Sean, 500k to date not per month. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Date:06/25/2015 5:42 PM (GMT-05:00) To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal cost reality With due respect James, I am in no way belittling the work of legal council. I am rather wondering how we as a community recognising this huge cost did not better strategize on how/when to engage external council. The amount that has been spent on all participants of the ccwg and cwg(for remote/physical meetings) would seem to be competing with the total cost of legal advice (perhaps legal would even be more). The deed has been done and we can't rewrite history. My comment is targeted more on the fact that we need to think of how we engage legal more efficiently going forward. For the record, when Greg said top notch council are expensive, 500k monthly is just beyond my imagination! Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 25 Jun 2015 18:23, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Our legal advice has been critical to our process and Sidley have been crucial to our successes. I think we should be thanking them for their service, and yes top notch legal services are not cheap. It is most certainly something that I have no issue with the community exercising its prudence over however lets not limit ourselves in any way to engage with our counsel. -James From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji Date: Thursday 25 June 2015 18:15 To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal cost reality Hi, I hope those who want to always push issues to external legal advice would appreciate the need to be strategic and prudent about this. Over 500,000USD already spent on Sidley is definitely not what we like ICANN to keep spending it's resources on. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.

Hi Chuck, I stand to be corrected, board seemed to imply monthly during their meeting. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 25 Jun 2015 18:55, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

Sean,

500k to date not per month.

Chuck

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message -------- From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Date:06/25/2015 5:42 PM (GMT-05:00) To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal cost reality

With due respect James, I am in no way belittling the work of legal council. I am rather wondering how we as a community recognising this huge cost did not better strategize on how/when to engage external council. The amount that has been spent on all participants of the ccwg and cwg(for remote/physical meetings) would seem to be competing with the total cost of legal advice (perhaps legal would even be more).

The deed has been done and we can't rewrite history. My comment is targeted more on the fact that we need to think of how we engage legal more efficiently going forward.

For the record, when Greg said top notch council are expensive, 500k monthly is just beyond my imagination!

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 25 Jun 2015 18:23, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

...

Our legal advice has been critical to our process and Sidley have been crucial to our successes. I think we should be thanking them for their service, and yes top notch legal services are not cheap. It is most certainly something that I have no issue with the community exercising its prudence over however lets not limit ourselves in any way to engage with our counsel.

-James

From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji Date: Thursday 25 June 2015 18:15 To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal cost reality

Hi,

I hope those who want to always push issues to external legal advice would appreciate the need to be strategic and prudent about this. Over 500,000USD already spent on Sidley is definitely not what we like ICANN to keep spending it's resources on.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.

Others have corrected me Seun. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Date:06/25/2015 8:23 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>, cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal cost reality Hi Chuck, I stand to be corrected, board seemed to imply monthly during their meeting. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 25 Jun 2015 18:55, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Sean, 500k to date not per month. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Date:06/25/2015 5:42 PM (GMT-05:00) To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal cost reality With due respect James, I am in no way belittling the work of legal council. I am rather wondering how we as a community recognising this huge cost did not better strategize on how/when to engage external council. The amount that has been spent on all participants of the ccwg and cwg(for remote/physical meetings) would seem to be competing with the total cost of legal advice (perhaps legal would even be more). The deed has been done and we can't rewrite history. My comment is targeted more on the fact that we need to think of how we engage legal more efficiently going forward. For the record, when Greg said top notch council are expensive, 500k monthly is just beyond my imagination! Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 25 Jun 2015 18:23, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Our legal advice has been critical to our process and Sidley have been crucial to our successes. I think we should be thanking them for their service, and yes top notch legal services are not cheap. It is most certainly something that I have no issue with the community exercising its prudence over however lets not limit ourselves in any way to engage with our counsel. -James From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji Date: Thursday 25 June 2015 18:15 To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal cost reality Hi, I hope those who want to always push issues to external legal advice would appreciate the need to be strategic and prudent about this. Over 500,000USD already spent on Sidley is definitely not what we like ICANN to keep spending it's resources on. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.

