Legal sub-team update
Dear all, Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts. Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list. The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly. Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts. A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam>for full reference. Thanks Best regards León --- Scope of work Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate. Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/> All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. Information should flow freely between law firms. Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. The mailing-list remains open to any observers. Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam> Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. All requests will be archived in the public wiki space.
Am I missing something here? When was this discussed, read twice and agreed upon? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Mar 25, 2015, at 22:57, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts.
Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list.
The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly.
Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts.
A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page for full reference. Thanks Best regards León ---
Scope of work Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate. Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies
COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. Information should flow freely between law firms. Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. The mailing-list remains open to any observers. Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. All requests will be archived in the public wiki space. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Eberhard, This was discussed and agreed upon in the legal team update session we had in our morning meeting on day 2 of our Istanbul meeting and then on a later call of the legal sub-team that same day. Best regards, León
El 25/03/2015, a las 23:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Am I missing something here?
When was this discussed, read twice and agreed upon?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Mar 25, 2015, at 22:57, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Dear all,
Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts.
Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list.
The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly.
Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts.
A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam>for full reference. Thanks Best regards León ---
Scope of work Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate. Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies
COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/> All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. Information should flow freely between law firms. Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. The mailing-list remains open to any observers. Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam> Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. All requests will be archived in the public wiki space. _______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
This approach may look sound on the inside but there are two clearly very unusual aspects to it: 1. A small group of people have decided that they should step outside accepted norms in the IANA transition process and been given control of a critical process. They have implemented it immediately, and are judging the validity of their decision by how much they themselves agree with it 2. One of that small group appears to be ICANN's senior counsel. Something that is transparently a conflict of interest given that the entire process is supposed to be about gaining legal advice independent of ICANN Not only were these decisions made within the group and in a very short period of time with no effort to seek outside approval or input but the group hasn't even put together a reasoned explanation for why it has taken this approach. Even if you are one of the people that have allowed themselves inside this process, surely you can see that this is a terrible precedent for no good reason. So I would ask: * Why? Was there any evidence that this approach was actually needed? Or was it an assumed pre-emptive reduction in transparency and accountability? How long was the actual discussion? * What is the explanation/justification for having a member of ICANN's legal team on a committee that is specifically set up to gather legal advice independent from ICANN? How is this conflict of interest explained away? Kieren On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
This was discussed and agreed upon in the legal team update session we had in our morning meeting on day 2 of our Istanbul meeting and then on a later call of the legal sub-team that same day.
Best regards,
León
El 25/03/2015, a las 23:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Am I missing something here?
When was this discussed, read twice and agreed upon?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Mar 25, 2015, at 22:57, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts.
Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list.
The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly.
Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts.
A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam>for full reference. Thanks Best regards León ---
*Scope of work*
- Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. - Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate.
*Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies*
COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION
- All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ - All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. - Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. - Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. - Information should flow freely between law firms. - Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. - A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. - The mailing-list remains open to any observers. - Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam - Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space.
REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE
- No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. - Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. - During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. - Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. - Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. - Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. - All requests will be archived in the public wiki space.
_______________________________________________ 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
To confirm, it is my understanding that I do not have posting rights to the sub team list either. From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com<mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:38 PM To: León Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update This approach may look sound on the inside but there are two clearly very unusual aspects to it: 1. A small group of people have decided that they should step outside accepted norms in the IANA transition process and been given control of a critical process. They have implemented it immediately, and are judging the validity of their decision by how much they themselves agree with it 2. One of that small group appears to be ICANN's senior counsel. Something that is transparently a conflict of interest given that the entire process is supposed to be about gaining legal advice independent of ICANN Not only were these decisions made within the group and in a very short period of time with no effort to seek outside approval or input but the group hasn't even put together a reasoned explanation for why it has taken this approach. Even if you are one of the people that have allowed themselves inside this process, surely you can see that this is a terrible precedent for no good reason. So I would ask: * Why? Was there any evidence that this approach was actually needed? Or was it an assumed pre-emptive reduction in transparency and accountability? How long was the actual discussion? * What is the explanation/justification for having a member of ICANN's legal team on a committee that is specifically set up to gather legal advice independent from ICANN? How is this conflict of interest explained away? Kieren On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Dear Eberhard, This was discussed and agreed upon in the legal team update session we had in our morning meeting on day 2 of our Istanbul meeting and then on a later call of the legal sub-team that same day. Best regards, León El 25/03/2015, a las 23:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> escribió: Am I missing something here? When was this discussed, read twice and agreed upon? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Mar 25, 2015, at 22:57, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Dear all, Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts. Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list. The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly. Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts. A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam> for full reference. Thanks Best regards León --- Scope of work * Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. * Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate. Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION * All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ * All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. * Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. * Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. * Information should flow freely between law firms. * Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. * A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. * The mailing-list remains open to any observers. * Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam * Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE * No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. * Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. * During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. * Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. * Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. * Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. * All requests will be archived in the public wiki space. _______________________________________________ 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
I agree with Kieren and find it highly problematic that a small sub-group is the sole liaison point on independent legal advice. Would respectfully request the chairs to reconsider this decision. Best Arun Sent from my iPhone @arunmsukumar Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance National Law University, Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com Ph:+91-9871943272
On 26-Mar-2015, at 5:21 am, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> wrote:
To confirm, it is my understanding that I do not have posting rights to the sub team list either.
From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:38 PM To: León Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update
This approach may look sound on the inside but there are two clearly very unusual aspects to it:
1. A small group of people have decided that they should step outside accepted norms in the IANA transition process and been given control of a critical process. They have implemented it immediately, and are judging the validity of their decision by how much they themselves agree with it
2. One of that small group appears to be ICANN's senior counsel. Something that is transparently a conflict of interest given that the entire process is supposed to be about gaining legal advice independent of ICANN
Not only were these decisions made within the group and in a very short period of time with no effort to seek outside approval or input but the group hasn't even put together a reasoned explanation for why it has taken this approach.
Even if you are one of the people that have allowed themselves inside this process, surely you can see that this is a terrible precedent for no good reason.
So I would ask:
* Why? Was there any evidence that this approach was actually needed? Or was it an assumed pre-emptive reduction in transparency and accountability? How long was the actual discussion?
* What is the explanation/justification for having a member of ICANN's legal team on a committee that is specifically set up to gather legal advice independent from ICANN? How is this conflict of interest explained away?
Kieren
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote: Dear Eberhard,
This was discussed and agreed upon in the legal team update session we had in our morning meeting on day 2 of our Istanbul meeting and then on a later call of the legal sub-team that same day.
Best regards,
León
El 25/03/2015, a las 23:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Am I missing something here?
When was this discussed, read twice and agreed upon?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Mar 25, 2015, at 22:57, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts.
Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list.
The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly.
Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts.
A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page for full reference. Thanks Best regards León ---
Scope of work Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate. Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies
COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. Information should flow freely between law firms. Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. The mailing-list remains open to any observers. Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. All requests will be archived in the public wiki space. _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Arun, Thanks for your message. The team role would be to pass along messages to the law firms and follow up on them in order to make it easier to handle the communications between the law firms and the larger CCWG. This, of course, does not mean that no other members or participants of the wider CCWG would be able to raise questions and request further information or clarifications to any question raised. I hope this helps clarify the team’s role. Best regards, León
El 26/03/2015, a las 4:10, Arun Sukumar <arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in> escribió:
I agree with Kieren and find it highly problematic that a small sub-group is the sole liaison point on independent legal advice. Would respectfully request the chairs to reconsider this decision.
Best Arun
Sent from my iPhone
@arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org/> National Law University, Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com <http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> Ph:+91-9871943272 <tel:+91-9871943272>
On 26-Mar-2015, at 5:21 am, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> wrote:
To confirm, it is my understanding that I do not have posting rights to the sub team list either.
From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com <mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:38 PM To: León Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update
This approach may look sound on the inside but there are two clearly very unusual aspects to it:
1. A small group of people have decided that they should step outside accepted norms in the IANA transition process and been given control of a critical process. They have implemented it immediately, and are judging the validity of their decision by how much they themselves agree with it
2. One of that small group appears to be ICANN's senior counsel. Something that is transparently a conflict of interest given that the entire process is supposed to be about gaining legal advice independent of ICANN
Not only were these decisions made within the group and in a very short period of time with no effort to seek outside approval or input but the group hasn't even put together a reasoned explanation for why it has taken this approach.
Even if you are one of the people that have allowed themselves inside this process, surely you can see that this is a terrible precedent for no good reason.
So I would ask:
* Why? Was there any evidence that this approach was actually needed? Or was it an assumed pre-emptive reduction in transparency and accountability? How long was the actual discussion?
* What is the explanation/justification for having a member of ICANN's legal team on a committee that is specifically set up to gather legal advice independent from ICANN? How is this conflict of interest explained away?
Kieren
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Dear Eberhard,
This was discussed and agreed upon in the legal team update session we had in our morning meeting on day 2 of our Istanbul meeting and then on a later call of the legal sub-team that same day.
Best regards,
León
El 25/03/2015, a las 23:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> escribió:
Am I missing something here?
When was this discussed, read twice and agreed upon?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Mar 25, 2015, at 22:57, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Dear all,
Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts.
Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list.
The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly.
Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts.
A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam>for full reference. Thanks Best regards León ---
Scope of work Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate. Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies
COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/> All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. Information should flow freely between law firms. Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. The mailing-list remains open to any observers. Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam> Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. All requests will be archived in the public wiki space. _______________________________________________ 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 <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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
So I'll be honest - what I read is a single justification to have a closed sub-group that is directly contradicted by your own words moments earlier. Sole justification: "As I said, this is an open, and will remain open for anyone that wants to participate, but we need to of course face the fact that having a conversation between 160 persons and a law firm might not be the more practical approach." But moments earlier you state that you'd never had more than seven people on a call. So you are stating a future possibility that is not based on current realities. And then limiting the process' accountability and transparent norms based on that purely hypothetical situation. Why? I'll also note that the sub group immediately decided to do away with your promise to keep it open "for anyone that wants to participate". So it could be argued that the vote that was taken did not accurately represent was is actually in place. As for authorization: you provided an exceptionally busy group with at most a few minutes to decide on a proposal that you put forward with the strong implication that it needed a positive vote in order to progress. This doesn't meet any kind of standard for good governance. Furthermore I'll note that there was no discussion at all over the clear conflict of interest that exists in having a member of ICANN's legal team as the support for a group whose sole purpose is to provide legal advice independently of ICANN. Please don't take this personally, I have no doubt you are an honorable and hardworking member of the internet community. But this process and the decisions being made don't pass muster on even the most relaxed and generous grounds. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:43 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear Arun, Thanks for your message. The team role would be to pass along messages to the law firms and follow up on them in order to make it easier to handle the communications between the law firms and the larger CCWG. This, of course, does not mean that no other members or participants of the wider CCWG would be able to raise questions and request further information or clarifications to any question raised. I hope this helps clarify the team’s role. Best regards, León
El 26/03/2015, a las 4:10, Arun Sukumar <arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in> escribió:
I agree with Kieren and find it highly problematic that a small sub-group is the sole liaison point on independent legal advice. Would respectfully request the chairs to reconsider this decision.
Best Arun
Sent from my iPhone
@arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org/> National Law University, Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com <http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> Ph:+91-9871943272 <tel:+91-9871943272>
On 26-Mar-2015, at 5:21 am, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> wrote:
To confirm, it is my understanding that I do not have posting rights to the sub team list either.
From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com <mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:38 PM To: León Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update
This approach may look sound on the inside but there are two clearly very unusual aspects to it:
1. A small group of people have decided that they should step outside accepted norms in the IANA transition process and been given control of a critical process. They have implemented it immediately, and are judging the validity of their decision by how much they themselves agree with it
2. One of that small group appears to be ICANN's senior counsel. Something that is transparently a conflict of interest given that the entire process is supposed to be about gaining legal advice independent of ICANN
Not only were these decisions made within the group and in a very short period of time with no effort to seek outside approval or input but the group hasn't even put together a reasoned explanation for why it has taken this approach.
Even if you are one of the people that have allowed themselves inside this process, surely you can see that this is a terrible precedent for no good reason.
So I would ask:
* Why? Was there any evidence that this approach was actually needed? Or was it an assumed pre-emptive reduction in transparency and accountability? How long was the actual discussion?
* What is the explanation/justification for having a member of ICANN's legal team on a committee that is specifically set up to gather legal advice independent from ICANN? How is this conflict of interest explained away?
Kieren
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Dear Eberhard,
This was discussed and agreed upon in the legal team update session we had in our morning meeting on day 2 of our Istanbul meeting and then on a later call of the legal sub-team that same day.
Best regards,
León
El 25/03/2015, a las 23:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> escribió:
Am I missing something here?
When was this discussed, read twice and agreed upon?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Mar 25, 2015, at 22:57, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Dear all,
Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts.
Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list.
The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly.
Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts.
A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam>for full reference. Thanks Best regards León ---
Scope of work Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate. Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies
COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/> All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. Information should flow freely between law firms. Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. The mailing-list remains open to any observers. Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam> Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. All requests will be archived in the public wiki space. _______________________________________________ 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 <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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
Kieren, please read my previous email as being in full agreement with your rationale. Leon, we need to "read" this again on our next call, which would be next Tuesday, what time? Please advise ASAP, so Kieren can see whether he can make the time to join :-)-O el PS: I might even be interested in lurking on the legal sub-team list, eminently qualified as I am being a Gynaecologist :-)-O On 2015-03-26 09:10, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
So I'll be honest - what I read is a single justification to have a closed sub-group that is directly contradicted by your own words moments earlier.
Sole justification: "As I said, this is an open, and will remain open for anyone that wants to participate, but we need to of course face the fact that having a conversation between 160 persons and a law firm might not be the more practical approach."
But moments earlier you state that you'd never had more than seven people on a call. So you are stating a future possibility that is not based on current realities. And then limiting the process' accountability and transparent norms based on that purely hypothetical situation. Why?
I'll also note that the sub group immediately decided to do away with your promise to keep it open "for anyone that wants to participate". So it could be argued that the vote that was taken did not accurately represent was is actually in place.
As for authorization: you provided an exceptionally busy group with at most a few minutes to decide on a proposal that you put forward with the strong implication that it needed a positive vote in order to progress.
This doesn't meet any kind of standard for good governance.
Furthermore I'll note that there was no discussion at all over the clear conflict of interest that exists in having a member of ICANN's legal team as the support for a group whose sole purpose is to provide legal advice independently of ICANN.
Please don't take this personally, I have no doubt you are an honorable and hardworking member of the internet community. But this process and the decisions being made don't pass muster on even the most relaxed and generous grounds.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:43 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Dear Arun,
Thanks for your message. The team role would be to pass along messages to the law firms and follow up on them in order to make it easier to handle the communications between the law firms and the larger CCWG.
This, of course, does not mean that no other members or participants of the wider CCWG would be able to raise questions and request further information or clarifications to any question raised.
I hope this helps clarify the team’s role.
Best regards, [...]
