Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
I presume that the inten of having a "default" was that it was what we should use if there were not need for external counsel. I am tired of endless discussions which do not change anything. Regardless of which is "default" or exactly what that means, we will have to make a case-by-case choice. Alan At 15/07/2016 02:44 PM, Rudolph Daniel wrote:
There would seem to be an issue with "default" is there any substantive difference if we consider independent legal council "default" with the availability of icann inhouse legal services to compliment . That would also suggest the need for fiscal restraint rd
Rudi Daniel <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>danielcharles consulting
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji <<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
By default means always considering use of ICANN legal staff first before going independent. I don't think this should require a dialout as I think we all agree that CCWG should have access to independent legal whenever required.
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 15 Jul 2016 19:00, "farzaneh badii" <<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote: No. Using the independent legal advisers responsibly does not mean that we have to have a default approach.
I wonder what the next steps would be on this issue. Perhaps co-chairs can help us on this ? Are we going to have a call and discuss this and come up with a solution?
On 15 July 2016 at 19:46, Seun Ojedeji <<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 on ensuring access to independent legal adviser whenever required by CCWG. This would imply referring to internal legal(staff) by default and then call for independent legal advice whenever the group sense there is need for clarification (or when the issues at hand is warranted).
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 15 Jul 2016 13:19, "James M. Bladel" <<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote: Agree with Keith.
CCWG must preserve the use of independent legal advisors, but use this responsibly, and with an eye on controlling costs. Ultimately, it is gTLD registrants picking up the bill, and we need to ensure that this work is mindful of their interests.
Thanks
J.
From: <<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Keith Drazek <<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>kdrazek@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 16:53 To: Phil Corwin <<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>psc@vlaw-dc.com>, Matthew Shears <<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>mshears@cdt.org>, Greg Shatan <<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, Robin Gross <<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>robin@ipjustice.org> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
Agreed. Access to independent legal advice was never in question.
That said, in the interest of controlling costs, I have no problem seeking input from ICANNâs internal lawyers on issues that are deemed non-contentious or where potential conflicts do not exist.
I am obligated to report that the Registries Stakeholder Group is very, very concerned about the cost of legal fees from WS1 and wants to ensure the CCWG is efficient with its future spending. I know weâre developing cost-control mechanisms for WS2, and Iâve advised my SG accordingly, but this will continue to receive attention from the RySG.
Hollyâs question and the response about budgeting vis-Ã -vis ICANNâs outside counsel was instructive. Any and all outside counsel expenses will require certification.
So, let me reiterate my view the CCWG must have acccess to independent legal advice. We must ensure costs are controlled and resources are used efficiently. If that means selectively turning to ICANNâs lawyers on occasion, I can and do support that, but not at the expense of our ability to seek independent advice.
Regards, Keith
From: <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 5:34 PM To: Matthew Shears; Greg Shatan; Robin Gross Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
Access to independent legal advice for WS2 issues is fundamental and should be non-negotiable
Use your power, Empowered Community
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 <tel:202-559-8597>202-559-8597/Direct <tel:202-559-8750>202-559-8750/Fax <tel:202-255-6172>202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" --- Branch Rickey
From:<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>mshears@cdt.org
Sent:July 14, 2016 5:26 PM
To:<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com; <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>robin@ipjustice.org
Cc:<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject:Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
+ 1 well said Robin.
On 14/07/2016 03:20, Greg Shatan wrote:
Robin,
Agree 100%.
Greg
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Robin Gross <<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
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 yesterdayâs calls, that ICANNâs legal dept fees will be added to the CCWGâs independent fees, so CCWG will be billed for the in-house efforts to resist our reforms (and we wonât 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 CCWGâs 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 groupâs previous decision on this critical matter of independence of legal advice.
Thanks, Robin
On Jul 13, 2016, at 2:06 PM, Niels ten Oever <<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>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 <<mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>isolatedn@gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>> wrote:
Greg,
âHow 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?â 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 <<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>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 âsâ
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 <<mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com>rudi.daniel@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com>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
* *
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Vinay Kesari <<mailto:vinay.kesari@gmail.com>vinay.kesari@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<mailto:vinay.kesari@gmail.com>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 <<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>mathieu.weill@afnic.fr
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>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
:*<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>
[mailto:<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>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>https://community.icann.org/x/FyOOAw> Tuesday,
12 July @ 20:00 22:00 UTC. Time zone converter here
*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/
<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
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');>
-- Sivasubramanian M
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 <http://www.article19.org>www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
<tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>+ 44 771 2472987
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>www.avast.com
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12558 - Release Date: 07/04/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Farzaneh
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:p4t8tZsYRMEtnIUlXqtpL2QarivWIiCQ1uAWlQ043vv01vxVWJDfUZbPtSDBozyxURh8Wbdz4YdXFUpyO0Nz8WxZ5ZJap793kqg7QQbkQ+LX1BU1qyGxTIyBzVPn4nsdkmJgZTVDHksNzyRWon3iI3zeZQoTrU8NaiOmgzJpztPH5l6FxKy5Z+1L1Q/eyTFBlflFuAXl8sdo/cWNX3fT4Q==
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, I am sorry you are tired of the conversation as I intend to say someting on the topic. Having a default means that extra energy and argument is needed to prove why you are not using the default when you decide that the default just won't do. It means not having to argue strongly about why we do not want to rely on Staff for some particular issue. And those conversations are rarely helpful to solving an issue. Being able to choose as appropriate, and taking into account the concerns of money, has a lower barrier to doing what needs to be done. And we don't have to insult anyone in the process. I am not on the legal committee, nor do I want to be, but I want them to be free to choose the right legal support without the limitations that having a default brings. avri On 15-Jul-16 16:18, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I presume that the inten of having a "default" was that it was what we should use if there were not need for external counsel.
I am tired of endless discussions which do not change anything. Regardless of which is "default" or exactly what that means, we will have to make a case-by-case choice.
Alan
At 15/07/2016 02:44 PM, Rudolph Daniel wrote:
There would seem to be an issue with "default" is there any substantive difference if we consider independent legal council "default" with the availability of icann inhouse legal services to compliment . That would also suggest the need for fiscal restraint rd
Rudi Daniel /danielcharles consulting <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/Dan...> /* *
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> > wrote:
Hello,
By default means always considering use of ICANN legal staff first before going independent. I don't think this should require a dialout as I think we all agree that CCWG should have access to independent legal whenever required.
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 15 Jul 2016 19:00, "farzaneh badii" <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> > wrote:
No. Using the independent legal advisers responsibly does not mean that we have to have a default approach.
I wonder what the next steps would be on this issue. Perhaps co-chairs can help us on this ? Are we going to have a call and discuss this and come up with a solution?
On 15 July 2016 at 19:46, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> > wrote:
+1 on ensuring access to independent legal adviser whenever required by CCWG. This would imply referring to internal legal(staff) by default and then call for independent legal advice whenever the group sense there is need for clarification (or when the issues at hand is warranted).
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 15 Jul 2016 13:19, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Agree with Keith.
CCWG must preserve the use of independent legal advisors, but use this responsibly, and with an eye on controlling costs. Ultimately, it is gTLD registrants picking up the bill, and we need to ensure that this work is mindful of their interests.
Thanks—
J.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Date: Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 16:53 To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
Agreed. Access to independent legal advice was never in question.
That said, in the interest of controlling costs, I have no problem seeking input from ICANN’s internal lawyers on issues that are deemed non-contentious or where potential conflicts do not exist.
I am obligated to report that the Registries Stakeholder Group is very, very concerned about the cost of legal fees from WS1 and wants to ensure the CCWG is efficient with its future spending. I know we’re developing cost-control mechanisms for WS2, and I’ve advised my SG accordingly, but this will continue to receive attention from the RySG.
Holly’s question and the response about budgeting vis-à -vis ICANN’s outside counsel was instructive. Any and all outside counsel expenses will require certification.
So, let me reiterate my view…the CCWG must have acccess to independent legal advice. We must ensure costs are controlled and resources are used efficiently. If that means selectively turning to ICANN’s lawyers on occasion, I can and do support that, but not at the expense of our ability to seek independent advice.
Regards, Keith
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 5:34 PM To: Matthew Shears; Greg Shatan; Robin Gross Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
Access to independent legal advice for WS2 issues is fundamental and should be non-negotiable
Use your power, Empowered Community
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172 <tel:202-255-6172>/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" --- Branch Rickey
From:mshears@cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org>
Sent:July 14, 2016 5:26 PM
To:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>
Cc:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject:Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
+ 1 well said Robin.
On 14/07/2016 03:20, Greg Shatan wrote:
Robin,
Agree 100%.
Greg
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote:
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 <mailto: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> >>> <mailto: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 <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rudi.daniel@gmail.com <mailto: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/Dan... >/ >>> * >>> * >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Vinay Kesari >>> <vinay.kesari@gmail.com <mailto:vinay.kesari@gmail.com> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vinay.kesari@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto: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 <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>');> >>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>');> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>');> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>');> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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 <http://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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12558 - Release Date: 07/04/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Farzaneh
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:p4t8tZsYRMEtnIUlXqtpL2QarivWIiCQ1uAWlQ043vv01vxVWJDfUZbPtSDBozyxURh8Wbdz4YdXFUpyO0Nz8WxZ5ZJap793kqg7QQbkQ+LX1BU1qyGxTIyBzVPn4nsdkmJgZTVDHksNzyRWon3iI3zeZQoTrU8NaiOmgzJpztPH5l6FxKy5Z+1L1Q/eyTFBlflFuAXl8sdo/cWNX3fT4Q==
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
In respect to the matter of legal costs : What are the suggestions to keep these costs at bay? (1) is there a cap on legal cost based on the budget for this upcoming exercise? (2) If not , can a cap be recommended in terms of the hourly rate payable? (associate vs partner fees) or (3) Is there a standing 'retainer' arrangement in place where there are set legal fees payable every month ( or whatever period ) regardless of the work provided which will control the expenditure. eg there wont be a fee for every single opinion sought. I missed the earlier discussions on this topic hence I do apologise if this has already be discussed. Thanks Warm regards Karel Douglas On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 8:32 PM, avri doria <avri@apc.org> wrote:
Hi,
I am sorry you are tired of the conversation as I intend to say someting on the topic.
Having a default means that extra energy and argument is needed to prove why you are not using the default when you decide that the default just won't do. It means not having to argue strongly about why we do not want to rely on Staff for some particular issue. And those conversations are rarely helpful to solving an issue.
Being able to choose as appropriate, and taking into account the concerns of money, has a lower barrier to doing what needs to be done. And we don't have to insult anyone in the process.
I am not on the legal committee, nor do I want to be, but I want them to be free to choose the right legal support without the limitations that having a default brings.
avri
On 15-Jul-16 16:18, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I presume that the inten of having a "default" was that it was what we should use if there were not need for external counsel.
I am tired of endless discussions which do not change anything. Regardless of which is "default" or exactly what that means, we will have to make a case-by-case choice.
Alan
At 15/07/2016 02:44 PM, Rudolph Daniel wrote:
There would seem to be an issue with "default" is there any substantive difference if we consider independent legal council "default" with the availability of icann inhouse legal services to compliment . That would also suggest the need for fiscal restraint rd
Rudi Daniel /danielcharles consulting < http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/Dan...
/* *
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> > wrote:
Hello,
By default means always considering use of ICANN legal staff first before going independent. I don't think this should require a dialout as I think we all agree that CCWG should have access to independent legal whenever required.
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 15 Jul 2016 19:00, "farzaneh badii" <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> > wrote:
No. Using the independent legal advisers responsibly does not mean that we have to have a default approach.
