Eric, I was not looking at it from that perspective, but Becky make sense, ie if we get an opinion that is contrary to what ICANN has previously asserted in court it would put ICANN in a difficult position. Almost as much as their Counsel estopping ICANN on anything not yet litigated. So, we need "unconflicted" Counsel. el On 2015-01-22 16:49, Burr, Becky wrote:
Eric, I have great respect for the ICANN legal staff, but I¹m not aware that anyone on staff possesses legal expertise on international law and/or California not-for-profit law. More that that, we know that ICANN has asserted various limitations on some of the accountability mechanisms based on the ³fiduciary duty² of Board members to the corporation. Whether the ideas in question are good or bad, there is some skepticism - and a conclusion by the Berkman Center during the first ATRT review that additional legal research was needed, about the legal positions asserted by ICANN¹s legal staff and its outside counsel. Given the above, and ethical obligation of counsel to defend the views of its client vigorously, I disagree with your view that ICANN¹s counsel is well situated to provide the legal analysis we need.
J. Beckwith Burr
[...]