Dear Eberhard, Thank you for pointing out the second read. You are right. This needs a second read in our next call. I apologize for the unintended mistake and will be happy to include it as an agenda item for our next call. I do like the idea of having Kieren in the team. Best regards, León
El 26/03/2015, a las 9:22, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <directors@omadhina.net> escribió:
Kieren,
please read my previous email as being in full agreement with your rationale.
Leon,
we need to "read" this again on our next call, which would be next Tuesday, what time? Please advise ASAP, so Kieren can see whether he can make the time to join :-)-O
el
PS: I might even be interested in lurking on the legal sub-team list, eminently qualified as I am being a Gynaecologist :-)-O
On 2015-03-26 09:10, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
So I'll be honest - what I read is a single justification to have a closed sub-group that is directly contradicted by your own words moments earlier.
Sole justification: "As I said, this is an open, and will remain open for anyone that wants to participate, but we need to of course face the fact that having a conversation between 160 persons and a law firm might not be the more practical approach."
But moments earlier you state that you'd never had more than seven people on a call. So you are stating a future possibility that is not based on current realities. And then limiting the process' accountability and transparent norms based on that purely hypothetical situation. Why?
I'll also note that the sub group immediately decided to do away with your promise to keep it open "for anyone that wants to participate". So it could be argued that the vote that was taken did not accurately represent was is actually in place.
As for authorization: you provided an exceptionally busy group with at most a few minutes to decide on a proposal that you put forward with the strong implication that it needed a positive vote in order to progress.
This doesn't meet any kind of standard for good governance.
Furthermore I'll note that there was no discussion at all over the clear conflict of interest that exists in having a member of ICANN's legal team as the support for a group whose sole purpose is to provide legal advice independently of ICANN.
Please don't take this personally, I have no doubt you are an honorable and hardworking member of the internet community. But this process and the decisions being made don't pass muster on even the most relaxed and generous grounds.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:43 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Dear Arun,
Thanks for your message. The team role would be to pass along messages to the law firms and follow up on them in order to make it easier to handle the communications between the law firms and the larger CCWG.
This, of course, does not mean that no other members or participants of the wider CCWG would be able to raise questions and request further information or clarifications to any question raised.
I hope this helps clarify the team’s role.
Best regards, [...]
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thank you, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Mar 26, 2015, at 10:20, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
Thank you for pointing out the second read. You are right. This needs a second read in our next call.
I apologize for the unintended mistake and will be happy to include it as an agenda item for our next call.
I do like the idea of having Kieren in the team.
Best regards,
León
El 26/03/2015, a las 9:22, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <directors@omadhina.net> escribió:
Kieren,
please read my previous email as being in full agreement with your rationale.
Leon,
we need to "read" this again on our next call, which would be next Tuesday, what time? Please advise ASAP, so Kieren can see whether he can make the time to join :-)-O
el
PS: I might even be interested in lurking on the legal sub-team list, eminently qualified as I am being a Gynaecologist :-)-O
On 2015-03-26 09:10, Kieren McCarthy wrote: So I'll be honest - what I read is a single justification to have a closed sub-group that is directly contradicted by your own words moments earlier.
Sole justification: "As I said, this is an open, and will remain open for anyone that wants to participate, but we need to of course face the fact that having a conversation between 160 persons and a law firm might not be the more practical approach."
But moments earlier you state that you'd never had more than seven people on a call. So you are stating a future possibility that is not based on current realities. And then limiting the process' accountability and transparent norms based on that purely hypothetical situation. Why?
I'll also note that the sub group immediately decided to do away with your promise to keep it open "for anyone that wants to participate". So it could be argued that the vote that was taken did not accurately represent was is actually in place.
As for authorization: you provided an exceptionally busy group with at most a few minutes to decide on a proposal that you put forward with the strong implication that it needed a positive vote in order to progress.
This doesn't meet any kind of standard for good governance.
Furthermore I'll note that there was no discussion at all over the clear conflict of interest that exists in having a member of ICANN's legal team as the support for a group whose sole purpose is to provide legal advice independently of ICANN.
Please don't take this personally, I have no doubt you are an honorable and hardworking member of the internet community. But this process and the decisions being made don't pass muster on even the most relaxed and generous grounds.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:43 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Dear Arun,
Thanks for your message. The team role would be to pass along messages to the law firms and follow up on them in order to make it easier to handle the communications between the law firms and the larger CCWG.
This, of course, does not mean that no other members or participants of the wider CCWG would be able to raise questions and request further information or clarifications to any question raised.
I hope this helps clarify the team’s role.
Best regards, [...]
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Kieren, My replies in line, below. Best regards, León
El 26/03/2015, a las 9:10, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> escribió:
So I'll be honest - what I read is a single justification to have a closed sub-group that is directly contradicted by your own words moments earlier.
I fail to see where the contradiction lies Kieren. I do state that it is and will remain an open group for anyone wanting to participate. The fact that we, so far, haven’t held a call attended by more than 7 persons is a mere fact that does not itself, from my view, contradicts the intention of having the group open. However open, participation relies on the will of those part of the group. If they are unable or do not wish to attend the calls, that is something that’s not related to the openness of the group itself so this is why I fail to see the contradiction.
Sole justification: "As I said, this is an open, and will remain open for anyone that wants to participate, but we need to of course face the fact that having a conversation between 160 persons and a law firm might not be the more practical approach.”
But moments earlier you state that you'd never had more than seven people on a call. So you are stating a future possibility that is not based on current realities. And then limiting the process' accountability and transparent norms based on that purely hypothetical situation. Why?
As I said earlier, the current situation is we haven’t had a call in which more than 7 people show up although invitations have been sent to all participants in the Legal Sub-team. Attendance and interaction depends on each individual. We remain open but can’t force people to actively engage.
I'll also note that the sub group immediately decided to do away with your promise to keep it open "for anyone that wants to participate". So it could be argued that the vote that was taken did not accurately represent was is actually in place.
It wasn’t decided that we did away of our promise. The group remains open.
As for authorization: you provided an exceptionally busy group with at most a few minutes to decide on a proposal that you put forward with the strong implication that it needed a positive vote in order to progress.
This is something that has been pointed by Eberhard and acknowledge by me. The item will be included for 2nd reading in our next call. I hereby invite you to formally participate in the group. Your views would be most helpful.
This doesn't meet any kind of standard for good governance.
Furthermore I'll note that there was no discussion at all over the clear conflict of interest that exists in having a member of ICANN's legal team as the support for a group whose sole purpose is to provide legal advice independently of ICANN.
I fail to see the conflict of interest on having a member of ICANN’s staff to provide administrative support to the team. As long as that person remains in it’s role of providing said support, I would think there is not such conflict of interest. We might have different views and I respect that.
Please don't take this personally, I have no doubt you are an honorable and hardworking member of the internet community. But this process and the decisions being made don't pass muster on even the most relaxed and generous grounds.
Thanks Kieren. I do not take this personal. On the contrary, I am grateful for your views which provide me with a chance to improve the work I am trying to carry out in this team in order to better serve the wider community. So your points are helpful indeed. I appreciate your personal views on me.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:43 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Dear Arun,
Thanks for your message. The team role would be to pass along messages to the law firms and follow up on them in order to make it easier to handle the communications between the law firms and the larger CCWG.
This, of course, does not mean that no other members or participants of the wider CCWG would be able to raise questions and request further information or clarifications to any question raised.
I hope this helps clarify the team’s role.
Best regards,
León
El 26/03/2015, a las 4:10, Arun Sukumar <arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in <mailto:arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in>> escribió:
I agree with Kieren and find it highly problematic that a small sub-group is the sole liaison point on independent legal advice. Would respectfully request the chairs to reconsider this decision.
Best Arun
Sent from my iPhone
@arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org/> National Law University, Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com <http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> Ph:+91-9871943272 <tel:+91-9871943272>
On 26-Mar-2015, at 5:21 am, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> wrote:
To confirm, it is my understanding that I do not have posting rights to the sub team list either.
From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com <mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:38 PM To: León Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update
This approach may look sound on the inside but there are two clearly very unusual aspects to it:
1. A small group of people have decided that they should step outside accepted norms in the IANA transition process and been given control of a critical process. They have implemented it immediately, and are judging the validity of their decision by how much they themselves agree with it
2. One of that small group appears to be ICANN's senior counsel. Something that is transparently a conflict of interest given that the entire process is supposed to be about gaining legal advice independent of ICANN
Not only were these decisions made within the group and in a very short period of time with no effort to seek outside approval or input but the group hasn't even put together a reasoned explanation for why it has taken this approach.
Even if you are one of the people that have allowed themselves inside this process, surely you can see that this is a terrible precedent for no good reason.
So I would ask:
* Why? Was there any evidence that this approach was actually needed? Or was it an assumed pre-emptive reduction in transparency and accountability? How long was the actual discussion?
* What is the explanation/justification for having a member of ICANN's legal team on a committee that is specifically set up to gather legal advice independent from ICANN? How is this conflict of interest explained away?
Kieren
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Dear Eberhard,
This was discussed and agreed upon in the legal team update session we had in our morning meeting on day 2 of our Istanbul meeting and then on a later call of the legal sub-team that same day.
Best regards,
León
El 25/03/2015, a las 23:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> escribió:
Am I missing something here?
When was this discussed, read twice and agreed upon?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Mar 25, 2015, at 22:57, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Dear all,
Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts.
Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list.
The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly.
Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts.
A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam>for full reference. Thanks Best regards León ---
Scope of work Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate. Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies
COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/> All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. Information should flow freely between law firms. Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. The mailing-list remains open to any observers. Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam> Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. All requests will be archived in the public wiki space. _______________________________________________ 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 <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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
Dear Samantha, That should be correct. I hereby ask Staff to confirm that you DO NOT have posting privileges to the legal sub-team list. Best regards, León
El 26/03/2015, a las 1:51, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> escribió:
To confirm, it is my understanding that I do not have posting rights to the sub team list either.
From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com <mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:38 PM To: León Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update
This approach may look sound on the inside but there are two clearly very unusual aspects to it:
1. A small group of people have decided that they should step outside accepted norms in the IANA transition process and been given control of a critical process. They have implemented it immediately, and are judging the validity of their decision by how much they themselves agree with it
2. One of that small group appears to be ICANN's senior counsel. Something that is transparently a conflict of interest given that the entire process is supposed to be about gaining legal advice independent of ICANN
Not only were these decisions made within the group and in a very short period of time with no effort to seek outside approval or input but the group hasn't even put together a reasoned explanation for why it has taken this approach.
Even if you are one of the people that have allowed themselves inside this process, surely you can see that this is a terrible precedent for no good reason.
So I would ask:
* Why? Was there any evidence that this approach was actually needed? Or was it an assumed pre-emptive reduction in transparency and accountability? How long was the actual discussion?
* What is the explanation/justification for having a member of ICANN's legal team on a committee that is specifically set up to gather legal advice independent from ICANN? How is this conflict of interest explained away?
Kieren
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
This was discussed and agreed upon in the legal team update session we had in our morning meeting on day 2 of our Istanbul meeting and then on a later call of the legal sub-team that same day.
Best regards,
León
El 25/03/2015, a las 23:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> escribió:
Am I missing something here?
When was this discussed, read twice and agreed upon?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Mar 25, 2015, at 22:57, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Dear all,
Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts.
Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list.
The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly.
Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts.
A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam>for full reference. Thanks Best regards León ---
Scope of work Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate. Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies
COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/> All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. Information should flow freely between law firms. Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. The mailing-list remains open to any observers. Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam> Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. All requests will be archived in the public wiki space. _______________________________________________ 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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
Dear León, This is to confirm that Samantha Eisner has no posting rights. Best regards Alice From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 6:31 AM To: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com<mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com>> Subject: Re: [Acct-Staff] [CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update Dear Samantha, That should be correct. I hereby ask Staff to confirm that you DO NOT have posting privileges to the legal sub-team list. Best regards, León El 26/03/2015, a las 1:51, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> escribió: To confirm, it is my understanding that I do not have posting rights to the sub team list either. From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com<mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:38 PM To: León Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update This approach may look sound on the inside but there are two clearly very unusual aspects to it: 1. A small group of people have decided that they should step outside accepted norms in the IANA transition process and been given control of a critical process. They have implemented it immediately, and are judging the validity of their decision by how much they themselves agree with it 2. One of that small group appears to be ICANN's senior counsel. Something that is transparently a conflict of interest given that the entire process is supposed to be about gaining legal advice independent of ICANN Not only were these decisions made within the group and in a very short period of time with no effort to seek outside approval or input but the group hasn't even put together a reasoned explanation for why it has taken this approach. Even if you are one of the people that have allowed themselves inside this process, surely you can see that this is a terrible precedent for no good reason. So I would ask: * Why? Was there any evidence that this approach was actually needed? Or was it an assumed pre-emptive reduction in transparency and accountability? How long was the actual discussion? * What is the explanation/justification for having a member of ICANN's legal team on a committee that is specifically set up to gather legal advice independent from ICANN? How is this conflict of interest explained away? Kieren On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Dear Eberhard, This was discussed and agreed upon in the legal team update session we had in our morning meeting on day 2 of our Istanbul meeting and then on a later call of the legal sub-team that same day. Best regards, León El 25/03/2015, a las 23:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> escribió: Am I missing something here? When was this discussed, read twice and agreed upon? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Mar 25, 2015, at 22:57, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Dear all, Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts. Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list. The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly. Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts. A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam> for full reference. Thanks Best regards León --- Scope of work * Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. * Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate. Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION * All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ * All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. * Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. * Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. * Information should flow freely between law firms. * Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. * A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. * The mailing-list remains open to any observers. * Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam * Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE * No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. * Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. * During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. * Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. * Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. * Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. * All requests will be archived in the public wiki space. _______________________________________________ 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
7 people deciding policy affecting billions around the world one would expect contributions from persons on other committees would be welcomed. Moreso considering failure to engage more 'volunteers' and volunteer burnout. Carrie Devorah Www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:09 AM, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> wrote:
Dear León, This is to confirm that Samantha Eisner has no posting rights. Best regards Alice
From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 6:31 AM To: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> Subject: Re: [Acct-Staff] [CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update
Dear Samantha,
That should be correct. I hereby ask Staff to confirm that you DO NOT have posting privileges to the legal sub-team list.
Best regards,
León
El 26/03/2015, a las 1:51, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> escribió:
To confirm, it is my understanding that I do not have posting rights to the sub team list either.
From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:38 PM To: León Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update
This approach may look sound on the inside but there are two clearly very unusual aspects to it:
1. A small group of people have decided that they should step outside accepted norms in the IANA transition process and been given control of a critical process. They have implemented it immediately, and are judging the validity of their decision by how much they themselves agree with it
2. One of that small group appears to be ICANN's senior counsel. Something that is transparently a conflict of interest given that the entire process is supposed to be about gaining legal advice independent of ICANN
Not only were these decisions made within the group and in a very short period of time with no effort to seek outside approval or input but the group hasn't even put together a reasoned explanation for why it has taken this approach.
Even if you are one of the people that have allowed themselves inside this process, surely you can see that this is a terrible precedent for no good reason.
So I would ask:
* Why? Was there any evidence that this approach was actually needed? Or was it an assumed pre-emptive reduction in transparency and accountability? How long was the actual discussion?
* What is the explanation/justification for having a member of ICANN's legal team on a committee that is specifically set up to gather legal advice independent from ICANN? How is this conflict of interest explained away?
Kieren
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote: Dear Eberhard,
This was discussed and agreed upon in the legal team update session we had in our morning meeting on day 2 of our Istanbul meeting and then on a later call of the legal sub-team that same day.
Best regards,
León
El 25/03/2015, a las 23:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Am I missing something here?
When was this discussed, read twice and agreed upon?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Mar 25, 2015, at 22:57, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts.
Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list.
The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly.
Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts.
A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page for full reference. Thanks Best regards León ---
Scope of work Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate. Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies
COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. Information should flow freely between law firms. Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. The mailing-list remains open to any observers. Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. All requests will be archived in the public wiki space. _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Carrie, I think that is not the appropriate way to view this....the way i understood the role of the group is that its similar to the CWG-legal committee where all they do is transmit the questions of the ccwg to the legal firm and vice verse. There is definitely not going to be any decision making at their level except those related to their meeting administration ofcourse). I think its a tidy and effective way to interact with an external firm that is not directly involved in this process. Regards On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Carrie <carriedev@gmail.com> wrote:
7 people deciding policy affecting billions around the world one would expect contributions from persons on other committees would be welcomed. Moreso considering failure to engage more 'volunteers' and volunteer burnout.
Carrie Devorah Www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:09 AM, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> wrote:
Dear León, This is to confirm that Samantha Eisner has no posting rights. Best regards Alice
From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 6:31 AM To: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>, CCWG Accountability < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Lisse Eberhard < directors@omadhina.net>, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> Subject: Re: [Acct-Staff] [CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update
Dear Samantha,
That should be correct. I hereby ask Staff to confirm that you DO NOT have posting privileges to the legal sub-team list.
Best regards,
León
El 26/03/2015, a las 1:51, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> escribió:
To confirm, it is my understanding that I do not have posting rights to the sub team list either.
From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:38 PM To: León Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>, CCWG Accountability < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Lisse Eberhard < directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update
This approach may look sound on the inside but there are two clearly very unusual aspects to it:
1. A small group of people have decided that they should step outside accepted norms in the IANA transition process and been given control of a critical process. They have implemented it immediately, and are judging the validity of their decision by how much they themselves agree with it
2. One of that small group appears to be ICANN's senior counsel. Something that is transparently a conflict of interest given that the entire process is supposed to be about gaining legal advice independent of ICANN
Not only were these decisions made within the group and in a very short period of time with no effort to seek outside approval or input but the group hasn't even put together a reasoned explanation for why it has taken this approach.
Even if you are one of the people that have allowed themselves inside this process, surely you can see that this is a terrible precedent for no good reason.
So I would ask:
* Why? Was there any evidence that this approach was actually needed? Or was it an assumed pre-emptive reduction in transparency and accountability? How long was the actual discussion?
* What is the explanation/justification for having a member of ICANN's legal team on a committee that is specifically set up to gather legal advice independent from ICANN? How is this conflict of interest explained away?
Kieren
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
This was discussed and agreed upon in the legal team update session we had in our morning meeting on day 2 of our Istanbul meeting and then on a later call of the legal sub-team that same day.
Best regards,
León
El 25/03/2015, a las 23:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Am I missing something here?
When was this discussed, read twice and agreed upon?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Mar 25, 2015, at 22:57, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts.
Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list.
The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly.
Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts.
A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam>for full reference. Thanks Best regards León ---
*Scope of work*
- Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. - Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate.
*Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies*
COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION
- All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ - All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. - Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. - Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. - Information should flow freely between law firms. - Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. - A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. - The mailing-list remains open to any observers. - Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam - Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space.
REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE
- No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. - Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. - During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. - Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. - Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. - Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. - All requests will be archived in the public wiki space.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Thank you, Seun. That is exactly correct. The Legal Subteam is a conduit for information. Any decisions will be made by the full CCWG. Further, I anticipate that any significant legal advice will be transmitted directly to the CCWG by the law firms, and will not be "filtered' by the Legal Subteam. Greg On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Carrie,
I think that is not the appropriate way to view this....the way i understood the role of the group is that its similar to the CWG-legal committee where all they do is transmit the questions of the ccwg to the legal firm and vice verse. There is definitely not going to be any decision making at their level except those related to their meeting administration ofcourse).
I think its a tidy and effective way to interact with an external firm that is not directly involved in this process.
Regards
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Carrie <carriedev@gmail.com> wrote:
7 people deciding policy affecting billions around the world one would expect contributions from persons on other committees would be welcomed. Moreso considering failure to engage more 'volunteers' and volunteer burnout.
Carrie Devorah Www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:09 AM, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> wrote:
Dear León, This is to confirm that Samantha Eisner has no posting rights. Best regards Alice
From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 6:31 AM To: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>, CCWG Accountability < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Lisse Eberhard < directors@omadhina.net>, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> Subject: Re: [Acct-Staff] [CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update
Dear Samantha,
That should be correct. I hereby ask Staff to confirm that you DO NOT have posting privileges to the legal sub-team list.
Best regards,
León
El 26/03/2015, a las 1:51, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> escribió:
To confirm, it is my understanding that I do not have posting rights to the sub team list either.
From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:38 PM To: León Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>, CCWG Accountability < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Lisse Eberhard < directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update
This approach may look sound on the inside but there are two clearly very unusual aspects to it:
1. A small group of people have decided that they should step outside accepted norms in the IANA transition process and been given control of a critical process. They have implemented it immediately, and are judging the validity of their decision by how much they themselves agree with it
2. One of that small group appears to be ICANN's senior counsel. Something that is transparently a conflict of interest given that the entire process is supposed to be about gaining legal advice independent of ICANN
Not only were these decisions made within the group and in a very short period of time with no effort to seek outside approval or input but the group hasn't even put together a reasoned explanation for why it has taken this approach.
Even if you are one of the people that have allowed themselves inside this process, surely you can see that this is a terrible precedent for no good reason.
So I would ask:
* Why? Was there any evidence that this approach was actually needed? Or was it an assumed pre-emptive reduction in transparency and accountability? How long was the actual discussion?
* What is the explanation/justification for having a member of ICANN's legal team on a committee that is specifically set up to gather legal advice independent from ICANN? How is this conflict of interest explained away?
Kieren
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
This was discussed and agreed upon in the legal team update session we had in our morning meeting on day 2 of our Istanbul meeting and then on a later call of the legal sub-team that same day.
Best regards,
León
El 25/03/2015, a las 23:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Am I missing something here?
When was this discussed, read twice and agreed upon?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Mar 25, 2015, at 22:57, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts.
Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list.
The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly.
Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts.
A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam>for full reference. Thanks Best regards León ---
*Scope of work*
- Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. - Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate.
*Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies*
COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION
- All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ - All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. - Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. - Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. - Information should flow freely between law firms. - Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. - A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. - The mailing-list remains open to any observers. - Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam - Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space.
REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE
- No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. - Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. - During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. - Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. - Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. - Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. - All requests will be archived in the public wiki space.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
please understand my point is, on the greater, how few people are engaged in this process, impacting how many. I too received bounced back emails with information I contributed. I was glad to read it isnt just me. The refocus is the numbers - 7 people <> 7 billion people Staggering On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you, Seun. That is exactly correct. The Legal Subteam is a conduit for information. Any decisions will be made by the full CCWG. Further, I anticipate that any significant legal advice will be transmitted directly to the CCWG by the law firms, and will not be "filtered' by the Legal Subteam.
Greg
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Carrie,
I think that is not the appropriate way to view this....the way i understood the role of the group is that its similar to the CWG-legal committee where all they do is transmit the questions of the ccwg to the legal firm and vice verse. There is definitely not going to be any decision making at their level except those related to their meeting administration ofcourse).
I think its a tidy and effective way to interact with an external firm that is not directly involved in this process.
Regards
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Carrie <carriedev@gmail.com> wrote:
7 people deciding policy affecting billions around the world one would expect contributions from persons on other committees would be welcomed. Moreso considering failure to engage more 'volunteers' and volunteer burnout.
Carrie Devorah Www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:09 AM, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> wrote:
Dear León, This is to confirm that Samantha Eisner has no posting rights. Best regards Alice
From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 6:31 AM To: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>, CCWG Accountability < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Lisse Eberhard < directors@omadhina.net>, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> Subject: Re: [Acct-Staff] [CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update
Dear Samantha,
That should be correct. I hereby ask Staff to confirm that you DO NOT have posting privileges to the legal sub-team list.
Best regards,
León
El 26/03/2015, a las 1:51, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> escribió:
To confirm, it is my understanding that I do not have posting rights to the sub team list either.
From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:38 PM To: León Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>, CCWG Accountability < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Lisse Eberhard < directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update
This approach may look sound on the inside but there are two clearly very unusual aspects to it:
1. A small group of people have decided that they should step outside accepted norms in the IANA transition process and been given control of a critical process. They have implemented it immediately, and are judging the validity of their decision by how much they themselves agree with it
2. One of that small group appears to be ICANN's senior counsel. Something that is transparently a conflict of interest given that the entire process is supposed to be about gaining legal advice independent of ICANN
Not only were these decisions made within the group and in a very short period of time with no effort to seek outside approval or input but the group hasn't even put together a reasoned explanation for why it has taken this approach.
Even if you are one of the people that have allowed themselves inside this process, surely you can see that this is a terrible precedent for no good reason.
So I would ask:
* Why? Was there any evidence that this approach was actually needed? Or was it an assumed pre-emptive reduction in transparency and accountability? How long was the actual discussion?
* What is the explanation/justification for having a member of ICANN's legal team on a committee that is specifically set up to gather legal advice independent from ICANN? How is this conflict of interest explained away?
Kieren
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
This was discussed and agreed upon in the legal team update session we had in our morning meeting on day 2 of our Istanbul meeting and then on a later call of the legal sub-team that same day.
Best regards,
León
El 25/03/2015, a las 23:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Am I missing something here?
When was this discussed, read twice and agreed upon?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Mar 25, 2015, at 22:57, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts.
Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list.
The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly.
Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts.
A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam>for full reference. Thanks Best regards León ---
*Scope of work*
- Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. - Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate.
*Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies*
COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION
- All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ - All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. - Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. - Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. - Information should flow freely between law firms. - Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. - A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. - The mailing-list remains open to any observers. - Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam - Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space.
REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE
- No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. - Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. - During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. - Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. - Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. - Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. - All requests will be archived in the public wiki space.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Sincerely CARRIE Devorah 562 688 2883 DISCLAIMER : With the continuing crossing and interfacing of platforms both on & off line both with & without our knowledge nor approval to note nothing sent over the Internet anymore is ever private nor should be presumed to be so. If it is that much of a secret, say nothing. If you must? Take a lesson from our military- hand write the note, chew then swallow
Here is a POV to consider when writing the words "Legal Advice" I was researching joker.com. Here is their TOS page hyperlink https://joker.com/index.joker?mode=page&page=terms_cond Read the general terms for joker.com Click on individual hyperlinks, one for each suffix that joker.com has involvement with. Read a hyperlink. To my way of seeing things there is no way a legal consultant can be worth their contribution unless they look at this the Consumers end of this thing called ICANN Your thoughts are welcome, Dr. Carrie Devorah www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you, Seun. That is exactly correct. The Legal Subteam is a conduit for information. Any decisions will be made by the full CCWG. Further, I anticipate that any significant legal advice will be transmitted directly to the CCWG by the law firms, and will not be "filtered' by the Legal Subteam.
Greg
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Carrie,
I think that is not the appropriate way to view this....the way i understood the role of the group is that its similar to the CWG-legal committee where all they do is transmit the questions of the ccwg to the legal firm and vice verse. There is definitely not going to be any decision making at their level except those related to their meeting administration ofcourse).
I think its a tidy and effective way to interact with an external firm that is not directly involved in this process.
Regards
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Carrie <carriedev@gmail.com> wrote:
7 people deciding policy affecting billions around the world one would expect contributions from persons on other committees would be welcomed. Moreso considering failure to engage more 'volunteers' and volunteer burnout.
Carrie Devorah Www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:09 AM, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> wrote:
Dear León, This is to confirm that Samantha Eisner has no posting rights. Best regards Alice
From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 6:31 AM To: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>, CCWG Accountability < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Lisse Eberhard < directors@omadhina.net>, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> Subject: Re: [Acct-Staff] [CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update
Dear Samantha,
That should be correct. I hereby ask Staff to confirm that you DO NOT have posting privileges to the legal sub-team list.
Best regards,
León
El 26/03/2015, a las 1:51, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> escribió:
To confirm, it is my understanding that I do not have posting rights to the sub team list either.
From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 4:38 PM To: León Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>, CCWG Accountability < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Lisse Eberhard < directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update
This approach may look sound on the inside but there are two clearly very unusual aspects to it:
1. A small group of people have decided that they should step outside accepted norms in the IANA transition process and been given control of a critical process. They have implemented it immediately, and are judging the validity of their decision by how much they themselves agree with it
2. One of that small group appears to be ICANN's senior counsel. Something that is transparently a conflict of interest given that the entire process is supposed to be about gaining legal advice independent of ICANN
Not only were these decisions made within the group and in a very short period of time with no effort to seek outside approval or input but the group hasn't even put together a reasoned explanation for why it has taken this approach.
Even if you are one of the people that have allowed themselves inside this process, surely you can see that this is a terrible precedent for no good reason.
So I would ask:
* Why? Was there any evidence that this approach was actually needed? Or was it an assumed pre-emptive reduction in transparency and accountability? How long was the actual discussion?
* What is the explanation/justification for having a member of ICANN's legal team on a committee that is specifically set up to gather legal advice independent from ICANN? How is this conflict of interest explained away?
Kieren
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
This was discussed and agreed upon in the legal team update session we had in our morning meeting on day 2 of our Istanbul meeting and then on a later call of the legal sub-team that same day.
Best regards,
León
El 25/03/2015, a las 23:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Am I missing something here?
When was this discussed, read twice and agreed upon?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Mar 25, 2015, at 22:57, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts.
Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list.
The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly.
Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts.
A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam>for full reference. Thanks Best regards León ---
*Scope of work*
- Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. - Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate.
*Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies*
COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION
- All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ - All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. - Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. - Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. - Information should flow freely between law firms. - Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. - A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. - The mailing-list remains open to any observers. - Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam - Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space.
REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE
- No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. - Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. - During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. - Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. - Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. - Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. - All requests will be archived in the public wiki space.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Sincerely CARRIE Devorah 562 688 2883 DISCLAIMER : With the continuing crossing and interfacing of platforms both on & off line both with & without our knowledge nor approval to note nothing sent over the Internet anymore is ever private nor should be presumed to be so. If it is that much of a secret, say nothing. If you must? Take a lesson from our military- hand write the note, chew then swallow
Dear Kieren, I reply to your kind comments in line. Best regards, León
El 26/03/2015, a las 1:38, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> escribió:
This approach may look sound on the inside but there are two clearly very unusual aspects to it:
1. A small group of people have decided that they should step outside accepted norms in the IANA transition process and been given control of a critical process. They have implemented it immediately, and are judging the validity of their decision by how much they themselves agree with it
This was not a decision by a small group of people but instead a decision that was subject to approval of the wider CCWG in our session 1 of day 2 meeting in Istanbul. I am attaching the transcription for the session PDF in which you can review pages 3-11 where the particular part of the meeting is transcribed. I hope this is helpful.
