Hi Greg, it's both ;-) thanks for all the hard work as we look forward to a timely outcome of the council. Thanks also for keeping to the deadline you set on client selection ;-) One more thing, what will the rule of engagement look like? I presume there will now be more direct interaction between the selected firm and CWG going forward. Otherwise how will that engagement process look like? Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 8 Mar 2015 08:56, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Seun,

I'm not sure I get your analogy. Are the firms too good, or are the teams they proposed too large? If it's the former (too good), I think we need the best advice we can get -- this is a complex and unique situation -- hardly "two shovels of sand." (It's more like transporting fragile, precious and specialized cargo.) If it's the latter (too large), rest assured that we will not be working with the whole team at every turn. I expect that most of our time will be spent with one or two lawyers. The rest of the team is there to cover the broad scope of issues we identified in our legal scoping documents, and they will brought in only when necessary.

As for budget, we are going to work with counsel to be as cost-effective as possible, while meeting the needs of the CWG (and indirectly, the whole process of which we are a part).

Greg

On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Great! The profile of the firms makes me understand what Greg meant by "top notch" ;-) On a lighter note, this feels[1] like using a trailer to carry 2 shovel of sand. You can be sure that the trailer will consume diesel but at least will deliver, and so long as the fuel station is willing to supply...Why not :-)

Whether it will be fast in delivery is another thing that I believe the client committee will ensure.

That said, @Greg, any idea of budget?

Cheers! 1. Don't mind a technical less cosmetic me ;-) sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 6 Mar 2015 20:57, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

...

All,

As promised, I have attached the introductory materials provided to the Client Committee by the three "finalist" law firms:

- Gibson Dunn - Latham & Watkins - Sidley Austin

Best regards,

Greg Shatan

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

All: I'd like to clarify the current "state of play" with regard to the selection and engagement of a law firm. I may not have been clear enough in my updates to the CWG on Tuesday's and Thursday's calls and/or the summarized notes may not have provided sufficient detail. I will do that here (and apologies that this is also a very lengthy answer to Matthew Shears' short question). In any event, as of Tuesday's meeting, the Client Committee had met with the 3 shortlisted firms. We then had a call to discuss the three firms and to determine how to move forward. All three firms were quite impressive, both on paper and on the calls, and all three brought teams that were well-matched to the work we need to do. As such, it was a relatively difficult comparison -- there was no "wrong" firm and each had its particularly strong points. Nonetheless, there were distinctions and differences, which became much clearer in the course of our meetings with the firms. In the course of our "debrief" call, a clear front-runner emerged, to the point where we felt it was appropriate to move forward with that firm alone to explore with that firm alone the unique 'nuts&bolts' of actually working together (timing, working methods, making the process and results transparent), etc.) We still felt we were on track to retain a firm by the end of the week or early the following week. ICANN legal was present on this call (since they are part of the engagement), but they explicitly (and of their own initiative) did not participate in the discussion when it came to the ranking of counsel -- that was done by the Client Committee members alone. Finally, I mentioned on Tuesday that a request had been made of all 3 firms for permission to release their names and introductory materials to this list. Since this is an unusual request, each firm had to consider the questions and go through their own process (e.g., conferring with the firm's General Counsel) to determine whether and how that could be done. As of Thursday's meeting, I reported that the Client Committee has received a proposed engagement letter (i.e., a letter agreement to retain the firm) from the front runner which did a good job of reflecting the unique circumstances of this relationship. I reported that we still hoped to engage a firm by end of the week or early the following week. I also reported that we were still waiting for permission from one firm to release their name and materials (NB: the Thursday meeting was before U.S. business hours), and that the names and materials of all three firms would be released as soon as that permission was received. After Thursday's CWG meeting, the Client Committee, the front running firm, and ICANN legal had a conference call to discuss the proposed engagement letter and the working methods if the firm was retained. It was a very fruitful call. The Client Committee proposed several changes to the letter to make it even more clear that the firm's instructions would come exclusively from the CWG (primarily through the Client Committee), and that their advice would exclusively be to the CWG. All of these changes were accepted. Based on all of the work done by the Committee to date, including the calls and discussions with the firms and within the Client Committee, and mindful of (but not pressed by) our timeline, we felt that we were in a position to make a final decision on the choice of law firm. That decision has now been made, and the CWG's co-chairs are preparing an announcement of that decision. In the meantime, we received permission from the third firm, and slightly revised versions of all three firms' introductory materials (revised solely to remove client names (which cannot be publicly shared (especially when aspects of their representation are discussed) without each client's express written permission) and to fix a typo or two). These were released to the list on Friday afternoon. Admittedly, the timing was not ideal, and may have caused confusion, but it was the earliest they could be released. In retrospect, it would have been preferable to release these earlier in the process; however, it's important to note that, in my opinion, much more was gleaned from the calls with each firm than from their materials with regard to the suitability of each firm. I am very excited that we are in a position to move forward with counsel and for the CWG to get the legal advice we so sorely need to sort out important aspects of our work. I trust that you are all enthusiastic as well, despite a few bumps in the process. I look forward to working with counsel as we move toward Istanbul, and I believe that our ability to be productive is now greatly enhanced. Greg On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:

Greg and Committee - many thanks - an impressive list.

