All: I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee. The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel. We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries. One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm. While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week. We will keep the CWG updated on our progress. Best regards, Greg Shatan for the Client Committee *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/>*
Thank you very much Greg. Do I understand correctly that the four firms that withdrew due to conflicts did so on their own and were not disqualified by the client committee or ICANN staff? Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 3:01 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update All: I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee. The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel. We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries. One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm. While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week. We will keep the CWG updated on our progress. Best regards, Greg Shatan for the Client Committee Gregory S. Shatan • 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<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>
Chuck, Client conflicts actually follow a fairly objective set of rules (although you have to be fairly well-versed in them to apply them correctly). As I understand it, each firm had a direct conflict (i.e., they represented a client in a matter directly adverse to ICANN (i.e., ICANN was on the other side)) that disqualified them under the relevant ethical rules from taking on this representation. I'm not sure in each instance who identified the client relationship. In one case, I'm certain that the firm identified a conflict and withdrew without providing details. I believe ICANN legal actually pressed them on it, to see if it might not be a real conflict and thus could be resolved, and the firm basically stated that they were certain it was a conflict and they were out. In one case where I know the facts, but not the origin, the conflict was clear -- the firm represented the "plaintiff" in an ongoing IRP. I'm not sure in the other cases who noticed it first -- but I'm not sure it actually matters, both because "a conflict is a conflict" and also because firms ultimately go through a very detailed conflict process before agreeing to take on a matter (but they may not go through the whole process if they are just one of several firms under consideration) -- so even if ICANN said "hey, you're suing us" before that firm found out, the firm would have found out soon enough. Greg On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Thank you very much Greg. Do I understand correctly that the four firms that withdrew due to conflicts did so on their own and were not disqualified by the client committee or ICANN staff?
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Monday, February 23, 2015 3:01 PM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
*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/>*
Thanks Greg. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 6:27 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update Chuck, Client conflicts actually follow a fairly objective set of rules (although you have to be fairly well-versed in them to apply them correctly). As I understand it, each firm had a direct conflict (i.e., they represented a client in a matter directly adverse to ICANN (i.e., ICANN was on the other side)) that disqualified them under the relevant ethical rules from taking on this representation. I'm not sure in each instance who identified the client relationship. In one case, I'm certain that the firm identified a conflict and withdrew without providing details. I believe ICANN legal actually pressed them on it, to see if it might not be a real conflict and thus could be resolved, and the firm basically stated that they were certain it was a conflict and they were out. In one case where I know the facts, but not the origin, the conflict was clear -- the firm represented the "plaintiff" in an ongoing IRP. I'm not sure in the other cases who noticed it first -- but I'm not sure it actually matters, both because "a conflict is a conflict" and also because firms ultimately go through a very detailed conflict process before agreeing to take on a matter (but they may not go through the whole process if they are just one of several firms under consideration) -- so even if ICANN said "hey, you're suing us" before that firm found out, the firm would have found out soon enough. Greg On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Thank you very much Greg. Do I understand correctly that the four firms that withdrew due to conflicts did so on their own and were not disqualified by the client committee or ICANN staff? Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 3:01 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update All: I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee. The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel. We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries. One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm. While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week. We will keep the CWG updated on our progress. Best regards, Greg Shatan for the Client Committee Gregory S. Shatan • Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> -- Gregory S. Shatan • 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<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed? Kieren - [sent through phone] On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All: I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee. The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel. We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries. One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm. While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week. We will keep the CWG updated on our progress. Best regards, Greg Shatan for the Client Committee *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/>*
Dear Lise and Jonathan, following the session in Singapore on the CWG discussion document I’m pleased – on behalf of the Internet Services Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency (ISPCP) – to provide answers to the “Questions for the community” as input for further deliberations. The constituency conducted an extensive discussion during the constituency day in Singapore with following-up on the mailing list. We’re prepared to further contribute to the CWG proposal. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ISPCP vicechair
Who are the members of the Client Committee? CW On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
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 ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com www.lawabel.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr. Greg Shatan On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Who are the members of the Client Committee?
CW
On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
*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/>*
I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute. Can you advise how I join? Kieren - [sent through phone] On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr. Greg Shatan On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Who are the members of the Client Committee?
CW
On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
*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/>*
I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant. Greg On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute.
Can you advise how I join?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr.
Greg Shatan
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu
wrote:
Who are the members of the Client Committee?
CW
On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
*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/>*
In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant. Greg On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> wrote: I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute. Can you advise how I join? Kieren - [sent through phone] On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr. Greg Shatan On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Who are the members of the Client Committee? CW On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> wrote: Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed? Kieren - [sent through phone] On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All: I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee. The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel. We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries. One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm. While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week. We will keep the CWG updated on our progress. Best regards, Greg Shatan for the Client Committee Gregory S. Shatan * Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Gregory S. Shatan * Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> -- Gregory S. Shatan * 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<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>
So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all those who 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 are allowed to create a closed group at any time. Kieren On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG.
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy < kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute.
Can you advise how I join?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr.
Greg Shatan
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Who are the members of the Client Committee?
CW
On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com
wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
*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/>*
Hi all, Please note that the client committee has been working for almost one month now. You can review the minutes of the meeting on 29 January where the client committee was finalized here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416959 Best, Grace From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:24 PM To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all those who 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 are allowed to create a closed group at any time. Kieren On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG.
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute.
Can you advise how I join?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr.
Greg Shatan
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Who are the members of the Client Committee?
CW
On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan for the Client Committee
Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 <tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022 <tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190 <tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428 <tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com ICANN-related: 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 <tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022 <tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190 <tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428 <tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com ICANN-related: 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 <tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022 <tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190 <tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428 <tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>
Kieren, How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all? Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:24 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all those who 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 are allowed to create a closed group at any time. Kieren On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant. Greg On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> wrote: I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute. Can you advise how I join? Kieren - [sent through phone] On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr. Greg Shatan On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Who are the members of the Client Committee? CW On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> wrote: Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed? Kieren - [sent through phone] On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All: I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee. The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel. We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries. One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm. While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week. We will keep the CWG updated on our progress. Best regards, Greg Shatan for the Client Committee Gregory S. Shatan * Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Gregory S. Shatan * Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> -- Gregory S. Shatan * Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>
Chuck You don't necessarily need to open it to full participation from all but you do need to provide additional transparency. The CWG needs to be advised of your activities in advance and certain issues, such as the role of ICANN legal in vetting "independent" legal advice, needs to be handled a bit more carefully, or at least we need to be assured that it is being handled carefully. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:32 PM To: Kieren McCarthy Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update Kieren, How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all? Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S(r) 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> Date:02/24/2015 1:24 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org%20Stewardship>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all those who 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 are allowed to create a closed group at any time. Kieren On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S(r) 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant. Greg On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> wrote: I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute. Can you advise how I join? Kieren - [sent through phone] On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr. Greg Shatan On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Who are the members of the Client Committee? CW On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> wrote: Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed? Kieren - [sent through phone] On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All: I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee. The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel. We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries. One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm. While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week. We will keep the CWG updated on our progress. Best regards, Greg Shatan for the Client Committee Gregory S. Shatan * Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Gregory S. Shatan * Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> -- Gregory S. Shatan * Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>
Completely agree Milton. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 4:34 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update Chuck You don't necessarily need to open it to full participation from all but you do need to provide additional transparency. The CWG needs to be advised of your activities in advance and certain issues, such as the role of ICANN legal in vetting "independent" legal advice, needs to be handled a bit more carefully, or at least we need to be assured that it is being handled carefully. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:32 PM To: Kieren McCarthy Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update Kieren, How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all? Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> Date:02/24/2015 1:24 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org%20Stewardship>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all those who 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 are allowed to create a closed group at any time. Kieren On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant. Greg On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> wrote: I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute. Can you advise how I join? Kieren - [sent through phone] On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr. Greg Shatan On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Who are the members of the Client Committee? CW On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> wrote: Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed? Kieren - [sent through phone] On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All: I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee. The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel. We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries. One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm. While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week. We will keep the CWG updated on our progress. Best regards, Greg Shatan for the Client Committee Gregory S. Shatan * Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Gregory S. Shatan * Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> -- Gregory S. Shatan * Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
I don't see many others asking to join this committee so I'm not sure this question is valid. What I would be more concerned about is if the first proper decision made by this group is done within a small group that refused to allows others in, even when asked. Kieren On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Kieren,
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:24 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all those who 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 are allowed to create a closed group at any time.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG.
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy < kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute.
Can you advise how I join?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr.
Greg Shatan
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Who are the members of the Client Committee?
CW
On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
*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/>*
Dear Kieren, On 25/02/2015 00:56, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
I don't see many others asking to join this committee so I'm not sure this question is valid.
The ALAC asked to have at least one of its representatives on the Committee and this was refused. We abided by this decision from the Chairs because ultimately: 1. we did not want to be a factor that was going to slow down the process. The Client Committee needs to act swiftly & professionally with the Legal Advice 2. we wish to show trust in the current Client Committee of 4 people. I emphasize point 2 in particular. Whilst transparency is very important, "trust" is important too. Kind regards, Olivier
The ALAC asked to have at least one of its representatives on the Committee and this was refused. MM: Did you ask openly? I don't recall seeing it, but I could easily have missed it. I would support adding Kieren and someone from ALAC, if only as observers. We abided by this decision from the Chairs because ultimately: 1. we did not want to be a factor that was going to slow down the process. The Client Committee needs to act swiftly & professionally with the Legal Advice 2. we wish to show trust in the current Client Committee of 4 people. I emphasize point 2 in particular. Whilst transparency is very important, "trust" is important too. MM: I have great trust in Jonathan, Greg, Lise and Chuck. I also belive in transparency and procedural safeguards. I know that all of them, especially the CWG co-chairs, have about a hundred others things to attend to and may need some help. I don't think it slows things down if we add a couple of people.
Just FYI, the 4th member is actually Maarten Simon from the ccNSO (he's Senior Legal & Policy Director with SIDN, the ccTLD manager for .NL (Netherlands)). It only seems like Chuck is everywhere -- even when he's out on vacation. Greg On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
The ALAC asked to have at least one of its representatives on the Committee and this was refused.
MM: Did you ask openly? I don’t recall seeing it, but I could easily have missed it. I would support adding Kieren and someone from ALAC, if only as observers.
We abided by this decision from the Chairs because ultimately: 1. we did not want to be a factor that was going to slow down the process. The Client Committee needs to act swiftly & professionally with the Legal Advice 2. we wish to show trust in the current Client Committee of 4 people.
I emphasize point 2 in particular. Whilst transparency is very important, "trust" is important too.
MM: I have great trust in Jonathan, Greg, Lise and Chuck. I also belive in transparency and procedural safeguards. I know that all of them, especially the CWG co-chairs, have about a hundred others things to attend to and may need some help. I don’t think it slows things down if we add a couple of people.
_______________________________________________ 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/>*
Yes, maybe we could cool down some of the concerns if you just added Kieren and one other independent to it. (I am NOT volunteering!) --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:56 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
I don't see many others asking to join this committee so I'm not sure this question is valid. What I would be more concerned about is if the first proper decision made by this group is done within a small group that refused to allows others in, even when asked. Kieren On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Kieren, How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all? Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> Date:02/24/2015 1:24 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all those who 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 are allowed to create a closed group at any time. Kieren On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant. Greg On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> wrote: I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute. Can you advise how I join? Kieren - [sent through phone] On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr. Greg Shatan On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Who are the members of the Client Committee? CW On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> wrote: Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed? Kieren - [sent through phone] On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All: I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee. The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel. We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries. One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm. While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week. We will keep the CWG updated on our progress. Best regards, Greg Shatan for the Client Committee Gregory S. Shatan • Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Gregory S. Shatan • Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> -- Gregory S. Shatan • Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>
hi, And for balance, if we add another non lawyer, perhaps we then also need to add another lawyer. Personally i never understood before that it takes this long to find legal advice. avri On 25-Feb-15 12:22, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Yes, maybe we could cool down some of the concerns if you just added Kieren and one other independent to it.
(I am NOT volunteering!)
--MM
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:56 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
I don't see many others asking to join this committee so I'm not sure this question is valid.
What I would be more concerned about is if the first proper decision made by this group is done within a small group that refused to allows others in, even when asked.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
Kieren,
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com <mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> Date:02/24/2015 1:24 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>
Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all those who 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 are allowed to create a closed group at any time.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG.
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com <mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com <mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute.
Can you advise how I join?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr.
Greg Shatan
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
Who are the members of the Client Committee?
CW
On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com <mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> wrote:
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï** **Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 <tel:212-885-9253> *| **Main* 212-949-9022 <tel:212-949-9022>
*Fax* 212-949-9190 <tel:212-949-9190> *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 <tel:917-816-6428>
*/gsshatan@lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>/*
*ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>/*
*/www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>/*
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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 <tel:212-885-9253> *| **Main* 212-949-9022 <tel:212-949-9022>
*Fax* 212-949-9190 <tel:212-949-9190> *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 <tel:917-816-6428>
*/gsshatan@lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>/*
*ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto: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 <tel:212-885-9253> *| **Main* 212-949-9022 <tel:212-949-9022>
*Fax* 212-949-9190 <tel:212-949-9190> *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 <tel:917-816-6428>
*/gsshatan@lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>/*
*ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto: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
Why not make Kieren the rapporteur? That would add transparency, take the reporting load off of the other participants, and he is a professional. He could be paid a fee by ICANN. Kurt On Feb 24, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
hi,
And for balance, if we add another non lawyer, perhaps we then also need to add another lawyer.
Personally i never understood before that it takes this long to find legal advice.
avri
On 25-Feb-15 12:22, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Yes, maybe we could cool down some of the concerns if you just added Kieren and one other independent to it.
(I am NOT volunteering!)
--MM
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:56 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
I don't see many others asking to join this committee so I'm not sure this question is valid.
What I would be more concerned about is if the first proper decision made by this group is done within a small group that refused to allows others in, even when asked.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Kieren,
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:24 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all those who 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 are allowed to create a closed group at any time.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG.
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute.
Can you advise how I join?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr.
Greg Shatan
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Who are the members of the Client Committee?
CW
On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
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
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com
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
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com
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
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com
www.lawabel.com
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi, Was with you until the payment of a fee. Would not some of the arguments we have heard about the effect of ICANN money being persuasive, mean that our rapporteur could not be paid? avri On 25-Feb-15 13:33, Kurt Pritz wrote:
Why not make Kieren the rapporteur? That would add transparency, take the reporting load off of the other participants, and he is a professional. He could be paid a fee by ICANN.
Kurt
On Feb 24, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
hi,
And for balance, if we add another non lawyer, perhaps we then also need to add another lawyer.
Personally i never understood before that it takes this long to find legal advice.
avri
On 25-Feb-15 12:22, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Yes, maybe we could cool down some of the concerns if you just added Kieren and one other independent to it.
(I am NOT volunteering!)
--MM
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:56 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
I don't see many others asking to join this committee so I'm not sure this question is valid.
What I would be more concerned about is if the first proper decision made by this group is done within a small group that refused to allows others in, even when asked.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
Kieren,
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com <mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> Date:02/24/2015 1:24 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>
Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all those who 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 are allowed to create a closed group at any time.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG.
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com <mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com <mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute.
Can you advise how I join?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr.
Greg Shatan
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
Who are the members of the Client Committee?
CW
On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com <mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> wrote:
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï** **Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 <tel:212-885-9253> *| **Main* 212-949-9022 <tel:212-949-9022>
*Fax* 212-949-9190 <tel:212-949-9190> *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 <tel:917-816-6428>
*/gsshatan@lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>/*
*ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>/*
*/www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>/*
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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 <tel:212-885-9253> *| **Main* 212-949-9022 <tel:212-949-9022>
*Fax* 212-949-9190 <tel:212-949-9190> *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 <tel:917-816-6428>
*/gsshatan@lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>/*
*ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto: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 <tel:212-885-9253> *| **Main* 212-949-9022 <tel:212-949-9022>
*Fax* 212-949-9190 <tel:212-949-9190> *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 <tel:917-816-6428>
*/gsshatan@lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>/*
*ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto: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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi Avri: That thought on fees was meant as an aside. I didn't mean for it to distract attention from the main idea. I was trying to find a way for this group to easily admit Kieren, get benefit out of his participation, provide transparency, and end the distracting discussion about membership in that group. Because the topic is on the table: a fee could be justified if we were giving only the reporting role and not a participant's role in the discussion. Kieren's role here would be exactly how he makes his living (reporting on ICANN) so I felt odd for volunteering him without making a statement like that. I still recommend that the team admit Kieren and ask him to take the reporting role for the reasons above. Just drop the fee part. It is another distraction from the big issues at hand. Thanks for asking, Kurt On Feb 24, 2015, at 8:50 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Was with you until the payment of a fee.
Would not some of the arguments we have heard about the effect of ICANN money being persuasive, mean that our rapporteur could not be paid?
avri
On 25-Feb-15 13:33, Kurt Pritz wrote:
Why not make Kieren the rapporteur? That would add transparency, take the reporting load off of the other participants, and he is a professional. He could be paid a fee by ICANN.
Kurt
On Feb 24, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
hi,
And for balance, if we add another non lawyer, perhaps we then also need to add another lawyer.
Personally i never understood before that it takes this long to find legal advice.
avri
On 25-Feb-15 12:22, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Yes, maybe we could cool down some of the concerns if you just added Kieren and one other independent to it.
(I am NOT volunteering!)
--MM
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:56 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
I don't see many others asking to join this committee so I'm not sure this question is valid.
What I would be more concerned about is if the first proper decision made by this group is done within a small group that refused to allows others in, even when asked.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Kieren,
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:24 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all those who 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 are allowed to create a closed group at any time.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG.
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute.
Can you advise how I join?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr.
Greg Shatan
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Who are the members of the Client Committee?
CW
On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
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
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com
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
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com
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
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com
www.lawabel.com
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I would be happy to charge my usual hourly rate, as well. God knows, nobody else is paying me to do this. Good news -- since I changed firms in October, my billing rate went down by over $200 an hour! 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/>* On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Kurt Pritz <kpritz@thedna.org> wrote:
Hi Avri:
That thought on fees was meant as an aside. I didn't mean for it to distract attention from the main idea.
I was trying to find a way for this group to easily admit Kieren, get benefit out of his participation, provide transparency, and end the distracting discussion about membership in that group.
Because the topic is on the table: a fee could be justified if we were giving only the reporting role and not a participant's role in the discussion. Kieren's role here would be exactly how he makes his living (reporting on ICANN) so I felt odd for volunteering him without making a statement like that.
I still recommend that the team admit Kieren and ask him to take the reporting role for the reasons above. Just drop the fee part. It is another distraction from the big issues at hand.
Thanks for asking,
Kurt
On Feb 24, 2015, at 8:50 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Was with you until the payment of a fee.
Would not some of the arguments we have heard about the effect of ICANN money being persuasive, mean that our rapporteur could not be paid?
avri
On 25-Feb-15 13:33, Kurt Pritz wrote:
Why not make Kieren the rapporteur? That would add transparency, take the reporting load off of the other participants, and he is a professional. He could be paid a fee by ICANN.
Kurt
On Feb 24, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
hi,
And for balance, if we add another non lawyer, perhaps we then also need to add another lawyer.
Personally i never understood before that it takes this long to find legal advice.
avri
On 25-Feb-15 12:22, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Yes, maybe we could cool down some of the concerns if you just added Kieren and one other independent to it.
(I am NOT volunteering!)
--MM
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:56 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
I don't see many others asking to join this committee so I'm not sure this question is valid.
What I would be more concerned about is if the first proper decision made by this group is done within a small group that refused to allows others in, even when asked.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Kieren,
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:24 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all those who 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 are allowed to create a closed group at any time.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG.
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy < kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute.
Can you advise how I join?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr.
Greg Shatan
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Who are the members of the Client Committee?
CW
On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
*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/>*
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- *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/>*
Kurt Your idea was a good one (make Kieren a rapporteur) but forget about the payment. Raises too many issues. With the exception of the ICANN staff support we are all working for free, and opportunity costs are high (esp. for Greg). It messes everything up to suddenly pick out one of these people and propose payment, please drop it. That thought on fees was meant as an aside. I didn't mean for it to distract attention from the main idea.
While not versed in US procedure I would suspect that having a reporter as part of the committee might be disadvantageous during the selection process, in so far as firms willing to participate. Once the selection is made and we have appointed a firm and have completed confidential negotiations stage, I would think that Greg and the committee will be reporting back in a high level of detail and transparency. We need to realize that we have 4 members of the CWG, including both our co-chairs and two trusted members in Greg and Maarten. Considering that no negotiations that pertain to the actual substance of our legal requests will all take place after the selection I think this is fair. Possibly Greg/Any members on the committee might be an idea to give us a detailed rundown, dates meetings etc, of what negotiations have occurred to date, and just anonymize it to Firm 1, Firm 2 etc. until a firm has been chosen. And as each meeting occurs update us where possible in a similar fashion. Understanding that the committee needs to be agile a bit more insight into the current status and a more regular update might be what we need to make sure that everyone is happy with the process. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 7:48 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update Hi Avri: That thought on fees was meant as an aside. I didn't mean for it to distract attention from the main idea. I was trying to find a way for this group to easily admit Kieren, get benefit out of his participation, provide transparency, and end the distracting discussion about membership in that group. Because the topic is on the table: a fee could be justified if we were giving only the reporting role and not a participant's role in the discussion. Kieren's role here would be exactly how he makes his living (reporting on ICANN) so I felt odd for volunteering him without making a statement like that. I still recommend that the team admit Kieren and ask him to take the reporting role for the reasons above. Just drop the fee part. It is another distraction from the big issues at hand. Thanks for asking, Kurt On Feb 24, 2015, at 8:50 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: Hi, Was with you until the payment of a fee. Would not some of the arguments we have heard about the effect of ICANN money being persuasive, mean that our rapporteur could not be paid? avri On 25-Feb-15 13:33, Kurt Pritz wrote: Why not make Kieren the rapporteur? That would add transparency, take the reporting load off of the other participants, and he is a professional. He could be paid a fee by ICANN. Kurt On Feb 24, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: hi, And for balance, if we add another non lawyer, perhaps we then also need to add another lawyer. Personally i never understood before that it takes this long to find legal advice. avri On 25-Feb-15 12:22, Milton L Mueller wrote: Yes, maybe we could cool down some of the concerns if you just added Kieren and one other independent to it. (I am NOT volunteering!) --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:56 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
I don't see many others asking to join this committee so I'm not sure this question is valid. What I would be more concerned about is if the first proper decision made by this group is done within a small group that refused to allows others in, even when asked. Kieren On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Kieren, How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all? Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> Date:02/24/2015 1:24 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all those who 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 are allowed to create a closed group at any time. Kieren On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant. Greg On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> wrote: I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute. Can you advise how I join? Kieren - [sent through phone] On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr. Greg Shatan On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Who are the members of the Client Committee? CW On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> wrote: Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed? Kieren - [sent through phone] On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All: I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee. The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel. We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries. One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm. While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week. We will keep the CWG updated on our progress. Best regards, Greg Shatan for the Client Committee Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: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<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> _______________________________________________ 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
While not versed in US procedure I would suspect that having a reporter as part of the committee might be disadvantageous during the selection process, in so far as firms willing to participate.