All, At this stage, we have not seen detailed bills. The bill signed off by the board will have been for the work of Sidley on both CCWG & CWG (to the best of my knowledge). I expect the work was most intense as they got up to speed with all of the background information and work of both groups. That said, I think we do need to work hard to control / manage bills and that was part of the motivation for having the client committee in the first place. A key question for us as a group is when / how do we use Sidley in the pre-NTIA proposal submission phase and in the post-NTIA submission phase? Two factors which will impact that are (a) the scope as defined in our initial engagement letter and (b) ICANN's approach to funding. In any case, I suspect we all have a similar sentiment. Great quality of work and necessary contribution but costs need to be managed as best as possible. Jonathan From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: 26 June 2015 06:57 To: Gomes, Chuck; Seun Ojedeji; James Gannon Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal cost reality Actually Chuck, the Board motion was approval of the costs incurred through 31 March 2015, and Sidley Austin was only engaged on 6 March. So that appears to be the charge for the first 3 weeks or so. My recollection is that they are billing a bit under $1000 per hour, so that would amount (in round numbers to 500 hours or 60 8-hour days in 25 calendar days. Our Sidley legal team consists of several people, and presumably for the first week or so, many of them were "catching up", which presumably accounts for a fair part of this. Then, Holly and Sharon were in Istanbul for several days. Overall, pretty high, but I am guessing the remaining months had a lower per-month rate. Alan At 25/06/2015 05:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote Sean, 500k to date not per month. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY SR 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Date:06/25/2015 5:42 PM (GMT-05:00) To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal cost reality With due respect James, I am in no way belittling the work of legal council. I am rather wondering how we as a community recognising this huge cost did not better strategize on how/when to engage external council. The amount that has been spent on all participants of the ccwg and cwg(for remote/physical meetings) would seem to be competing with the total cost of legal advice (perhaps legal would even be more). The deed has been done and we can't rewrite history. My comment is targeted more on the fact that we need to think of how we engage legal more efficiently going forward. For the record, when Greg said top notch council are expensive, 500k monthly is just beyond my imagination! Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 25 Jun 2015 18:23, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net > wrote: Our legal advice has been critical to our process and Sidley have been crucial to our successes. I think we should be thanking them for their service, and yes top notch legal services are not cheap. It is most certainly something that I have no issue with the community exercising its prudence over however lets not limit ourselves in any way to engage with our counsel. -James From: < cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Seun Ojedeji Date: Thursday 25 June 2015 18:15 To: " cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> " Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal cost reality Hi, I hope those who want to always push issues to external legal advice would appreciate the need to be strategic and prudent about this. Over 500,000USD already spent on Sidley is definitely not what we like ICANN to keep spending it's resources on. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Chuck, I agree with virtually everything you say. Just a few small points, regarding the IANA trademarks: - I would not assume that bias (or, to use a less loaded phrase, the desire for a particular result) is less of an issue than on any other point. I'm not saying that it is; I'm just saying it should not be assumed. - I don't believe ICANN has specific in-house trademark expertise. Jones Day appears to handle their trademark portfolio. - Jones Day and Sidley are likely to have roughly similar billing structures (unless ICANN has an alternative fee arrangement with ICANN specifically), so the likelihood of a significant cost savings by using one top-notch multinational firm instead of another top-notch multinational firm is relatively small. Greg On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

I don’t disagree with anything Jonathan says but as we try to finish the work, including implementation, to effectively manage costs I believe the following would be helpful to keep in mind:

· The ICANN General Counsel’s office and its primary outside Council firm Jones Day has demonstrated an extreme bias for protecting the corporation at all costs even when that may conflict with the public interest. In my opinion, that is the primary source of the mistrust in the community and that is why independent legal advice was needed and I believe will be needed going forward. I am not suggesting that fiduciary responsibilities should be ignored but rather that the Board needs to seek a balance between its fiduciary duties and its commitment to the community instead of always protecting the corporation as they have consistently done. In our meeting in Istanbul, I thought that Sidley made that point very well.

· In cases where bias may not be as big a problem (e.g., the IANA trademark) we should compare what it costs to use expertise in the General Counsel’s office and ICANN’s existing outside Counsel relationships to what it would cost to use Sidley Austin. Of course, there are two key assumptions here: 1) the right level of legal expertise is available; 2) the costs of in-house legal support and ICANN’s existing outside Counsel is provided.

· From the announcement by NTIA about the planned transition to now, ICANN leadership and some Board members have visibly pushed back on certain strong accountability mechanisms. It is important to remember that their first plan in responding to NTIA’s request was a top down approach controlled by ICANN instead of a truly bottom-up multi-stakeholder approach; it was only because we united in opposition that they changed their approach. It was also evident in Buenos Aires that Fadi and some board members were pushing back on some of the accountability mechanisms under consideration. Just to give one example, Fadi expressed a concern that what the CCWG was considering involved much more than what NTIA does; of course, he is right about that, but it needs to be recognized that the only way to avoid that would be to give the oversight to another government, which is not an option. A multi-stakeholder solution will naturally involve more than oversight provided by one government. Fadi also pointed out that to satisfy the U.S. Congress, we cannot provide a solution that involves governments inappropriately; I agree with that but he left out the point that to satisfy the U.S. congress we will have to provide a solution that gives the community the authority to hold ICANN accountable.

· We need to work to minimize legal costs without compromising our ability to produce the best solutions possible. In my opinion that will still require independent legal advice to avoid the clearly demonstrated bias described above. Let’s just manage the costs for that advice as effectively as possible.

Chuck

*From:* Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] *Sent:* Saturday, June 27, 2015 1:08 AM *To:* 'Alan Greenberg'; Gomes, Chuck; 'Seun Ojedeji'; 'James Gannon' *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal cost reality

All,

At this stage, we have not seen detailed bills. The bill signed off by the board will have been for the work of Sidley on both CCWG & CWG (to the best of my knowledge).

I expect the work was most intense as they got up to speed with all of the background information and work of both groups.

That said, I think we do need to work hard to control / manage bills and that was part of the motivation for having the client committee in the first place.

A key question for us as a group is when / how do we use Sidley in the pre-NTIA proposal submission phase and in the post-NTIA submission phase?

Two factors which will impact that are (a) the scope as defined in our initial engagement letter and (b) ICANN’s approach to funding.

In any case, I suspect we all have a similar sentiment. Great quality of work and necessary contribution but costs need to be managed as best as possible.

Jonathan

*From:* Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] *Sent:* 26 June 2015 06:57 *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Seun Ojedeji; James Gannon *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal cost reality

Actually Chuck, the Board motion was approval of the costs incurred through 31 March 2015, and Sidley Austin was only engaged on 6 March. So that appears to be the charge for the first 3 weeks or so.

My recollection is that they are billing a bit under $1000 per hour, so that would amount (in round numbers to 500 hours or 60 8-hour days in 25 calendar days.

Our Sidley legal team consists of several people, and presumably for the first week or so, many of them were "catching up", which presumably accounts for a fair part of this. Then, Holly and Sharon were in Istanbul for several days.

Overall, pretty high, but I am guessing the remaining months had a lower per-month rate.

Alan

At 25/06/2015 05:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote

Sean,

500k to date not per month.

Chuck

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message -------- From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Date:06/25/2015 5:42 PM (GMT-05:00) To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal cost reality

With due respect James, I am in no way belittling the work of legal council. I am rather wondering how we as a community recognising this huge cost did not better strategize on how/when to engage external council. The amount that has been spent on all participants of the ccwg and cwg(for remote/physical meetings) would seem to be competing with the total cost of legal advice (perhaps legal would even be more).

The deed has been done and we can't rewrite history. My comment is targeted more on the fact that we need to think of how we engage legal more efficiently going forward.

For the record, when Greg said top notch council are expensive, 500k monthly is just beyond my imagination!

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 25 Jun 2015 18:23, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net > wrote:

Our legal advice has been critical to our process and Sidley have been crucial to our successes.

I think we should be thanking them for their service, and yes top notch legal services are not cheap.

It is most certainly something that I have no issue with the community exercising its prudence over however lets not limit ourselves in any way to engage with our counsel.

-James

From: < cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji

Date: Thursday 25 June 2015 18:15

To: " cwg-stewardship@icann.org"

Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal cost reality

Hi,

I hope those who want to always push issues to external legal advice would appreciate the need to be strategic and prudent about this. Over 500,000USD already spent on Sidley is definitely not what we like ICANN to keep spending it's resources on.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4

kindly excuse brevity and typos.