I wonder what the next steps would be on this issue. Perhaps co-chairs can help us on this ? Are we going to have a call and discuss this and come up with a solution?
On 15 July 2016 at 19:46, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> > wrote:
+1 on ensuring access to independent legal adviser whenever required by CCWG. This would imply referring to internal legal(staff) by default and then call for independent legal advice whenever the group sense there is need for clarification (or when the issues at hand is warranted).
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 15 Jul 2016 13:19, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Agree with Keith.
CCWG must preserve the use of independent legal advisors, but use this responsibly, and with an eye on controlling costs. Ultimately, it is gTLD registrants picking up the bill, and we need to ensure that this work is mindful of their interests.
Thanks—
J.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Date: Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 16:53 To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
Agreed. Access to independent legal advice was never in question.
That said, in the interest of controlling costs, I have no problem seeking input from ICANN’s internal lawyers on issues that are deemed non-contentious or where potential conflicts do not exist.
I am obligated to report that the Registries Stakeholder Group is very, very concerned about the cost of legal fees from WS1 and wants to ensure the CCWG is efficient with its future spending. I know we’re developing cost-control mechanisms for WS2, and I’ve advised my SG accordingly, but this will continue to receive attention from the RySG.
Holly’s question and the response about budgeting vis-à -vis ICANN’s outside counsel was instructive. Any and all outside counsel expenses will require certification.
So, let me reiterate my view…the CCWG must have acccess to independent legal advice. We must ensure costs are controlled and resources are used efficiently. If that means selectively turning to ICANN’s lawyers on occasion, I can and do support that, but not at the expense of our ability to seek independent advice.
Regards, Keith
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 5:34 PM To: Matthew Shears; Greg Shatan; Robin Gross Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
Access to independent legal advice for WS2 issues is fundamental and should be non-negotiable
Use your power, Empowered Community
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172 <tel:202-255-6172>/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" --- Branch Rickey
From:mshears@cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org>
Sent:July 14, 2016 5:26 PM
To:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>
Cc:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject:Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
+ 1 well said Robin.
On 14/07/2016 03:20, Greg Shatan wrote:
Robin,
Agree 100%.
Greg
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote:
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 <mailto: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> >>> <mailto: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 <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',' gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rudi.daniel@gmail.com <mailto: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/Dan... >/ >>> * >>> * >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Vinay Kesari >>> <vinay.kesari@gmail.com <mailto:vinay.kesari@gmail.com> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',' vinay.kesari@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',' mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto: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 <mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',' accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>');> >>> [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',' accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto: 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 <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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',' Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org ');> >>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
');>
>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
');>
>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<mailto: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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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 <http://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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12558 - Release Date: 07/04/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Farzaneh
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:p4t8tZsYRMEtnIUlXqtpL2QarivWIiCQ1uAWlQ043vv01vxVWJDfUZbPtSDBozyxURh8Wbdz4YdXFUpyO0Nz8WxZ5ZJap793kqg7QQbkQ+LX1BU1qyGxTIyBzVPn4nsdkmJgZTVDHksNzyRWon3iI3zeZQoTrU8NaiOmgzJpztPH5l6FxKy5Z+1L1Q/eyTFBlflFuAXl8sdo/cWNX3fT4Q==
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear, I agree with the last mail saying: Amen!! And I do not agree with people who think about the last mail without seeing the history. Just that makes us go into vicious circles. The time make us lose everyone, including me (I am amateur), is very important. Perhaps the thread of the discussions could be better on a wiki .... not on a mailing list. And we all say before, we can see in one place. Kind regards Alberto Soto De: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Karel Douglas Enviado el: viernes, 15 de julio de 2016 10:26 p.m. Para: avri doria <avri@apc.org> CC: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC In respect to the matter of legal costs : What are the suggestions to keep these costs at bay? (1) is there a cap on legal cost based on the budget for this upcoming exercise? (2) If not , can a cap be recommended in terms of the hourly rate payable? (associate vs partner fees) or (3) Is there a standing 'retainer' arrangement in place where there are set legal fees payable every month ( or whatever period ) regardless of the work provided which will control the expenditure. eg there wont be a fee for every single opinion sought. I missed the earlier discussions on this topic hence I do apologise if this has already be discussed. Thanks Warm regards Karel Douglas On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 8:32 PM, avri doria <avri@apc.org <mailto:avri@apc.org> > wrote: Hi, I am sorry you are tired of the conversation as I intend to say someting on the topic. Having a default means that extra energy and argument is needed to prove why you are not using the default when you decide that the default just won't do. It means not having to argue strongly about why we do not want to rely on Staff for some particular issue. And those conversations are rarely helpful to solving an issue. Being able to choose as appropriate, and taking into account the concerns of money, has a lower barrier to doing what needs to be done. And we don't have to insult anyone in the process. I am not on the legal committee, nor do I want to be, but I want them to be free to choose the right legal support without the limitations that having a default brings. avri On 15-Jul-16 16:18, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I presume that the inten of having a "default" was that it was what we should use if there were not need for external counsel.