Not sure if you are interested in immediate reactions... but from their introductory materials Gibson Dunn seem to have the best grasp of the challenges we face and the value they could add.

Matthew

On 3/6/2015 7:52 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

All,

As promised, I have attached the introductory materials provided to the Client Committee by the three "finalist" law firms:

- Gibson Dunn - Latham & Watkins - Sidley Austin

Best regards,

Greg Shatan

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Hey Robin, Quoting from a previous mail the committee is: 1. Greg Shatan (Partner at Abelman Frayne & Schwab) 2. Maarten Simon (General Counsel at SIDN) 3. Lise Fuhr (Co-chair) 4. Jonathan Robinson (Co-chair) James From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 6:47 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update: Finalists Thanks for the info, Greg. Who are the members of the Client Committee? Thanks, Robin On Mar 7, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: All: I'd like to clarify the current "state of play" with regard to the selection and engagement of a law firm. I may not have been clear enough in my updates to the CWG on Tuesday's and Thursday's calls and/or the summarized notes may not have provided sufficient detail. I will do that here (and apologies that this is also a very lengthy answer to Matthew Shears' short question). In any event, as of Tuesday's meeting, the Client Committee had met with the 3 shortlisted firms. We then had a call to discuss the three firms and to determine how to move forward. All three firms were quite impressive, both on paper and on the calls, and all three brought teams that were well-matched to the work we need to do. As such, it was a relatively difficult comparison -- there was no "wrong" firm and each had its particularly strong points. Nonetheless, there were distinctions and differences, which became much clearer in the course of our meetings with the firms. In the course of our "debrief" call, a clear front-runner emerged, to the point where we felt it was appropriate to move forward with that firm alone to explore with that firm alone the unique 'nuts&bolts' of actually working together (timing, working methods, making the process and results transparent), etc.) We still felt we were on track to retain a firm by the end of the week or early the following week. ICANN legal was present on this call (since they are part of the engagement), but they explicitly (and of their own initiative) did not participate in the discussion when it came to the ranking of counsel -- that was done by the Client Committee members alone. Finally, I mentioned on Tuesday that a request had been made of all 3 firms for permission to release their names and introductory materials to this list. Since this is an unusual request, each firm had to consider the questions and go through their own process (e.g., conferring with the firm's General Counsel) to determine whether and how that could be done. As of Thursday's meeting, I reported that the Client Committee has received a proposed engagement letter (i.e., a letter agreement to retain the firm) from the front runner which did a good job of reflecting the unique circumstances of this relationship. I reported that we still hoped to engage a firm by end of the week or early the following week. I also reported that we were still waiting for permission from one firm to release their name and materials (NB: the Thursday meeting was before U.S. business hours), and that the names and materials of all three firms would be released as soon as that permission was received. After Thursday's CWG meeting, the Client Committee, the front running firm, and ICANN legal had a conference call to discuss the proposed engagement letter and the working methods if the firm was retained. It was a very fruitful call. The Client Committee proposed several changes to the letter to make it even more clear that the firm's instructions would come exclusively from the CWG (primarily through the Client Committee), and that their advice would exclusively be to the CWG. All of these changes were accepted. Based on all of the work done by the Committee to date, including the calls and discussions with the firms and within the Client Committee, and mindful of (but not pressed by) our timeline, we felt that we were in a position to make a final decision on the choice of law firm. That decision has now been made, and the CWG's co-chairs are preparing an announcement of that decision. In the meantime, we received permission from the third firm, and slightly revised versions of all three firms' introductory materials (revised solely to remove client names (which cannot be publicly shared (especially when aspects of their representation are discussed) without each client's express written permission) and to fix a typo or two). These were released to the list on Friday afternoon. Admittedly, the timing was not ideal, and may have caused confusion, but it was the earliest they could be released. In retrospect, it would have been preferable to release these earlier in the process; however, it's important to note that, in my opinion, much more was gleaned from the calls with each firm than from their materials with regard to the suitability of each firm. I am very excited that we are in a position to move forward with counsel and for the CWG to get the legal advice we so sorely need to sort out important aspects of our work. I trust that you are all enthusiastic as well, despite a few bumps in the process. I look forward to working with counsel as we move toward Istanbul, and I believe that our ability to be productive is now greatly enhanced. Greg On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> wrote: Greg and Committee - many thanks - an impressive list. Not sure if you are interested in immediate reactions... but from their introductory materials Gibson Dunn seem to have the best grasp of the challenges we face and the value they could add. Matthew On 3/6/2015 7:52 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: All, As promised, I have attached the introductory materials provided to the Client Committee by the three "finalist" law firms: * Gibson Dunn * Latham & Watkins * Sidley Austin Best regards, Greg Shatan _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship