Legal counsel engagement enhancements
Dear Colleagues, During last week's call, we agreed that the co-chair would engage with the lawyers in order to optimize interactions between our group and the independent legal counsel, taking into account the importance of quality advice as well as the concerns regarding expenses. We have met today with Holly and Rosemary and this is to report on the ways forward we have agreed on : * to avoid any misunderstanding on questions, as well as enable a better assessment of costs, we will refrain from certifying questions until : * a discussion has taken place between lawyers and the colleague asking the question, either through a regular call or through ad hoc calls (such ad hoc calls would obviously be transcribed and open) * such a discussion has, if need be, produced a clarified version of the question, an estimate of whether the response would require a lot of research, and an indication of the potential value of the research for the group's further deliberations. * participation of lawyers to meetings and calls will be limited to a maximum of 2. As a consequence, lawyers may not always be able to respond to our questions instantly. In such cases, we will rely on the above certification process. * a "punch list" of issues will be produced avec Buenos Aires and shared with the group as a project management tool. We are convinced these simple steps will be useful to get the best value out of the outstanding expertise of our cousel. Best regards, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
Dear all, Just as a follow up to Mathieu’s email, I would like to clarify that lawyers maximum attendance per call/meeting is 2 lawyers per firm. Best regards, León
El 20/06/2015, a las 16:24, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> escribió:
Dear Colleagues,
During last week's call, we agreed that the co-chair would engage with the lawyers in order to optimize interactions between our group and the independent legal counsel, taking into account the importance of quality advice as well as the concerns regarding expenses.
We have met today with Holly and Rosemary and this is to report on the ways forward we have agreed on :
* to avoid any misunderstanding on questions, as well as enable a better assessment of costs, we will refrain from certifying questions until : * a discussion has taken place between lawyers and the colleague asking the question, either through a regular call or through ad hoc calls (such ad hoc calls would obviously be transcribed and open) * such a discussion has, if need be, produced a clarified version of the question, an estimate of whether the response would require a lot of research, and an indication of the potential value of the research for the group's further deliberations.
* participation of lawyers to meetings and calls will be limited to a maximum of 2. As a consequence, lawyers may not always be able to respond to our questions instantly. In such cases, we will rely on the above certification process.
* a "punch list" of issues will be produced avec Buenos Aires and shared with the group as a project management tool.
We are convinced these simple steps will be useful to get the best value out of the outstanding expertise of our cousel.
Best regards,
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Léon, Mathieu, You can¹t be serious. I see no reason whatsoever why we would need 2 lawyers per firm and so 4 lawyers per call/meeting. These are reputed firms and expert lawyers, one of each firm should suffice. I really take an issue with the amount of money we¹re spending on legal advice Best, Roelof On 20-06-15 16:35, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
Just as a follow up to Mathieu¹s email, I would like to clarify that lawyers maximum attendance per call/meeting is 2 lawyers per firm.
Best regards,
León
El 20/06/2015, a las 16:24, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> escribió:
Dear Colleagues,
During last week's call, we agreed that the co-chair would engage with the lawyers in order to optimize interactions between our group and the independent legal counsel, taking into account the importance of quality advice as well as the concerns regarding expenses.
We have met today with Holly and Rosemary and this is to report on the ways forward we have agreed on :
* to avoid any misunderstanding on questions, as well as enable a better assessment of costs, we will refrain from certifying questions until : * a discussion has taken place between lawyers and the colleague asking the question, either through a regular call or through ad hoc calls (such ad hoc calls would obviously be transcribed and open) * such a discussion has, if need be, produced a clarified version of the question, an estimate of whether the response would require a lot of research, and an indication of the potential value of the research for the group's further deliberations.
* participation of lawyers to meetings and calls will be limited to a maximum of 2. As a consequence, lawyers may not always be able to respond to our questions instantly. In such cases, we will rely on the above certification process.
* a "punch list" of issues will be produced avec Buenos Aires and shared with the group as a project management tool.