I am tired of endless discussions which do not change anything. Regardless of which is "default" or exactly what that means, we will have to make a case-by-case choice.
Alan
At 15/07/2016 02:44 PM, Rudolph Daniel wrote:
There would seem to be an issue with "default" is there any substantive difference if we consider independent legal council "default" with the availability of icann inhouse legal services to compliment . That would also suggest the need for fiscal restraint rd
Rudi Daniel /danielcharles consulting <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/Dan...> /* *
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> > > wrote:
Hello,
By default means always considering use of ICANN legal staff first before going independent. I don't think this should require a dialout as I think we all agree that CCWG should have access to independent legal whenever required.
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 15 Jul 2016 19:00, "farzaneh badii" <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> > > wrote:
No. Using the independent legal advisers responsibly does not mean that we have to have a default approach.
I wonder what the next steps would be on this issue. Perhaps co-chairs can help us on this ? Are we going to have a call and discuss this and come up with a solution?
On 15 July 2016 at 19:46, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> > > wrote:
+1 on ensuring access to independent legal adviser whenever required by CCWG. This would imply referring to internal legal(staff) by default and then call for independent legal advice whenever the group sense there is need for clarification (or when the issues at hand is warranted).
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 15 Jul 2016 13:19, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> >> wrote:
Agree with Keith.
CCWG must preserve the use of independent legal advisors, but use this responsibly, and with an eye on controlling costs. Ultimately, it is gTLD registrants picking up the bill, and we need to ensure that this work is mindful of their interests.
Thanks—
J.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >> on behalf of Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> >> Date: Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 16:53 To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> >>, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org> <mailto:mshears@cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org> >>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > >, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> >> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
Agreed. Access to independent legal advice was never in question.
That said, in the interest of controlling costs, I have no problem seeking input from ICANN’s internal lawyers on issues that are deemed non-contentious or where potential conflicts do not exist.
I am obligated to report that the Registries Stakeholder Group is very, very concerned about the cost of legal fees from WS1 and wants to ensure the CCWG is efficient with its future spending. I know we’re developing cost-control mechanisms for WS2, and I’ve advised my SG accordingly, but this will continue to receive attention from the RySG.
Holly’s question and the response about budgeting vis-à -vis ICANN’s outside counsel was instructive. Any and all outside counsel expenses will require certification.
So, let me reiterate my view…the CCWG must have acccess to independent legal advice. We must ensure costs are controlled and resources are used efficiently. If that means selectively turning to ICANN’s lawyers on occasion, I can and do support that, but not at the expense of our ability to seek independent advice.
