Kieren: To respond to your posting referenced below--yes, the Client Committee was self-appointed by the Co-Chairs as a closed group consisting of the two Co-Chairs and the 2 attorneys who are members/participants of CWG. I had volunteered to be a member, but I also understood the need for efficiency and speed, therefore I do not consider it necessarily "precedent." Unfortunately, we are month later, and CWG still has no independent legal counsel, although I understand these things take "time." The extent of ICANN staff involvement with the Client Committee is of some concern--I have heard Greg refer to it somewhat obliquely. I do not know the specifics, but I do trust Greg Shatan's judgment in such matters--he understands who the "client" is here--CWG-Stewardship--not ICANN, not ICANN legal staff, etc. So yes, we have a closed, self-appointed group of 4 deciding a critical issue-- selection of independent legal counsel--in a somewhat opaque process up to this point. I hope for a successful outcome, soon. Your request for transparency was reasonable and I hope will be respected. Best regards, John Poole *Kieren McCarthy kierenmccarthy at gmail.com <cwg-stewardship%40icann.org?Subject=Re:%20Re%3A%20%5BCWG-Stewardship%5D%20Client%20Committee%20Update&In-Reply-To=%3CCAA4fB%3D1-BWXEzQNBCoKL6uwbCn3%3DEL-xpBgvbBK%2Bu9Rm9g3f3Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E> Tue Feb 24 18:24:41 UTC 2015So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all thosewho wish to join with an expectation of participation.I would expect those same rules to apply here.It strikes me that it would set a dangerous precedent if the chairs areallowed to create a closed group at any time.Kieren*