2. One of that small group appears to be ICANN's senior counsel. Something that is transparently a conflict of interest given that the entire process is supposed to be about gaining legal advice independent of ICANN
I believe you refer to Samantha Eisner. Do please correct me if I am mistaken. Samantha’s roll within the legal sub-team has been as ICANN staff support. It will remain to be that way in that she does not have the privilege of participating in the discussions for other than providing support to the team when asked for it.
Not only were these decisions made within the group and in a very short period of time with no effort to seek outside approval or input but the group hasn't even put together a reasoned explanation for why it has taken this approach.
The attached transcript should help clarify that the decision was subject, as I said previously, to agreement of the larger CCWG. The reasons for having this decision subject to agreement of the larger CCWG were exposed during the meeting and agreed upon by the CCWG as you can read from the transcript.
Even if you are one of the people that have allowed themselves inside this process, surely you can see that this is a terrible precedent for no good reason.
I would agree with you if this in fact had happened as narrated in your email but I believe and hope the information provided will clarify how the events actually happened.
So I would ask:
* Why? Was there any evidence that this approach was actually needed? Or was it an assumed pre-emptive reduction in transparency and accountability? How long was the actual discussion?
* What is the explanation/justification for having a member of ICANN's legal team on a committee that is specifically set up to gather legal advice independent from ICANN? How is this conflict of interest explained away?
I hope I have been able to answer your questions through my replies and the reference to the pages in the transcript attached. I, of course, remain open should you require further information.
Kieren
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Dear Eberhard,
This was discussed and agreed upon in the legal team update session we had in our morning meeting on day 2 of our Istanbul meeting and then on a later call of the legal sub-team that same day.
Best regards,
León
El 25/03/2015, a las 23:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> escribió:
Am I missing something here?
When was this discussed, read twice and agreed upon?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Mar 25, 2015, at 22:57, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Dear all,
Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts.
Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list.
The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly.
Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts.
A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam>for full reference. Thanks Best regards León ---
Scope of work Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate. Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies
COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/> All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. Information should flow freely between law firms. Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. The mailing-list remains open to any observers. Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam> Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. All requests will be archived in the public wiki space. _______________________________________________ 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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Leon, I was a little late on Tuesday morning due to slow checkout at the reception (I had to leave at 16:00 to catch my flight back) and missed that part of the meeting. Had I been there I would have formally objected. Our usual procedure is to read everything twice, and not decide anything on one meeting at all. As much as I agree that we need to channel questions to lawyers somehow, if only so that the troll(s) on this list can't generate billable hours, but this is not the right way to go about it. Hence this can not stand as is, and as ccNSO appointed member I formally object to the procedure AND the substance. greetings, el On 2015-03-25 23:42 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote: > Dear Eberhard, > > This was discussed and agreed upon in the legal team update session > we had in our morning meeting on day 2 of our Istanbul meeting and > then on a later call of the legal sub-team that same day. > > Best regards, > > > León > >> El 25/03/2015, a las 23:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na >> <mailto:el@lisse.na>> escribió: >> >> Am I missing something here? >> >> When was this discussed, read twice and agreed upon? >> >> >> el >> >> -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini >> >> On Mar 25, 2015, at 22:57, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía >> <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting >>> with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, >>> the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole >>> avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and >>> received from our independent legal experts. >>> >>> Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights >>> have been edited to help streamline communications. It was >>> agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants >>> would serve as executive team in order to make communications >>> easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement >>> was established so solely members of the legal executive team >>> now have posting rights to this list. >>> >>> The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will >>> continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form >>> the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, >>> the question should be posted to the general list so it can be >>> properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the >>> lawyers accordingly. >>> >>> Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter >>> will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal >>> experts. >>> >>> A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement >>> and working methodologies is available below. This information >>> will be posted on our dedicated wiki page >>> <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam>for >>> >>> full reference. >>> Thanks Best regards León --- >>> >>> *Scope of work* >>> >>> * Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on >>> corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. * >>> Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and >>> jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed >>> appropriate. >>> >>> *Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies* >>> >>> COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION >>> >>> * All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are >>> made in writing and communicated through the public mailing >>> list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org >>> <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> – public archives >>> available at >>> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ * All >>> weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the >>> public wiki space. * Law firms report to the >>> CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal >>> executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members >>> include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; >>> David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and >>> Samantha Eisner (support);. * Private coordination meetings >>> between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. * >>> Information should flow freely between law firms. * Should >>> there be the need for a call between the available members of >>> the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order >>> to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a >>> public call, it will always be required to provide proper >>> debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will >>> be exceptional. * A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub >>> team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam >>> have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting >>> privileges should carry request privileges. * The mailing-list >>> remains open to any observers. * Activities and requests will >>> be documented on the dedicated wiki page - >>> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam >>> >>> * Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on >>> Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will >>> be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and >>> archived in the public wiki space. >>> >>> REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE >>> >>> * No individual outside the executive legal sub team should >>> send requests to law firms. * Law firms are to alert the legal >>> executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside >>> the legal executive sub team. * During face-to-face >>> meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real >>> time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s >>> scope. * Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are >>> for research. * Legal Executive Subteam is expected to >>> formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or >>> WORD format to obtain legal advice. * Requests for legal advice >>> should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. * All >>> requests will be archived in the public wiki space. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIVAwUBVROnbZcFHaN5RT+rAQJ8aw//eoSz0fFZ+Rg6gLfYMFS+4qAIMWtmm0yd QDY3wpwoi5DKm/7sO0Fr3Xpxi0ORBc/HsaruAeGO02NeoJryk/KbU44sY1q32n/t DkdfoLvU82ktQWOY9aWtODCwi9DZnDNEn8RKVG0gJR+CnZzH6TC8lIQxS4LKiqJO jEJSiL/X9MgnMNfYCsY/Yi16idAJYTxZjI3fWaCbOTEz3OTZHIO6D4sQXiD1sTbo huKNRBqKypI+yP42uGJa8Ct7dQvPWMnD0aVHgHjUGM29nSNIs0l3pgI8DhtZjvIe 0Cp+tWKSsg2tqnZK7UlZwmvebzl5cmdXyAFJTHlc1fUd4Oq7YZ+HglnEivoly1Sb 8JL+O11vwYpTY9N8OJDU7pTjPM8wg+qKje2NoeifD2khUSe4cescO10uMBK0q71d 8EYquaVDOHNUXN6uAKGqFGRzaSVdIUNQodEHkgbcuY5FKecUIHJ22MwS8AWdE7jk 4+lAD7/CV17NWCXFMBcVkq1PlIcv6T6LtrcZF+kQwqqtyGkSqmH+xUU4lsmOFJAa 3q8a4w29ArA817V+6z/myT3WSWB5Pr9NoF3l8f1RwogTXS8ATwtnnzoClSJo3fgQ aAD26nWRIktspBzsHbmWTk+jfZLIuBkQg24uidvhplo6VPWNIE6aO9Gx35DXQbz4 6pcdYz+9IjE= =A0F2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi Leon, I just noticed there is an overlap in the committee members of ccwg and the cwg. I personally would have preferred a situation where the committee members for ccwg is entirely different from the CWG. That would ensure diversity of views and remove any need for unnecessary suspicions. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 25 Mar 2015 21:58, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts.
Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list.
The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly.
Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts.
A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam>for full reference. Thanks Best regards León ---
*Scope of work*
- Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. - Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate.
*Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies*
COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION
- All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ - All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. - Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. - Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. - Information should flow freely between law firms. - Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. - A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. - The mailing-list remains open to any observers. - Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam - Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space.
REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE
- No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. - Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. - During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. - Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. - Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. - Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. - All requests will be archived in the public wiki space.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thanks Seun, The Legal Subteam is an open team formed through a call for volunteers, hence the chance of overlap. Could you please give an example of the unnecessary suspicions you refer to? Best regards, León
El 25/03/2015, a las 23:43, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> escribió:
Hi Leon,
I just noticed there is an overlap in the committee members of ccwg and the cwg. I personally would have preferred a situation where the committee members for ccwg is entirely different from the CWG. That would ensure diversity of views and remove any need for unnecessary suspicions.
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 25 Mar 2015 21:58, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Dear all,
Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts.
Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list.
The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly.
Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts.
A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam>for full reference. Thanks Best regards León ---
Scope of work Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate. Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies
COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/> All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. Information should flow freely between law firms. Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. The mailing-list remains open to any observers. Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam> Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. All requests will be archived in the public wiki space.
_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
If we define and recognize these suspicions as „unnecessary”, I would assume paying any attention to them to be unnecessary too. Best, Roelof From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Date: woensdag 25 maart 2015 23:49 To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update Thanks Seun, The Legal Subteam is an open team formed through a call for volunteers, hence the chance of overlap. Could you please give an example of the unnecessary suspicions you refer to? Best regards, León El 25/03/2015, a las 23:43, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> escribió: Hi Leon, I just noticed there is an overlap in the committee members of ccwg and the cwg. I personally would have preferred a situation where the committee members for ccwg is entirely different from the CWG. That would ensure diversity of views and remove any need for unnecessary suspicions. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 25 Mar 2015 21:58, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Dear all, Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts. Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list. The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly. Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts. A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam> for full reference. Thanks Best regards León --- Scope of work * Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. * Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate. Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION * All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ * All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. * Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. * Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. * Information should flow freely between law firms. * Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. * A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. * The mailing-list remains open to any observers. * Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam * Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE * No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. * Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. * During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. * Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. * Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. * Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. * All requests will be archived in the public wiki space. _______________________________________________ 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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Roelof, this the most eloquent way of telling someone not to feed the troll :-)-O el On 2015-03-26 16:44, Roelof Meijer wrote:
If we define and recognize these suspicions as „unnecessary”, I would assume paying any attention to them to be unnecessary too.
Best,
Roelof -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVFB2lAAoJEJcFHaN5RT+rTX0P/jVH0gLZMAVw4zLzn9/9J237 bIq9wOAj9hwRnBROeOCoREiYsoUeEzMniqj/kh/uVINUQQkyidq7tNfJNkQKlQxl Npe+U+uQDCV3ss0HXgzBdQF9/QeJsC0t6mwFZarBmo3nQV9N0pZhu9KZqafXWK6c GWnAgCnIXyw4n53pR6S08kyYHF9WAgBILcBt4QNvLIxsGZ9oxXwY6GyOwzflh7gw QgbPY+oNjKhv76YUBZ5umzvcVaissl8xGntvgT645wqHC8v7QE6m1FaJqndWc8X1 PMNCN0zAJNBhx/R4EjymJlPvExHkoH8nNOuOnUDDgAUtN/T/8aBUlY3MG9tkSpx2 A/hzpAWkSBLEzbn7ZLp/Oup3SxtB4o9Wup1oLG58OJw28k3chv5WC7shyIxAPEla yZ5Bbu92mrSyfiM2lgs+B4hJl/jiy8D7md8kWsc2HXhUvnLSOVnFz1of6TfTg5tI KB6ZH8oTgm+AW67g/9x7ZCqeoisX5QFlWQZrMCAmCnz2unPEx8D6+o2utKY+ewCF vsC/k/YEJLiNvkNY0Q87S54LjyAXLpmDmOjlRKeToTTCv3ZB2btGMd0sLdzsn5NX gqFC6zlZtA4fgzssn8GmefV0bA4VGry8sSZxoXchvuMtn+2DS6LiDlRGbkXD2J63 45kjJX3mQ/d0QF3sz9jc =YNro -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I am reputedly naively optimistic and trusting. And thus, can live quite well with this. Quite „unengineerlike” I have faith that our legal colleagues know what they are doing and appreciate the pragmatic (time and money saving) approach Cheers, Roelof From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Date: woensdag 25 maart 2015 22:57 To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, "ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>" <ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update Dear all, Moving forward, following the agreements made in our meeting with the wider CCWG and the legal sub team’s call on 24 March, the Legal Subteam mailing-list will, from now on, be the sole avenue for any communications, requests and advice sent to and received from our independent legal experts. Also as agreed during our call, mailing-list posting rights have been edited to help streamline communications. It was agreed that a compact subset of legal sub-team participants would serve as executive team in order to make communications easier to handle between the CCWG and the law firms. Agreement was established so solely members of the legal executive team now have posting rights to this list. The list will remain open for anyone to observe and it will continue to be publicly archived. In the event that anyone form the larger CCWG group would like to raise a question or issue, the question should be posted to the general list so it can be properly documented by the legal subteam and sent to the lawyers accordingly. Questions that fall out of the scope stated in the CCWG charter will not qualify to be addressed by the independent legal experts. A description of the agreed scope of work, rules of engagement and working methodologies is available below. This information will be posted on our dedicated wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam> for full reference. Thanks Best regards León --- Scope of work * Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law and California not-for-profit law. * Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate. Rules of Engagement & Working Methodologies COMMUNICATIONS & COORDINATION * All formal requests, including follow-up clarifications, are made in writing and communicated through the public mailing list ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> – public archives available at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/ * All weekly calls to be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. * Law firms report to the CCWG-Accountability and receive instructions from the legal executive sub team only. Legal Executive Subteam Members include: León Sánchez (lead); Athina Fragkouli; Robin Gross; David McAuley; Sabine Meyer; Edward Morris; Greg Shatan and Samantha Eisner (support);. * Private coordination meetings between lawyers would be acceptable and desirable. * Information should flow freely between law firms. * Should there be the need for a call between the available members of the Executive Legal Subteam and any of the law firms in order to address urgent matters without the ability to setup a public call, it will always be required to provide proper debrief to the open list in a timely fashion. This method will be exceptional. * A single mailing-list will be used. Legal sub team members who are not listed in the legal executive subteam have viewing rights to help streamline communications. Posting privileges should carry request privileges. * The mailing-list remains open to any observers. * Activities and requests will be documented on the dedicated wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam * Legal sub team and law firms coordination call will be held on Wednesdays at 15:00-16:00 UTC, starting on April 1. Calls will be open to anyone, they will be recorded, transcribed and archived in the public wiki space. REQUESTS FOR EXPERTISE * No individual outside the executive legal sub team should send requests to law firms. * Law firms are to alert the legal executive sub team of any requests made by individuals outside the legal executive sub team. * During face-to-face meetings/calls, high level legal advice should come in real time in reply to anyone raising a question within the Charter’s scope. * Legal Executive Subteam should flag any items that are for research. * Legal Executive Subteam is expected to formulate questions into a request for distribution in PDF or WORD format to obtain legal advice. * Requests for legal advice should be numbered consecutively for reference purposes. * All requests will be archived in the public wiki space.
participants (14)
-
Alice Jansen -
Arun Sukumar -
Carrie -
Carrie Devorah
-
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
-
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Greg Shatan -
Kieren McCarthy -
Kieren McCarthy -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Roelof Meijer -
Samantha Eisner -
Seun Ojedeji