Regards, Keith
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 5:34 PM To: Matthew Shears; Greg Shatan; Robin Gross Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
Access to independent legal advice for WS2 issues is fundamental and should be non-negotiable
Use your power, Empowered Community
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597> <tel:202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597> >/Direct 202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750> <tel:202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750> >/Fax 202-255-6172 <tel:202-255-6172> <tel:202-255-6172 <tel:202-255-6172> >/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" --- Branch Rickey
From:mshears@cdt.org <mailto:From%3Amshears@cdt.org> <mailto:mshears@cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org> >
Sent:July 14, 2016 5:26 PM
To:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:To%3Agregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >; robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> >
Cc:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:Cc%3Aaccountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >
Subject:Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
+ 1 well said Robin.
On 14/07/2016 03:20, Greg Shatan wrote:
Robin,
Agree 100%.
Greg
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>
<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> >> wrote:
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 <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>
<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto: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> <mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com> >
>>> <mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com> <mailto: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 <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com>
<mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com <mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com> > >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rudi.daniel@gmail.com <mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com>
<mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com <mailto: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/Dan... >/ >>> * >>> * >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Vinay Kesari >>> <vinay.kesari@gmail.com <mailto:vinay.kesari@gmail.com>
<mailto:vinay.kesari@gmail.com <mailto:vinay.kesari@gmail.com> > >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vinay.kesari@gmail.com <mailto:vinay.kesari@gmail.com> <mailto:vinay.kesari@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>
<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> > >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto: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 <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >');> >>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto: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 <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... <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+Accountability...> &iso=20160712T20&p1=1440&ah=2 > >>> >>> >>> *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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >');> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >');> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >');> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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 <http://www.article19.org> <http://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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12558 - Release Date: 07/04/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Farzaneh
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:p4t8tZsYRMEtnIUlXqtpL2QarivWIiCQ1uAWlQ043vv01vxVWJDfUZbPtSDBozyxURh8Wbdz4YdXFUpyO0Nz8WxZ5ZJap793kqg7QQbkQ+LX1BU1qyGxTIyBzVPn4nsdkmJgZTVDHksNzyRWon3iI3zeZQoTrU8NaiOmgzJpztPH5l6FxKy5Z+1L1Q/eyTFBlflFuAXl8sdo/cWNX3fT4Q==
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community --- El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
If there is someone who we have to "convince", then I agree with you 100%. My take is that it will be a decision of the CCWG (or its co-chairs - or some legal committee-type group) and not second-guessed by ICANN staff. Certainly as a chair of a chartering organization, that is what I would advocate. We are imposing financial controls on the CCWG, but my understanding (following a lot of discussion) is that until we are at the stage where we have exceeded our budget (or projecting it) and need to increase the budget, the decisions are internal. Alan At 15/07/2016 08:32 PM, avri doria wrote:
Hi,
I am sorry you are tired of the conversation as I intend to say someting on the topic.
Having a default means that extra energy and argument is needed to prove why you are not using the default when you decide that the default just won't do. It means not having to argue strongly about why we do not want to rely on Staff for some particular issue. And those conversations are rarely helpful to solving an issue.
Being able to choose as appropriate, and taking into account the concerns of money, has a lower barrier to doing what needs to be done. And we don't have to insult anyone in the process.
I am not on the legal committee, nor do I want to be, but I want them to be free to choose the right legal support without the limitations that having a default brings.
avri
On 15-Jul-16 16:18, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I presume that the inten of having a "default" was that it was what we should use if there were not need for external counsel.
I am tired of endless discussions which do not change anything. Regardless of which is "default" or exactly what that means, we will have to make a case-by-case choice.
Alan
At 15/07/2016 02:44 PM, Rudolph Daniel wrote:
There would seem to be an issue with "default" is there any substantive difference if we consider independent legal council "default" with the availability of icann inhouse legal services to compliment . That would also suggest the need for fiscal restraint rd
Rudi Daniel /danielcharles consulting
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/Dan...>
/* *
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> > wrote:
Hello,
By default means always considering use of ICANN legal staff first before going independent. I don't think this should require a dialout as I think we all agree that CCWG should have access to independent legal whenever required.
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 15 Jul 2016 19:00, "farzaneh badii" <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> > wrote:
No. Using the independent legal advisers responsibly does not mean that we have to have a default approach.
I wonder what the next steps would be on this issue. Perhaps co-chairs can help us on this ? Are we going to have a call and discuss this and come up with a solution?
On 15 July 2016 at 19:46, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> > wrote:
+1 on ensuring access to independent legal adviser whenever required by CCWG. This would imply referring to internal legal(staff) by default and then call for independent legal advice whenever the group sense there is need for clarification (or when the issues at hand is warranted).
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 15 Jul 2016 13:19, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Agree with Keith.
CCWG must preserve the use of independent legal advisors, but use this responsibly, and with an eye on controlling costs. Ultimately, it is gTLD registrants picking up the bill, and we need to ensure that this work is mindful of their interests.
Thanks
J.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Date: Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 16:53 To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
Agreed. Access to independent legal advice was never in question.
That said, in the interest of controlling costs, I have no problem seeking input from ICANNâs internal lawyers on issues that are deemed non-contentious or where potential conflicts do not exist.
I am obligated to report that the Registries Stakeholder Group is very, very concerned about the cost of legal fees from WS1 and wants to ensure the CCWG is efficient with its future spending. I know weâre developing cost-control mechanisms for WS2, and Iâve advised my SG accordingly, but this will continue to receive attention from the RySG.
Hollyâs question and the response about budgeting vis-Ã -vis ICANNâs outside counsel was instructive. Any and all outside counsel expenses will require certification.
So, let me reiterate my view the CCWG must have acccess to independent legal advice. We must ensure costs are controlled and resources are used efficiently. If that means selectively turning to ICANNâs lawyers on occasion, I can and do support that, but not at the expense of our ability to seek independent advice.
Regards, Keith
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 5:34 PM To: Matthew Shears; Greg Shatan; Robin Gross Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
Access to independent legal advice for WS2 issues is fundamental and should be non-negotiable
Use your power, Empowered Community
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172 <tel:202-255-6172>/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" --- Branch Rickey
From:mshears@cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org>
Sent:July 14, 2016 5:26 PM
To:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>
Cc:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject:Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
+ 1 well said Robin.
On 14/07/2016 03:20, Greg Shatan wrote:
Robin,
Agree 100%.
Greg
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote:
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 yesterdayâs calls, that ICANNâs legal dept fees will be added to the CCWGâs independent fees, so CCWG will be billed for the in-house efforts to resist our reforms (and we wonât 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 CCWGâs 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 groupâs 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 <mailto: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> >>> <mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>> <mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>>> wrote: >>> >>> Greg, >>> >>> âHow 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?â 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 <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto: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 >>> âsâ >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 <mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rudi.daniel@gmail.com <mailto: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 >>>
>>> * >>> * >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Vinay Kesari >>> <vinay.kesari@gmail.com <mailto:vinay.kesari@gmail.com> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vinay.kesari@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto: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
<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>
>>>
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>');>
>>>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>
>>>
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
<mailto: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>> <https://community.icann.org/x/FyOOAw>> Tuesday,
>>> 12 July @ 20:00 22:00 UTC. Time zone converter >>> here >>>
>>> >>> >>> *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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>');> >>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>');> >>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>');> >>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<mailto: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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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 <http://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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12558 - Release Date: 07/04/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Farzaneh
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:p4t8tZsYRMEtnIUlXqtpL2QarivWIiCQ1uAWlQ043vv01vxVWJDfUZbPtSDBozyxURh8Wbdz4YdXFUpyO0Nz8WxZ5ZJap793kqg7QQbkQ+LX1BU1qyGxTIyBzVPn4nsdkmJgZTVDHksNzyRWon3iI3zeZQoTrU8NaiOmgzJpztPH5l6FxKy5Z+1L1Q/eyTFBlflFuAXl8sdo/cWNX3fT4Q==
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Alberto Soto -
avri doria -
Karel Douglas