So I have a couple of questions for our Co-Chairs -- all of which are process questions: 1) Who first advanced the suggestion that we rely on ICANN Legal/Outside Counsel in preference to our own independent counsel? Was the suggestion from ICANN staff, ICANN legal, the Board or was it something that the Co-Chairs conceived? 2) Same question about the cost issue -- who first proposed that the CCWG be assessed a shared services cost for the use of ICANN Legal/Outside counsel? I ask these questions because, like Robe, I see this as a non-starter and I am curious as to the genesis of such a manifestly poor idea. And then a final question, again for the Co-Chairs: Given how widely panned this proposal is and the near consensus (with a few minority voices) in opposition, is it fair to say that these two ideas (use ICANN Legal first and pay for it) are now no longer active proposals and we can consider this matter closed? Thanks 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/ -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:17 PM To: Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC It is simply a non-starter to suggest that CCWG would lose its right to independent counsel at this stage. I am struggling to understand *where* the suggestion to start this debate all over again even came from. We have very important issues on our agenda for WorkStream 2 that require independence of legal advice: transparency of board deliberations, reforming the DIDP, the CEP, etc., which all involve trying to reform the policies that were created by the in-house legal dept. It is silly to suggest that we must seek the legal advice from those who created the policies we are trying to reform as that would be counter-productive to our goals. Additionally it was revealed in yesterday’s calls, that ICANN’s legal dept fees will be added to the CCWG’s independent fees, so CCWG will be billed for the in-house efforts to resist our reforms (and we won’t be given access to the legal advice that we would be paying for). I think it is extremely important the legal fees NOT be conflated together. We need to understand what the separate costs are, and we cannot be held responsible for spending on Jones Day that is outside of our control. Fees that ICANN corporate undertakes must be separated from fees that CCWG undertakes or the proposed budget process makes absolutely no sense, unless it was intended to tie CCWG’s hands and give ICANN corporate a blank check to spend resisting our reforms. This is an important issue that we cannot roll over on, or everything else we try to do from here on out will be of questionable value. This settled debate should not be re-opened, despite the huge win for ICANN corporate if were to succeed in over-turning this group’s previous decision on this critical matter of independence of legal advice. Thanks, Robin
On Jul 13, 2016, at 2:06 PM, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote:
Also +1 to Greg and +1 to James
On 07/13/2016 10:50 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
Thanks, Greg. +1. Fully agree.
CCWG shall retain the ability to ask for independent advice. Also agree that continuing with Sidley Austin and Adler & Colvin is the best option.
+ 1 also to James previous email about not reopening the debate.
Best,
Tanya
On 13/07/16 22:42, Greg Shatan wrote:
Siva,
The reasons are all in the record. Please go back and read all of the materials and discussions relating to our desire and choice to hire independent counsel. If you have any specific questions after that, please ask them.
I will briefly say the following:
1. This has nothing to do with competence, although being generally competent and competent in a specific area are two different things.
2. Where we needed first-hand knowledge or history, we've turned to ICANN legal as one source for such things. That won't change. Advice is another thing entirely.
3. Ask yourself "Who is ICANN legal's client?" and you will have answered your own question.
Greg
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>> wrote:
Greg,
How valid are your assumptions? What are the reasons for this unwillingness to make use of ICANN Legal, who are competent, have first hand knowledge and a complete understanding of the legal nuances on matters concerning ICANN, may I ask? Saves money on most matters requiring legal advice, and should there be areas that require specialized advice, we could seek external advice.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>> wrote:
I object, and I think many others objected, to the idea that advice from inhouse (i.e., ICANN legal) should be the "default." We retained independent counsel to the CCWG for good reason s
and those reasons are still applicable today. I hope we don't need to rehash that.
We need the continued ability and discretion to go directly to CCWG's counsel. Requesting inhouse to solicit an opinion from an external counsel is not only "cumbersome," it's absolutely antithetical to the relationship between CCWG and its independent counsel.
I strongly believe that the "default" must be the status quo, i.e., that the CCWG (through reasonable processes) has the ability and discretion to turn to its own counsel. Further, I strongly believe that CCWG's independent counsel must remain Sidley Austin and Adler & Colvin. They have been up a tremendous learning curve and worked with us every step of the way. It would be folly to cast that aside. It's worth noting that Sidley is a full-service law firm with offices outside the US in Beijing, Brussels, Geneva, Hong Kong, London, Munich, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney and Tokyo. I'm confident that Sidley (and Adler) will (a) tell us when they don't have the expertise to help us, and (b) work with us on working methods to make our use of the firms more cost-effective.
Greg
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rudi.daniel@gmail.com');>> wrote:
Based on comments on the call today, IMO; A good body of knowledge was accquired on the subject of legal requests in wg1. WG2 legal resources would be both inhouse and external, from start, We should be much more efficient this time around. Each sub however will have their needs and there may be requests applicable across the subgroups and/or specific to a subgroup. So, that suggests close relationship between budget control and the former legal request team [reconfigured and/or augmented] who would have to coordinate requests across ws2 sub groups as i see it. What determines the initial choice inhouse/external resources may be a matter of consensus, but it may be prudent to consider the process as [default] inhouse with the flexible and necessary option of external sources by consensus [as the fog clears so to speak]. I think it may be cumbersome to request inhouse to solicit an opinion from an external, because there may arise an instance where; on the strength of an opinion, [inhouse or external] ; a wg2 may wish to reframe and seek alternative advise elswhere. rd
Rudi Daniel /danielcharles consulting <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>/ * *
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Vinay Kesari <vinay.kesari@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vinay.kesari@gmail.com');>> wrote:
Dear all,
I was unfortunately unable to join the call as I was on a flight at the time, my apologies. I've just had a chance to catch up on the Adobe Connect recording, and I'm happy to reconfirm my willingness and availability to serve as a rapporteur. Also, I agree with the thrust of Kavouss' comment at 0:24:30, and affirm my commitment to serve impartially. I look forward to working with Greg on the jurisdiction subgroup.
Separately, on the issue of allocation of legal requests, I agree that we need further discussion, and endorse creating an Option 3 based on the points made and the specific requirements of the different WS2 subgroups.
Regards, Vinay
On 12 July 2016 at 20:55, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mathieu.weill@afnic.fr');>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Attached is a short set of slides to support our discussion on agenda item #4
Talk to you in a few hours
Mathieu
*De :*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>] *De la part de* MSSI Secretariat *Envoyé :* lundi 11 juillet 2016 19:46 *À :* CCWG-Accountability *Objet :* [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
Good day all,
In preparation for your call, CCWG Accountability WS2 Meeting #2 <https://community.icann.org/x/FyOOAw>– Tuesday, 12 July @ 20:00 – 22:00 UTC. Time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+Accountability...>
*Proposed Agenda:*
1. Welcome, SOI
2. Articles of Incorporation : finalize submission
3. Appointment of rapporteurs for WS2 – next steps
4. Legal Cost Control Mechanism : initial discussion
5. AOB
6. Closing
*Adobe Connect: *https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/>
Thank you!
With kind regards,
Brenda Brewer
MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant
ICANN-**Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ 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