John, The CWG is not a legal entity, and therefore cannot engage ICANN for legal services (or for that matter enter into any contract with anybody for anything). You've read the letter -- it says Sidley is "to take direction exclusively from and provide advice and consultation exclusively to the Cross-Community Working Group on the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (“CWG”), primarily through the CWG’s Client Committee (the “Client Committee”)." Furthermore, the letter states: "For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN will have no rights or input as a client to direct or affect the advice and consultation with the CWG." Let me make plain to everyone -- John is wrong. I am also fully aware of the ethical rules that apply in this instance. These very issues were raised and discussed and I am utterly confident that we will get the independent advice we sought. Sidley Austin is fully aware of the emphasis on "independent" legal advice and I am also confident they would not have taken this representation if they thought that they could not deliver on that. Furthermore I find these accusations incorrect, baseless and bordering on scurrilous and troll-like behavior. Let me make another thing plain. I am a volunteer. Nobody is paying me to do any of this. I can easily choose to devote my time to other things. I will devote my time to the IANA transition. I will not devote my time to having my character and professional integrity impugned. I worked damned hard and in utter good faith to get this CWG first-rate legal advice, and so did the rest of the client committee. It's depressing and infuriating to have to cope with this in response. I guess no good deed goes unpunished. But I am not a glutton for punishment. Greg On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:55 PM, John Poole <jp1@expri.com> wrote:
Jonathan: I find this very troubling. ICANN is the client. Specifically, CWG-Stewardship is NOT the client, so what good is Sidley Austin's advice? Sidley Austin owes CWG-Stewardship none of the duties required of attorneys to clients under the California Code of Professional Responsibility. This is not what I understood CWG-Stewardship was getting, and I feel CWG-Stewardship has been intentionally misled. For all intents and purposes, ICANN could have made the same arrangements with Jones Day as they did with Sidley Austin, and saved us the time and trouble. Has anyone on the Client Committee reviewed independently the California Code of Professional Conduct and sought the opinion of a qualified non-interested California Attorney before agreeing to this? There are serious ramifications as to who is the named "client"--including the duty of loyalty--of which ICANN legal staff and Sidley Austin are fully aware. When did the Client Committee agree that the client for our "independent legal counsel" would be ICANN? Why was that not disclosed until now to all members and participants of CWG-Stewardship? Jonathan, is this what you mean by "good faith?" Let me make this plain for everyone--what the Client Committee has obtained is "ICANN outside Legal Counsel" for our use, but NOT Independent Legal Counsel--"Independent" means "independent of ICANN." Now I understand why ICANN legal staff and Jones Day have been intimately involved in the Client Committee process while members and participants of CWG-Stewardship were intentionally kept in the dark. This is not "good faith"--this reeks of "bad faith." -- John Poole
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Jonathan Robinson < jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> wrote:
All,
You may find the attached a more easily digestible summary of key terms.
Jonathan
*From:* Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] *Sent:* 09 March 2015 21:06 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* RE: Sidley Austin LLP
All,
Please see attached for the executed engagement letter with Sidley Austin.
Jonathan
*From:* Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info <jrobinson@afilias.info>] *Sent:* 08 March 2015 21:46 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Sidley Austin LLP
Dear All,
As of Friday 6 March, the CWG-Stewardship has engaged Sidley Austin LLP to advise and consult on the CWG’s development of a transition proposal.
In the past two weeks, the Client Committee shortlisted three firms, interviewed each of them, and retained one. We chose to retain Sidley primarily because they envisaged the engagement as consultation rather than pure advice. In addition, Sidley presented a strong governance focus as well as specific experience with the U.S. political environment (including a former Congressman and a former Department of Commerce appointee).
Sidley is aware of the CWG’s tight timeframe and accepts the requirement for highly transparent work methods. Also, the client relationship has been clearly defined and emphasized in the retention letter in that *ICANN has instructed Sidley to take direction exclusively from and provide advice and consultation exclusively to the CWG, primarily through the CWG’s Client Committee*.
Sidley has no previous client relationship with ICANN. No conflicts were identified, however please note that Greg Shatan and Holly Gregory from Sidley worked at the same firm over a decade ago.
The Client Committee will meet with Sidley Austin on Monday. This call will be recorded and transcribed and we will then provide an update to the CWG on Tuesday’s call, where we also plan to introduce the Sidley team to the CWG.
Best wishes,
Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship