners, working with support from the PCST
- Legal committee may direct requests to external firms, on a case by case assessment taking into account costs, skills as well as potential requirement for “independent” advice.
We believe this strikes a good balance between the need to manage costs efficiently and responsibly, and the ability for our group to request independent advice when needed.
Depending on the feedbacks, we will report on our progress to the Board Finance Committee and SO/AC leaders during a call that has been arranged at the BFC’s request on Monday 25 July.
Best regards,
Mathieu Weill
Co-chair
_______________________________________________ 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