We are convinced these simple steps will be useful to get the best value out of the outstanding expertise of our cousel.
Best regards,
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thanks Roelof, This is a maximum, not a minimum. Therefore, this doesn’t mean we will be having 4 lawyers a call but rather limit their attendance to 4 whereas before we had no limit and I can recall meetings where we had more than 4 lawyers attending. I hope this is more clear. Best regards, León
El 20/06/2015, a las 16:44, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> escribió:
Léon, Mathieu,
You can¹t be serious. I see no reason whatsoever why we would need 2 lawyers per firm and so 4 lawyers per call/meeting. These are reputed firms and expert lawyers, one of each firm should suffice. I really take an issue with the amount of money we¹re spending on legal advice
Best,
Roelof
On 20-06-15 16:35, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
Just as a follow up to Mathieu¹s email, I would like to clarify that lawyers maximum attendance per call/meeting is 2 lawyers per firm.
Best regards,
León
El 20/06/2015, a las 16:24, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> escribió:
Dear Colleagues,
During last week's call, we agreed that the co-chair would engage with the lawyers in order to optimize interactions between our group and the independent legal counsel, taking into account the importance of quality advice as well as the concerns regarding expenses.
We have met today with Holly and Rosemary and this is to report on the ways forward we have agreed on :
* to avoid any misunderstanding on questions, as well as enable a better assessment of costs, we will refrain from certifying questions until : * a discussion has taken place between lawyers and the colleague asking the question, either through a regular call or through ad hoc calls (such ad hoc calls would obviously be transcribed and open) * such a discussion has, if need be, produced a clarified version of the question, an estimate of whether the response would require a lot of research, and an indication of the potential value of the research for the group's further deliberations.
* participation of lawyers to meetings and calls will be limited to a maximum of 2. As a consequence, lawyers may not always be able to respond to our questions instantly. In such cases, we will rely on the above certification process.
* a "punch list" of issues will be produced avec Buenos Aires and shared with the group as a project management tool.
We are convinced these simple steps will be useful to get the best value out of the outstanding expertise of our cousel.
Best regards,
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Speaking as a lawyer……give lawyers a maximum and they will use it! Cheers, Chris
On 21 Jun 2015, at 05:49 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Thanks Roelof,
This is a maximum, not a minimum. Therefore, this doesn’t mean we will be having 4 lawyers a call but rather limit their attendance to 4 whereas before we had no limit and I can recall meetings where we had more than 4 lawyers attending.
I hope this is more clear.
Best regards,
León
El 20/06/2015, a las 16:44, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> escribió:
Léon, Mathieu,
You can¹t be serious. I see no reason whatsoever why we would need 2 lawyers per firm and so 4 lawyers per call/meeting. These are reputed firms and expert lawyers, one of each firm should suffice. I really take an issue with the amount of money we¹re spending on legal advice
Best,
Roelof
On 20-06-15 16:35, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
Just as a follow up to Mathieu¹s email, I would like to clarify that lawyers maximum attendance per call/meeting is 2 lawyers per firm.
Best regards,
León
El 20/06/2015, a las 16:24, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> escribió:
Dear Colleagues,
During last week's call, we agreed that the co-chair would engage with the lawyers in order to optimize interactions between our group and the independent legal counsel, taking into account the importance of quality advice as well as the concerns regarding expenses.
We have met today with Holly and Rosemary and this is to report on the ways forward we have agreed on :
* to avoid any misunderstanding on questions, as well as enable a better assessment of costs, we will refrain from certifying questions until : * a discussion has taken place between lawyers and the colleague asking the question, either through a regular call or through ad hoc calls (such ad hoc calls would obviously be transcribed and open) * such a discussion has, if need be, produced a clarified version of the question, an estimate of whether the response would require a lot of research, and an indication of the potential value of the research for the group's further deliberations.
* participation of lawyers to meetings and calls will be limited to a maximum of 2. As a consequence, lawyers may not always be able to respond to our questions instantly. In such cases, we will rely on the above certification process.