James, there are three pretty significant logical problems with your statement: 1. The firms are already participating. Are you seriously arguing that a new committee member would cause legal firms to withdraw from pitching for work? Why would they do that? 2. I am not offering my services as a reporter. I am offering to provide basic comms work. Something that I have done for over 20 years for ICANN as well as a significant number of other companies, many in this field. 3. You are imagining that the selection of a law firm for a piece of work is worthy of a mainstream news story. I can assure you it is not. You are also imagining that I would write about the process and name the law firms, regardless of whether they did not wish their names to be made public. But as I have made clear on this list on several occasions, the confidentiality aspect is understandable and simply has to be communicated properly. It seems incredible that I am offering to fix a clear accountability and transparency hole in this group's process and have to argue to be allowed to spend my spare time doing so. I would also remind you that the reason this group forewent the normal open and transparent processes was to get a faster result. That hasn't happened. It is now time to either pull the process back into the default openness or to provide sufficient information on what is happening. How this is something worth arguing against is beyond me. Kieren On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:53 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
While not versed in US procedure I would suspect that having a reporter as part of the committee might be disadvantageous during the selection process, in so far as firms willing to participate.
Once the selection is made and we have appointed a firm and have completed confidential negotiations stage, I would think that Greg and the committee will be reporting back in a high level of detail and transparency.
We need to realize that we have 4 members of the CWG, including both our co-chairs and two trusted members in Greg and Maarten. Considering that no negotiations that pertain to the actual substance of our legal requests will all take place after the selection I think this is fair.
Possibly Greg/Any members on the committee might be an idea to give us a detailed rundown, dates meetings etc, of what negotiations have occurred to date, and just anonymize it to Firm 1, Firm 2 etc. until a firm has been chosen. And as each meeting occurs update us where possible in a similar fashion. Understanding that the committee needs to be agile a bit more insight into the current status and a more regular update might be what we need to make sure that everyone is happy with the process.
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kurt Pritz *Sent:* Wednesday, February 25, 2015 7:48 PM *To:* Avri Doria *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
Hi Avri:
That thought on fees was meant as an aside. I didn't mean for it to distract attention from the main idea.
I was trying to find a way for this group to easily admit Kieren, get benefit out of his participation, provide transparency, and end the distracting discussion about membership in that group.
Because the topic is on the table: a fee could be justified if we were giving only the reporting role and not a participant's role in the discussion. Kieren's role here would be exactly how he makes his living (reporting on ICANN) so I felt odd for volunteering him without making a statement like that.
I still recommend that the team admit Kieren and ask him to take the reporting role for the reasons above. Just drop the fee part. It is another distraction from the big issues at hand.
Thanks for asking,
Kurt
On Feb 24, 2015, at 8:50 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Was with you until the payment of a fee.
Would not some of the arguments we have heard about the effect of ICANN money being persuasive, mean that our rapporteur could not be paid?
avri
On 25-Feb-15 13:33, Kurt Pritz wrote:
Why not make Kieren the rapporteur? That would add transparency, take the reporting load off of the other participants, and he is a professional. He could be paid a fee by ICANN.
Kurt
On Feb 24, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
hi,
And for balance, if we add another non lawyer, perhaps we then also need to add another lawyer.
Personally i never understood before that it takes this long to find legal advice.
avri
On 25-Feb-15 12:22, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Yes, maybe we could cool down some of the concerns if you just added Kieren and one other independent to it.
(I am NOT volunteering!)
--MM
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:56 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
I don't see many others asking to join this committee so I'm not sure this question is valid.
What I would be more concerned about is if the first proper decision made by this group is done within a small group that refused to allows others in, even when asked.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Kieren,
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:24 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all those who 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 are allowed to create a closed group at any time.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG.
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy < kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute.
Can you advise how I join?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr.
Greg Shatan
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Who are the members of the Client Committee?
CW
On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
*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/>*
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Kurt, I think it's important to identify what the issue is and why you are insisting on adding one more person. The way I understand the issue is that we are currently in this situation by design and not that the current team cannot provide required report. Unless the current team feel they need more hands, I don't think adding one more person will necessarily improve transparency in any way. Considering that other members have also indicated interest to join the team in the past and was not admitted based on the principles of the team establishment, adding one person now sets unnecessary precedence. For me, all that is required is transparency and documentation, will be good to ask the team if having more people will enable that. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 25 Feb 2015 20:48, "Kurt Pritz" <kpritz@thedna.org> wrote:
Hi Avri:
That thought on fees was meant as an aside. I didn't mean for it to distract attention from the main idea.
I was trying to find a way for this group to easily admit Kieren, get benefit out of his participation, provide transparency, and end the distracting discussion about membership in that group.
Because the topic is on the table: a fee could be justified if we were giving only the reporting role and not a participant's role in the discussion. Kieren's role here would be exactly how he makes his living (reporting on ICANN) so I felt odd for volunteering him without making a statement like that.
I still recommend that the team admit Kieren and ask him to take the reporting role for the reasons above. Just drop the fee part. It is another distraction from the big issues at hand.
Thanks for asking,
Kurt
On Feb 24, 2015, at 8:50 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Was with you until the payment of a fee.
Would not some of the arguments we have heard about the effect of ICANN money being persuasive, mean that our rapporteur could not be paid?
avri
On 25-Feb-15 13:33, Kurt Pritz wrote:
Why not make Kieren the rapporteur? That would add transparency, take the reporting load off of the other participants, and he is a professional. He could be paid a fee by ICANN.
Kurt
On Feb 24, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
hi,
And for balance, if we add another non lawyer, perhaps we then also need to add another lawyer.
Personally i never understood before that it takes this long to find legal advice.
avri
On 25-Feb-15 12:22, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Yes, maybe we could cool down some of the concerns if you just added Kieren and one other independent to it.
(I am NOT volunteering!)
--MM
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:56 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
I don't see many others asking to join this committee so I'm not sure this question is valid.
What I would be more concerned about is if the first proper decision made by this group is done within a small group that refused to allows others in, even when asked.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Kieren,
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:24 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all those who 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 are allowed to create a closed group at any time.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG.
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy < kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute.
Can you advise how I join?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr.
Greg Shatan
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Who are the members of the Client Committee?
CW
On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
*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/>*
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Seun: I am not insisting on adding one more person; it is a recommendation. One issue is that Kieren asked to be included and then the discussion turned to transparency. Whether a valid concern or not, I don't think this team should have a discussion about transparency where there are winners and losers. I saw including only Kieren as a rapporteur as a way to take the legs out from the transparency discussion and have minimum impact to the team. Another issue is the workload of an overloaded team. I saw Kieren's inclusion as a way to relieve the additional task of taking notes and reporting by those taking a substantive role in the discussion and giving to a professional. A third reason is that Kieren can be briefed that certain discussions by the vendors are confidential and provide independent corroboration that confidentiality is appropriate and not germane to the public review. Kurt On Feb 25, 2015, at 1:54 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Kurt,
I think it's important to identify what the issue is and why you are insisting on adding one more person. The way I understand the issue is that we are currently in this situation by design and not that the current team cannot provide required report. Unless the current team feel they need more hands, I don't think adding one more person will necessarily improve transparency in any way. Considering that other members have also indicated interest to join the team in the past and was not admitted based on the principles of the team establishment, adding one person now sets unnecessary precedence. For me, all that is required is transparency and documentation, will be good to ask the team if having more people will enable that.
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 25 Feb 2015 20:48, "Kurt Pritz" <kpritz@thedna.org> wrote: Hi Avri:
That thought on fees was meant as an aside. I didn't mean for it to distract attention from the main idea.
I was trying to find a way for this group to easily admit Kieren, get benefit out of his participation, provide transparency, and end the distracting discussion about membership in that group.
Because the topic is on the table: a fee could be justified if we were giving only the reporting role and not a participant's role in the discussion. Kieren's role here would be exactly how he makes his living (reporting on ICANN) so I felt odd for volunteering him without making a statement like that.
I still recommend that the team admit Kieren and ask him to take the reporting role for the reasons above. Just drop the fee part. It is another distraction from the big issues at hand.
Thanks for asking,
Kurt
On Feb 24, 2015, at 8:50 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Was with you until the payment of a fee.
Would not some of the arguments we have heard about the effect of ICANN money being persuasive, mean that our rapporteur could not be paid?
avri
On 25-Feb-15 13:33, Kurt Pritz wrote:
Why not make Kieren the rapporteur? That would add transparency, take the reporting load off of the other participants, and he is a professional. He could be paid a fee by ICANN.
Kurt
On Feb 24, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
hi,
And for balance, if we add another non lawyer, perhaps we then also need to add another lawyer.
Personally i never understood before that it takes this long to find legal advice.
avri
On 25-Feb-15 12:22, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Yes, maybe we could cool down some of the concerns if you just added Kieren and one other independent to it.
(I am NOT volunteering!)
--MM
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:56 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
I don't see many others asking to join this committee so I'm not sure this question is valid.
What I would be more concerned about is if the first proper decision made by this group is done within a small group that refused to allows others in, even when asked.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Kieren,
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:24 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all those who 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 are allowed to create a closed group at any time.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG.
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute.
Can you advise how I join?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr.
Greg Shatan
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Who are the members of the Client Committee?
CW
On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
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
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com
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
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com
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
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com
www.lawabel.com
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
These are all very sensible points, Kurt. I hope they are heeded --MM One issue is that Kieren asked to be included and then the discussion turned to transparency. Whether a valid concern or not, I don't think this team should have a discussion about transparency where there are winners and losers. I saw including only Kieren as a rapporteur as a way to take the legs out from the transparency discussion and have minimum impact to the team. Another issue is the workload of an overloaded team. I saw Kieren's inclusion as a way to relieve the additional task of taking notes and reporting by those taking a substantive role in the discussion and giving to a professional. A third reason is that Kieren can be briefed that certain discussions by the vendors are confidential and provide independent corroboration that confidentiality is appropriate and not germane to the public review. Kurt
The way I understand it is that the 4 team members are volunteering (!paid), so I guess that payment part is mute. I think at this point, there is no need to increase the number, unless the client committee formerly indicate of their need for more people. What is just required is for the committee to document their activities transparently so we can follow them as I believe those will form part of the RFP response (rfp6 I think?- the one about community engagement) Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 25 Feb 2015 06:36, "Kurt Pritz" <kpritz@thedna.org> wrote:
Why not make Kieren the rapporteur? That would add transparency, take the reporting load off of the other participants, and he is a professional. He could be paid a fee by ICANN.
Kurt
On Feb 24, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
hi,
And for balance, if we add another non lawyer, perhaps we then also need to add another lawyer.
Personally i never understood before that it takes this long to find legal advice.
avri
On 25-Feb-15 12:22, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Yes, maybe we could cool down some of the concerns if you just added Kieren and one other independent to it.
(I am NOT volunteering!)
--MM
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:56 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
I don't see many others asking to join this committee so I'm not sure this question is valid.
What I would be more concerned about is if the first proper decision made by this group is done within a small group that refused to allows others in, even when asked.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Kieren,
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:24 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all those who 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 are allowed to create a closed group at any time.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG.
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy < kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute.
Can you advise how I join?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr.
Greg Shatan
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Who are the members of the Client Committee?
CW
On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
*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/>*
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks Seun and others before you on this thread. We set up this client committee around a month ago comprising the two co-chairs plus two lawyers, one from cc community (Maarten), one from g community (Greg). The group is performing an unusual function and in defining the composition of the committee we sought to balance a number of factors including effectiveness of the group, expertise of the participants etc. A couple of key points emerge: 1. This could be done faster. Noted and we share your impatience. There has been commitment to the work and it has simply taken some time to identify qualified firms, remove those with conflicts and then produce the short-list. 2. This could be more transparent. Noted and I’m sure we can improve here. There is an element of confidentiality in the selection process as was highlighted earlier in the thread. Suggestions remain welcome at any time and both points above are clear but please note, and as highlighted by Olivier, a degree of trust is required here. We are working hard and in good faith. Jonathan From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: 25 February 2015 06:00 To: Kurt Pritz Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update The way I understand it is that the 4 team members are volunteering (!paid), so I guess that payment part is mute. I think at this point, there is no need to increase the number, unless the client committee formerly indicate of their need for more people. What is just required is for the committee to document their activities transparently so we can follow them as I believe those will form part of the RFP response (rfp6 I think?- the one about community engagement) Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 25 Feb 2015 06:36, "Kurt Pritz" <kpritz@thedna.org> wrote: Why not make Kieren the rapporteur? That would add transparency, take the reporting load off of the other participants, and he is a professional. He could be paid a fee by ICANN. Kurt On Feb 24, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: hi, And for balance, if we add another non lawyer, perhaps we then also need to add another lawyer. Personally i never understood before that it takes this long to find legal advice. avri On 25-Feb-15 12:22, Milton L Mueller wrote: Yes, maybe we could cool down some of the concerns if you just added Kieren and one other independent to it. (I am NOT volunteering!) --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:56 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
I don't see many others asking to join this committee so I'm not sure this question is valid. What I would be more concerned about is if the first proper decision made by this group is done within a small group that refused to allows others in, even when asked. Kieren On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Kieren, How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all? Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:24 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all those who 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 are allowed to create a closed group at any time. Kieren On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant. Greg On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote: I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute. Can you advise how I join? Kieren - [sent through phone] On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr. Greg Shatan On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Who are the members of the Client Committee? CW On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote: Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed? Kieren - [sent through phone] On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: All: I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee. The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel. We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries. One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm. While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week. We will keep the CWG updated on our progress. Best regards, Greg Shatan for the Client Committee 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 ICANN-related: 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 ICANN-related: 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 ICANN-related: 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Jonathan, As I am sure you are aware, it is vitally important that every aspect of this transition process is seen to be done as openly and as transparently as possible. The two chairs decided to step outside what have been the norms of this process - open groups, mailing lists and minuted discussions - in what is one of the most important aspects of this whole process: the selection of an independent legal expert. The reason given for that significant change in approach - and the reason accepted by this group - was expediency: the ability to quickly choose a third party. That claimed benefit, and the reasons for the trade-off in openness and transparency, has not happened as you yourself acknowledge. At this point, it should have been clear to the committee that it needed to re-engender the trust put into it by the community by being as open and informative as possible. As you can see from numerous posts to this thread, the update that was provided falls far short of what we would expect to see from a closed door process. Now this is not to apportion blame - we are all extremely well aware of the enormous workload this group and the chairs in particular are under. But "trust" - which is the remaining reason you provide for continuing to run a out-of-step process - is not something built up that can then be spent on bypassing procedural norms or failing to provide sufficient information. Trust in this context comes from you and the other members of the committee recognizing people's concerns and taking concrete steps to address them. Now I have asked to join the committee and I am willing to bring my skills of quick, concise and accurate communication to fill the gap between running a closed process and keeping people informed and confident that the committee is working in the best overall interests of the group. I would hope you will accept this offer, also given in good faith, or else give a very good reason why not. As to confidentiality, that is an obvious and very simple issue to tackle. Although I would expect to see clear communication explaining why it is necessary to keep some details confidential and to outline in broad what details those are. That, I would argue, is how to best create trust in this unusual process. Kieren On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Thanks Seun and others before you on this thread.
We set up this client committee around a month ago comprising the two co-chairs plus two lawyers, one from cc community (Maarten), one from g community (Greg).
The group is performing an unusual function and in defining the composition of the committee we sought to balance a number of factors including effectiveness of the group, expertise of the participants etc.
A couple of key points emerge:
1. This could be done faster. Noted and we share your impatience. There has been commitment to the work and it has simply taken some time to identify qualified firms, remove those with conflicts and then produce the short-list.
2. This could be more transparent. Noted and I’m sure we can improve here. There is an element of confidentiality in the selection process as was highlighted earlier in the thread.
Suggestions remain welcome at any time and both points above are clear but please note, and as highlighted by Olivier, a degree of trust is required here. We are working hard and in good faith.
Jonathan
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* 25 February 2015 06:00 *To:* Kurt Pritz *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
The way I understand it is that the 4 team members are volunteering (!paid), so I guess that payment part is mute. I think at this point, there is no need to increase the number, unless the client committee formerly indicate of their need for more people. What is just required is for the committee to document their activities transparently so we can follow them as I believe those will form part of the RFP response (rfp6 I think?- the one about community engagement)
Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 25 Feb 2015 06:36, "Kurt Pritz" <kpritz@thedna.org> wrote:
Why not make Kieren the rapporteur? That would add transparency, take the reporting load off of the other participants, and he is a professional. He could be paid a fee by ICANN.
Kurt
On Feb 24, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
hi,
And for balance, if we add another non lawyer, perhaps we then also need to add another lawyer.
Personally i never understood before that it takes this long to find legal advice.
avri
On 25-Feb-15 12:22, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Yes, maybe we could cool down some of the concerns if you just added Kieren and one other independent to it.
(I am NOT volunteering!)
--MM
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:56 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
I don't see many others asking to join this committee so I'm not sure this question is valid.
What I would be more concerned about is if the first proper decision made by this group is done within a small group that refused to allows others in, even when asked.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Kieren,
How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full openness to all?
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:24 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all those who 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 are allowed to create a closed group at any time.
Kieren
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG.
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy < kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute.
Can you advise how I join?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr.
Greg Shatan
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Who are the members of the Client Committee?
CW
On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
*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/>*
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________ 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
I agree with Chuck's comments.. On 24 Feb 2015, at 13:19, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the CWG.
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee. I am just a humble servant.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> wrote: I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute.
Can you advise how I join?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr.
Greg Shatan
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Who are the members of the Client Committee?
CW
On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> wrote:
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan for the Client Committee
Gregory S. Shatan * Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
Gregory S. Shatan * Abelman Frayne & Schwab
Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet
666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621
Direct 212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022>
Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428>
gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>
--
Gregory S. Shatan * 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<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: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
Also, will this group be providing its criteria and rationale for selecting and rejecting specific firms? And will it be providing meeting minutes and/or recordings of its meetings? I believe this entire process has agreed to work with the maximum possible transparency. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed? Kieren - [sent through phone] On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All: I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee. The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel. We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries. One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm. While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week. We will keep the CWG updated on our progress. Best regards, Greg Shatan for the Client Committee *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/>*
Kieren, I'll make sure to bring these points up with the Committee. At our last meeting, we decided to provide an update on our activities, which is the email that began this thread. Greg On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, will this group be providing its criteria and rationale for selecting and rejecting specific firms?
And will it be providing meeting minutes and/or recordings of its meetings?
I believe this entire process has agreed to work with the maximum possible transparency.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com
wrote:
Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses to this list, albeit with identifying information removed?
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
*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/>*
Greg, What are the name so the eight firms and which one of those firms are in conflict? Thank you. Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:30 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
*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
Siva, Typically, this type of information is confidential. Law firms don't reveal who may have approached them seeking advice, and vice versa. This is particularly true when conversations don't proceed due to the identification of a conflict with an existing client's interests. We would have to go back and ask each firm to consent to revealing their name. When we meet with the three firms on the short list, we will ask each of them whether they will agree to have their name and their submissions made public on this list. Is there a particular concern or question that I can help you with? Please let me know. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
Greg,
What are the name so the eight firms and which one of those firms are in conflict?
Thank you.
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:30 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
*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/>*
Dear Greg This was out of interest, I don't have to insist. Thank you. Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Siva,
Typically, this type of information is confidential. Law firms don't reveal who may have approached them seeking advice, and vice versa. This is particularly true when conversations don't proceed due to the identification of a conflict with an existing client's interests. We would have to go back and ask each firm to consent to revealing their name. When we meet with the three firms on the short list, we will ask each of them whether they will agree to have their name and their submissions made public on this list.
Is there a particular concern or question that I can help you with? Please let me know.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
Greg,
What are the name so the eight firms and which one of those firms are in conflict?
Thank you.
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:30 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20. Also attending were representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the selection and engagement of counsel.
We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts, etc. Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other offices in the US and other countries.
One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues. Four firms have withdrawn due to client conflicts
We are left with a short list of three firms. Each of these firms has now sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities. At least one member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each firm. We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the short list, at this point, it is premature to do so. We will need to ask each firm permission to identify it to this group. We will discuss this with them during our calls this week.
We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
for the Client Committee
*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/>*
participants (16)
-
Avri Doria -
CW Lists -
Gomes, Chuck -
Grace Abuhamad -
Greg Shatan -
James Gannon -
Jonathan Robinson -
Kieren McCarthy -
Kieren McCarthy -
Kurt Pritz -
Milton L Mueller -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Robert Guerra -
Seun Ojedeji -
Sivasubramanian M -
WUKnoben