Great, thank you Greg. When would be best to follow up on the questions re the role of ICANN's legal staff in selecting an independent legal advisor? Kieren - [sent through phone] On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kieren, Please see my inline responses below. Greg On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
Just to follow up on this from a week ago.
As noted before, we will ask the firms' permission to reveal their identities at this stage and for permission to circulate their submissions.
Has this happened?
Yes
Have you asked the firms?
Yes
Have they responded?
Two have responded (positively). The third will get back to me -- this is not a snap answer to give (for any of the firms).
How was the question phrased?
Something like -- Do you think you could allow us to disclose your firm's identity or the materials you provided to us?
If they do not respond, will you publish the names regardless?
If they don't respond, I'll follow up until they do.
The Client Committee has now scheduled conference calls with each of the three "short list" firms. These meetings are scheduled for Thursday, February 26, Friday, February 27, and Monday, March 2. The calls are expected to last 60-90 minutes.
We will also make clear to them that, if chosen, the representation should be designed to meet transparency and accountability standards beyond those typically encountered in the attorney-client relationship (which tend to value confidentiality and the maintenance of the attorney-client privilege)
I note that all three meetings have now occurred.
Was this clarification over openness made clear to each firm?
Yes
How was that done?
In a fairly substantial conversation.
Did any of the firms express reservations?
Not per se, but each indicated they would need to consider the issue and would work with us to configure the representation to meet these needs.
What was the agreed resolution?
Each call was 60-90 minutes and we had plenty of ground to cover. It would be both impossible and premature to resolve that issue at this stage. However, each firm did bring up some ideas on how they might approach this.
I expect that we will schedule a call for as soon as possible after the 3 meetings take place to discuss and compare the firms and move forward toward engaging one of the firms on our behalf.
When will this call be?
A debrief call took place Monday, not long after the last law firm conference call. We are trying to keep this moving, and we want to discuss the firms before our next meeting today, so that we could bring a somewhat considered set of views back to the CWG.
Will you be making that call public?
We'll discuss how best to share the discussion and outcomes of that discussion. It's not my decision to make alone.
Will you be providing minutes of the meetings so far?
I assume you are referring to the meetings of the Committee and not the meetings with the firms. I've provided updates on prior meetings. See above regarding Monday's call. We will also be discussing how to change our working methods, given the difference in task and approach between hiring a law firm and being involved in getting advice from them (in an unusually transparent manner), However, we'll need the input of the firm we hire to finalize these revised working methods.
When do you expect this to be resolved and a decision made?
As quickly as possible -- this week, if at all possible.
I also note that there were a number of questions from John Poole a number of days ago that have so far gone unanswered, including several about the role that ICANN's legal team is taking in the selection of an independent law firm that is due to review ICANN's own legal position.
I'll go back and look at those questions as soon as possible.
Can you confirm that you will answer these questions in due course?
I just did.
Thanks
Your're most welcome.
Kieren
Greg
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
As soon as we can, you will.
Greg
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Thanks for this helpful update. Look forward to learning the names of the firms being considered.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 25, 2015, at 5:43 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
The Client Committee has now scheduled conference calls with each of the three "short list" firms. These meetings are scheduled for Thursday, February 26, Friday, February 27, and Monday, March 2. The calls are expected to last 60-90 minutes.
In addition to the Client Committee, Leon Sanchez, a member of the CCWG legal committee, will be sitting in on most, if not all, of the calls. Samantha Eisner, a member of the ICANN legal staff, will also be on the calls.
Each of the firms have seen the legal scoping document and the Singapore discussion document, and provided a link to the CWG's wiki page They were also informed of today's US Senate hearing beforehand.
As noted before, we will ask the firms' permission to reveal their identities at this stage and for permission to circulate their submissions. We will also make clear to them that, if chosen, the representation should be designed to meet transparency and accountability standards beyond those typically encountered in the attorney-client relationship (which tend to value confidentiality and the maintenance of the attorney-client privilege)
I expect that we will schedule a call for as soon as possible after the 3 meetings take place to discuss and compare the firms and move forward toward engaging one of the firms on our behalf. We may also have further prep/debrief calls around the conferences.
In a addition, we are in the process of preparing documents to memorialize our initial selection criteria/process, so that it can be better understood. We will keep you informed of the process as it progresses. If there are any specific subjects you would like me to try to cover, please let me know.
Greg
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* ------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4299/9172 - Release Date: 02/24/15
<ATT00001.c>
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* -- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*