* a "punch list" of issues will be produced avec Buenos Aires and shared with the group as a project management tool.
We are convinced these simple steps will be useful to get the best value out of the outstanding expertise of our cousel.
Best regards,
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ 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
Maybe we could have a "default" max of one per firm on WP calls and the same on CCWG calls, with more allowed if the subject matter in the agenda demands it? I too share Roelof's view... best Jordan On 20 June 2015 at 17:03, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
Speaking as a lawyer……give lawyers a maximum and they will use it!
Cheers,
Chris
On 21 Jun 2015, at 05:49 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Thanks Roelof,
This is a maximum, not a minimum. Therefore, this doesn’t mean we will be having 4 lawyers a call but rather limit their attendance to 4 whereas before we had no limit and I can recall meetings where we had more than 4 lawyers attending.
I hope this is more clear.
Best regards,
León
El 20/06/2015, a las 16:44, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> escribió:
Léon, Mathieu,
You can¹t be serious. I see no reason whatsoever why we would need 2 lawyers per firm and so 4 lawyers per call/meeting. These are reputed firms and expert lawyers, one of each firm should suffice. I really take an issue with the amount of money we¹re spending on legal advice
Best,
Roelof
On 20-06-15 16:35, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
Just as a follow up to Mathieu¹s email, I would like to clarify that lawyers maximum attendance per call/meeting is 2 lawyers per firm.
Best regards,
León
El 20/06/2015, a las 16:24, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> escribió:
Dear Colleagues,
During last week's call, we agreed that the co-chair would engage with the lawyers in order to optimize interactions between our group and the independent legal counsel, taking into account the importance of quality advice as well as the concerns regarding expenses.
We have met today with Holly and Rosemary and this is to report on the ways forward we have agreed on :
* to avoid any misunderstanding on questions, as well as enable a better assessment of costs, we will refrain from certifying questions until : * a discussion has taken place between lawyers and the colleague asking the question, either through a regular call or through ad hoc calls (such ad hoc calls would obviously be transcribed and open) * such a discussion has, if need be, produced a clarified version of the question, an estimate of whether the response would require a lot of research, and an indication of the potential value of the research for the group's further deliberations.
* participation of lawyers to meetings and calls will be limited to a maximum of 2. As a consequence, lawyers may not always be able to respond to our questions instantly. In such cases, we will rely on the above certification process.
* a "punch list" of issues will be produced avec Buenos Aires and shared with the group as a project management tool.
We are convinced these simple steps will be useful to get the best value out of the outstanding expertise of our cousel.
Best regards,
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *
Rather than, and at this late juncture, worrying about billable hours, we should focus on whether we are getting enough bang for, the buck. If so, I could not care less what happens to ICANN's proceeds from new GTLDs. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jun 20, 2015, at 17:08, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Maybe we could have a "default" max of one per firm on WP calls and the same on CCWG calls, with more allowed if the subject matter in the agenda demands it?
I too share Roelof's view...
best Jordan
On 20 June 2015 at 17:03, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote: Speaking as a lawyer……give lawyers a maximum and they will use it!
Cheers,
Chris
On 21 Jun 2015, at 05:49 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Thanks Roelof,
This is a maximum, not a minimum. Therefore, this doesn’t mean we will be having 4 lawyers a call but rather limit their attendance to 4 whereas before we had no limit and I can recall meetings where we had more than 4 lawyers attending.
I hope this is more clear.
Best regards,
León
El 20/06/2015, a las 16:44, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> escribió:
Léon, Mathieu,
You can¹t be serious. I see no reason whatsoever why we would need 2 lawyers per firm and so 4 lawyers per call/meeting. These are reputed firms and expert lawyers, one of each firm should suffice. I really take an issue with the amount of money we¹re spending on legal advice
Best,
Roelof
On 20-06-15 16:35, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
Just as a follow up to Mathieu¹s email, I would like to clarify that lawyers maximum attendance per call/meeting is 2 lawyers per firm.
Best regards,
León
El 20/06/2015, a las 16:24, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> escribió:
Dear Colleagues,
During last week's call, we agreed that the co-chair would engage with the lawyers in order to optimize interactions between our group and the independent legal counsel, taking into account the importance of quality advice as well as the concerns regarding expenses.
We have met today with Holly and Rosemary and this is to report on the ways forward we have agreed on :
* to avoid any misunderstanding on questions, as well as enable a better assessment of costs, we will refrain from certifying questions until : * a discussion has taken place between lawyers and the colleague asking the question, either through a regular call or through ad hoc calls (such ad hoc calls would obviously be transcribed and open) * such a discussion has, if need be, produced a clarified version of the question, an estimate of whether the response would require a lot of research, and an indication of the potential value of the research for the group's further deliberations.
* participation of lawyers to meetings and calls will be limited to a maximum of 2. As a consequence, lawyers may not always be able to respond to our questions instantly. In such cases, we will rely on the above certification process.
* a "punch list" of issues will be produced avec Buenos Aires and shared with the group as a project management tool.
We are convinced these simple steps will be useful to get the best value out of the outstanding expertise of our cousel.
Best regards,
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Might I suggest that rather we consider sending questions obviously concerning California law directly to Adler rather than having both firms, specifically Sidley as lead, involved in allocating the work. It seems to me that this would be more efficient both in terms of time and cost. Ed Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 20, 2015, at 5:08 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Maybe we could have a "default" max of one per firm on WP calls and the same on CCWG calls, with more allowed if the subject matter in the agenda demands it?
I too share Roelof's view...
best Jordan
On 20 June 2015 at 17:03, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote: Speaking as a lawyer……give lawyers a maximum and they will use it!
Cheers,
Chris
On 21 Jun 2015, at 05:49 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Thanks Roelof,
This is a maximum, not a minimum. Therefore, this doesn’t mean we will be having 4 lawyers a call but rather limit their attendance to 4 whereas before we had no limit and I can recall meetings where we had more than 4 lawyers attending.
I hope this is more clear.
Best regards,
León
El 20/06/2015, a las 16:44, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> escribió:
Léon, Mathieu,
You can¹t be serious. I see no reason whatsoever why we would need 2 lawyers per firm and so 4 lawyers per call/meeting. These are reputed firms and expert lawyers, one of each firm should suffice. I really take an issue with the amount of money we¹re spending on legal advice
Best,
Roelof
On 20-06-15 16:35, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
Just as a follow up to Mathieu¹s email, I would like to clarify that lawyers maximum attendance per call/meeting is 2 lawyers per firm.
Best regards,
León
El 20/06/2015, a las 16:24, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> escribió:
Dear Colleagues,
During last week's call, we agreed that the co-chair would engage with the lawyers in order to optimize interactions between our group and the independent legal counsel, taking into account the importance of quality advice as well as the concerns regarding expenses.
We have met today with Holly and Rosemary and this is to report on the ways forward we have agreed on :
* to avoid any misunderstanding on questions, as well as enable a better assessment of costs, we will refrain from certifying questions until : * a discussion has taken place between lawyers and the colleague asking the question, either through a regular call or through ad hoc calls (such ad hoc calls would obviously be transcribed and open) * such a discussion has, if need be, produced a clarified version of the question, an estimate of whether the response would require a lot of research, and an indication of the potential value of the research for the group's further deliberations.
* participation of lawyers to meetings and calls will be limited to a maximum of 2. As a consequence, lawyers may not always be able to respond to our questions instantly. In such cases, we will rely on the above certification process.
* a "punch list" of issues will be produced avec Buenos Aires and shared with the group as a project management tool.
We are convinced these simple steps will be useful to get the best value out of the outstanding expertise of our cousel.
Best regards,
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Lawyers are not fungible. They have different skill sets. We have selected these firms both for the breadth and depth of their skills and when we need that breadth on the call we should have it. The fact that you can't see a reason for it doesn't mean there's no reason for it. Greg On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
Léon, Mathieu,
You can¹t be serious. I see no reason whatsoever why we would need 2 lawyers per firm and so 4 lawyers per call/meeting. These are reputed firms and expert lawyers, one of each firm should suffice. I really take an issue with the amount of money we¹re spending on legal advice
Best,
Roelof
On 20-06-15 16:35, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
Just as a follow up to Mathieu¹s email, I would like to clarify that lawyers maximum attendance per call/meeting is 2 lawyers per firm.
Best regards,
León
El 20/06/2015, a las 16:24, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> escribió:
Dear Colleagues,
During last week's call, we agreed that the co-chair would engage with the lawyers in order to optimize interactions between our group and the independent legal counsel, taking into account the importance of quality advice as well as the concerns regarding expenses.
We have met today with Holly and Rosemary and this is to report on the ways forward we have agreed on :
* to avoid any misunderstanding on questions, as well as enable a better assessment of costs, we will refrain from certifying questions until : * a discussion has taken place between lawyers and the colleague asking the question, either through a regular call or through ad hoc calls (such ad hoc calls would obviously be transcribed and open) * such a discussion has, if need be, produced a clarified version of the question, an estimate of whether the response would require a lot of research, and an indication of the potential value of the research for the group's further deliberations.
* participation of lawyers to meetings and calls will be limited to a maximum of 2. As a consequence, lawyers may not always be able to respond to our questions instantly. In such cases, we will rely on the above certification process.
* a "punch list" of issues will be produced avec Buenos Aires and shared with the group as a project management tool.
We are convinced these simple steps will be useful to get the best value out of the outstanding expertise of our cousel.
Best regards,
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ 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
I agree that subject matter legal experts are not fungible. I don't think that we should worry too much about the legal fees, if we are feeling comfortable that we are getting the legal analysis and advise that is essential for these two WGs. M Sent from my iPad
On Jun 21, 2015, at 8:55 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Lawyers are not fungible. They have different skill sets. We have selected these firms both for the breadth and depth of their skills and when we need that breadth on the call we should have it. The fact that you can't see a reason for it doesn't mean there's no reason for it.
Greg
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote: Léon, Mathieu,
You can¹t be serious. I see no reason whatsoever why we would need 2 lawyers per firm and so 4 lawyers per call/meeting. These are reputed firms and expert lawyers, one of each firm should suffice. I really take an issue with the amount of money we¹re spending on legal advice
Best,
Roelof
On 20-06-15 16:35, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
Just as a follow up to Mathieu¹s email, I would like to clarify that lawyers maximum attendance per call/meeting is 2 lawyers per firm.
Best regards,
León
El 20/06/2015, a las 16:24, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> escribió:
Dear Colleagues,
During last week's call, we agreed that the co-chair would engage with the lawyers in order to optimize interactions between our group and the independent legal counsel, taking into account the importance of quality advice as well as the concerns regarding expenses.
We have met today with Holly and Rosemary and this is to report on the ways forward we have agreed on :
* to avoid any misunderstanding on questions, as well as enable a better assessment of costs, we will refrain from certifying questions until : * a discussion has taken place between lawyers and the colleague asking the question, either through a regular call or through ad hoc calls (such ad hoc calls would obviously be transcribed and open) * such a discussion has, if need be, produced a clarified version of the question, an estimate of whether the response would require a lot of research, and an indication of the potential value of the research for the group's further deliberations.
* participation of lawyers to meetings and calls will be limited to a maximum of 2. As a consequence, lawyers may not always be able to respond to our questions instantly. In such cases, we will rely on the above certification process.
* a "punch list" of issues will be produced avec Buenos Aires and shared with the group as a project management tool.
We are convinced these simple steps will be useful to get the best value out of the outstanding expertise of our cousel.
Best regards,
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (9)
-
Chris Disspain -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Edward Morris -
Greg Shatan -
Jordan Carter -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Marilyn Cade -
Mathieu Weill -
Roelof Meijer