Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Responses to questions from Jones Day
Bounced. S here it is again. el On 2015-02-10 09:45 , cctldcommunity-owner@cctld-managers.org wrote:
You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at cctldcommunity-owner@cctld-managers.org.
Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Responses to questions from Jones Day.eml
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Responses to questions from Jones Day From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <directors@omadhina.net> Date: 2015-02-10, 09:38
To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> CC: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>, "ccnso-members@icann.org" <ccnso-members@icann.org>, cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org
Phil, Kieran, all,
Lawyers are expected and paid to defend the interests of their client to the utmost best of their abilities. It does not matter if they disagree with their clients, even in criminal cases, when they *KNOW* the client is guilty they *HAVE* to do their best or can be disbarred.
In Commonwealth English this is referred to as "taking instructions".
So, in this context you just have to take Jones Day's "opinion" (who from my reading of papers they have filed for ICANN in various cases, have a *VERY* cushy gig) with a grain of salt.
Read their "opinion" keeping in mind that this is ICANN's opinion of the legal situation, not the legal situation per se.
I would see this as an opportunity rather than an issue.
el
On 2015-02-10 09:20 , Jordan Carter wrote:
Kieran, all:
Do you think the payment issue outranks the fact that this CCWG's team doing legal will be the effective client? That is, do you think the CCWG can rely on advice that it briefs out and manages the relationships for, regardless of who ends up paying the bill?
I am not a lawyer but your last point seems important to me.
best, Jordan
On 10 February 2015 at 02:25, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com <mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com>> wrote:
I can't for the life of me understand why this group is prepared to accept ICANN paying for external legal advice on a topic of the highest possible interest to ICANN.
Considering the importance of this topic, I am pretty sure that the various internet organizations who depend so heavily on ICANN would be willing to pay into a fund to cover independent legal advice.
I also think it would be advisable for whoever is contracted to provide this advice to be obligated to report any and all approaches and conversations with third parties in order to limit the opportunity for behind-the-scenes influencing.
Kieren
[...]
Thanks Eberhard. I agree with you that we may want to see this more as an opportunity rather than an issue. Best regards, León
El 10/02/2015, a las 10:17, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Bounced. S here it is again.
el
On 2015-02-10 09:45 , cctldcommunity-owner@cctld-managers.org wrote:
You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at cctldcommunity-owner@cctld-managers.org.
Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Responses to questions from Jones Day.eml
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Responses to questions from Jones Day From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <directors@omadhina.net> Date: 2015-02-10, 09:38
To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> CC: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>, "ccnso-members@icann.org" <ccnso-members@icann.org>, cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org
Phil, Kieran, all,
Lawyers are expected and paid to defend the interests of their client to the utmost best of their abilities. It does not matter if they disagree with their clients, even in criminal cases, when they *KNOW* the client is guilty they *HAVE* to do their best or can be disbarred.
In Commonwealth English this is referred to as "taking instructions".
So, in this context you just have to take Jones Day's "opinion" (who from my reading of papers they have filed for ICANN in various cases, have a *VERY* cushy gig) with a grain of salt.
Read their "opinion" keeping in mind that this is ICANN's opinion of the legal situation, not the legal situation per se.
I would see this as an opportunity rather than an issue.
el
On 2015-02-10 09:20 , Jordan Carter wrote:
Kieran, all:
Do you think the payment issue outranks the fact that this CCWG's team doing legal will be the effective client? That is, do you think the CCWG can rely on advice that it briefs out and manages the relationships for, regardless of who ends up paying the bill?
I am not a lawyer but your last point seems important to me.
best, Jordan
On 10 February 2015 at 02:25, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com <mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com>> wrote:
I can't for the life of me understand why this group is prepared to accept ICANN paying for external legal advice on a topic of the highest possible interest to ICANN.
Considering the importance of this topic, I am pretty sure that the various internet organizations who depend so heavily on ICANN would be willing to pay into a fund to cover independent legal advice.
I also think it would be advisable for whoever is contracted to provide this advice to be obligated to report any and all approaches and conversations with third parties in order to limit the opportunity for behind-the-scenes influencing.
Kieren
[...]
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (2)
-
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía