Wolfgang, To your first point, the billing rates were clearly stated in the law firms' engagement letters. To your second point, I'm sure we could all think of other projects and goals where the money could have been "better spent." You've stated yours. But that is not the proper test. This was and continues to be money we need to spend to achieve the goals we have set. Under different circumstances, perhaps it would be a different amount (or maybe none at all). But it was strongly felt at the outset that the group needed to have independent counsel. Clearly that counsel needed to have recognized expertise in the appropriate legal areas. As such, I believe we made excellent choices and have been very well represented. As to your "better spent" test, I just had to have $4000.00 worth of emergency dental work done. This money definitely could have been "better spent" on a nice vacation, redecorating our living room or on donations to my favored charitable causes. But I had no choice, other than to choose which dentist and endodontist I went to, and I wasn't going to cut corners -- the dental work was a necessity. Similarly, the legal work we are getting is a necessity and whether we would have preferred to spend the money elsewhere is not merely irrelevant, it is an incorrect and inappropriate proposition. Many of us are investing vast quantities of time that could be "better spent" elsewhere as well, but we are willing (grudgingly sometimes) to spend the time it takes to get it right, because we believe it needs to be done. This is the appropriate measure, whether it comes to our time or counsels' time. If we believe in this project, we have to invest in it, and do what it takes to succeed. Of course, this investment has to be managed wisely and cost-effectively, and by and large, I believe the CCWG has done that reasonably well -- not perfectly, but reasonably well and with "course corrections" along the way intended to improve that management. It's certainly fair to ask, as Robin has done, for a better understanding of that management as we go along. But asserting that the money could have been "better spent" elsewhere sets up a false test that we should not use to evaluate this important aspect of our work. Instead, we need to focus on whether the money was "well spent" on these critical legal services. If you have reason to believe it was not, that could be useful to know. That would at least be the right discussion to have. Greg On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 1:13 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
HI,
and please if you ask outside lawyers, ask for the price tag in advance. Some of the money spend fo lawyers could have been spend better to suppport and enable Internet user and non-commercial groups in developing countries.
Wolfgang
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org im Auftrag von Robin Gross Gesendet: Fr 03.07.2015 14:57 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Community Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have they beenasked to do?
After the legal sub-team was disbanded, I haven't been able to follow what communications are happening with CCWG and the independent lawyers we retained.
I understand the lawyers are currently "working on the various models" and will present something to us regarding that work soon. However, *what exactly* have the lawyers been asked to do and *who* asked them? If there are written instructions, may the group please see them? Who is now taking on the role of managing the outside attorneys for this group, including providing instructions and certifying legal work?
Sorry, but I'm really trying to understand what is happening, and there doesn't seem to be much information in the public on this (or if there is, I can't find it). Thanks for any information anyone can provide.
Best, Robin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community