_______________________________________________ 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

Hello All, I can confirm that the invoice from Sidley was for CWG work from the time of their appointment (6 March I think) until 31 March. The amount of the account was $592,578.75 to which Sidley applied a 15% discount to bring it down to $503,691.93. In addition $4944.03 expenses were added. Hope that’s helpful. Cheers, Chris

On 28 Jun 2015, at 04:40 , Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

Thanks for this great message, Chuck. My responses in line below

I don’t disagree with anything Jonathan says but as we try to finish the work, including implementation, to effectively manage costs I believe the following would be helpful to keep in mind: · The ICANN General Counsel’s office and its primary outside Council firm Jones Day has demonstrated an extreme bias for protecting the corporation at all costs even when that may conflict with the public interest. In my opinion, that is the primary source of the mistrust in the community and that is why independent legal advice was needed and I believe will be needed going forward.

MM: I reluctantly have to agree with Chuck. The reluctance comes from the fact that it would definitely be more economically efficient to rely on ICANN legal to draft the appropriate bylaw changes, and then have the CWG, advised by Sidley, review them. But we can’t do that, for the reasons Chuck enumerates.

I would differ from Chuck a little in that I would not say the problem is “mistrust” per se. The real problem is a direct and obvious conflict of interest between ICANN, Inc. (for whom ICANN legal is the agent) and the interests of the community as reflected in the enhanced accountability process. I think ICANN legal and Jones Day are highly trustworthy agents for their corporate client; they have proven time and again that they will fight for its interests. The problem is that in this case, ICANN’s interests are not aligned with those of us demanding more accountability. In other words, you do not have to think ICANN legal, or Jones Day, are “untrustworthy” in some ethical sense to believe that they should not be holding the pen on the required bylaw changes.

· In cases where bias may not be as big a problem (e.g., the IANA trademark) we should compare what it costs to use expertise in the General Counsel’s office and ICANN’s existing outside Counsel relationships to what it would cost to use Sidley Austin.

MM: Actually, I think this is an area where bias could be a serious problem. Continued ICANN control of the trademarks could be used to constrain or even nullify the right of the community to fire ICANN’s affiliate as IANA functions operator and hire someone else. Furthermore, control of the trademark would give ICANN additional leverage over the numbers and protocol communities, and we already know that the numbers community strongly objects to this.

In this case, however, I do not think we are dealing with a problem that requires a lot of legal work; the main thing we have to do is decide what entity that is not tied to a specific IFO can hold the trademark. Once that is decided, the process of transferring the TM to another owner (neither ICANN nor PTI) I’ll let the TM lawyers among us decide what is the best way to do it.

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

All, Notwithstanding the input and detail in the thread below, it is clearly incumbent on the CWG to utilise the legal professionals as efficiently as possible. Not cutting corners but also not being wasteful. This includes such management basics as working effectively with ICANN legal & finance, through whom the bills must ultimately be reviewed and signed off for payment. It seems to me that there remains a requirement for high-quality, independent legal advice and assistance as we: a. Respond to any questions and input from the other communities and the ICG (including the IP issues) and b. Move towards implementation Lise and I spoke yesterday and we are committed to working with the CWG, the Client Committee and ICANN to make sure we receive that high-quality advice as efficiently as possible and will work to achieve that. Thanks, Jonathan From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: 30 June 2015 05:56 To: Milton L Mueller Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal cost reality My comments below. On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote: Thanks for this great message, Chuck. My responses in line below I don’t disagree with anything Jonathan says but as we try to finish the work, including implementation, to effectively manage costs I believe the following would be helpful to keep in mind: · The ICANN General Counsel’s office and its primary outside Council firm Jones Day has demonstrated an extreme bias for protecting the corporation at all costs even when that may conflict with the public interest. In my opinion, that is the primary source of the mistrust in the community and that is why independent legal advice was needed and I believe will be needed going forward. MM: I reluctantly have to agree with Chuck. The reluctance comes from the fact that it would definitely be more economically efficient to rely on ICANN legal to draft the appropriate bylaw changes, and then have the CWG, advised by Sidley, review them. But we can’t do that, for the reasons Chuck enumerates. I would differ from Chuck a little in that I would not say the problem is “mistrust” per se. The real problem is a direct and obvious conflict of interest between ICANN, Inc. (for whom ICANN legal is the agent) and the interests of the community as reflected in the enhanced accountability process. I think ICANN legal and Jones Day are highly trustworthy agents for their corporate client; they have proven time and again that they will fight for its interests. The problem is that in this case, ICANN’s interests are not aligned with those of us demanding more accountability. In other words, you do not have to think ICANN legal, or Jones Day, are “untrustworthy” in some ethical sense to believe that they should not be holding the pen on the required bylaw changes. ​GSS: It doesn't really matter too much who prepares the first actual draft of the bylaws changes (although I would have a marginal preference for our counsel doing so, it's not truly significant). What's important is (a) the CWG prepares the specifications or terms of reference from which the first legal draft is prepared and (b) if ICANN's counsel prepares the first draft, our counsel takes that draft and revises that draft as much as needed to accomplish the objectives of the CWG. I am confident that our counsel are not "shrinking violets" and will "do the necessary" to prepare a second legal draft consistent with our needs. Hopefully, this process can be accomplished without too many "rounds" of drafts going back and forth.​ · In cases where bias may not be as big a problem (e.g., the IANA trademark) we should compare what it costs to use expertise in the General Counsel’s office and ICANN’s existing outside Counsel relationships to what it would cost to use Sidley Austin. MM: Actually, I think this is an area where bias could be a serious problem. Continued ICANN control of the trademarks could be used to constrain or even nullify the right of the community to fire ICANN’s affiliate as IANA functions operator and hire someone else. Furthermore, control of the trademark would give ICANN additional leverage over the numbers and protocol communities, and we already know that the numbers community strongly objects to this. ​GSS: First, I am not going to jump to any conclusions about the most appropriate home for the IANA trademarks and domain names, and I suggest we all hold back until the facts and legal analysis are done. That said, I think this concern is vastly overstated and possibly non-existent. In any event, it should be relatively easy to control for. To the extent the bylaws deal with IANA separation, the disposition of or access to the trademarks (and other IANA-related assets, both IPR and non-IPR) by non-ICANN parties (whether by assignment or by license)​ ​can be set forth in the bylaw. The various contracts between ICANN, on the one hand and PTI and the other two operational communities, on the other hand, are also appropriate places to deal with these issues in a straightforward and binding manner. Finally, and not to minimize the importance of the trademark registrations, if by some stretch of the imagination ICANN refuses to abide by binding agreements regarding the disposition of the trademarks, the services can be referred to by another name. Alternately, the non-ICANN entities can use the name based on the rights set forth in the agreements, knowing that if ICANN attempts to stop them, the agreements would make it very highly likely ICANN would lose and embarrass itself in the process. In this case, however, I do not think we are dealing with a problem that requires a lot of legal work; the main thing we have to do is decide what entity that is not tied to a specific IFO can hold the trademark. Once that is decided, the process of transferring the TM to another owner (neither ICANN nor PTI) I’ll let the TM lawyers among us decide what is the best way to do it. ​GSS; We are talking about legal rights -- rights created and governed by law -- so the idea that it doesn't require significant legal work is a little peculiar. It requires enough work to make sure we get this right as a matter of law, not just as a matter of desire. (In the grand scheme of things, it won't be a massive quantity of legal work, so don't worry about the bills.) As noted above, I'm not jumping to conclusions about the most appropriate home for the IANA trademarks. Until we do the work, I see no reason to believe that an entity "not tied to a specific IFO" is an appropriate or desirable owner of the trademarks. Also, I am far from sure that the IETF Trust ​fits the description of an entity "not tied to a specific IFO." The IETF may, at least arguably, be a provider of IANA services (if not, why would they need a license to the mark?), and the IETF is the sole beneficiary of the IETF Trust. Greg _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Alan, I believe (but stand to be corrected) that Sidley's bill covered their work with both the CWG and CCWG. Their efforts on both fronts started in March 2015. Also, Sidley's billing rates vary by attorney, rather than there being just a single rate per hour for all attorneys. (There are times when law firms will agree to bill on a "blended rate" (i.e., all hours cost the same regardless of the attorney) but it's a relatively uncommon practice.) Greg On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

Actually Chuck, the Board motion was approval of the costs incurred through 31 March 2015, and Sidley Austin was only engaged on 6 March. So that appears to be the charge for the first 3 weeks or so.

My recollection is that they are billing a bit under $1000 per hour, so that would amount (in round numbers to 500 hours or 60 8-hour days in 25 calendar days.

Our Sidley legal team consists of several people, and presumably for the first week or so, many of them were "catching up", which presumably accounts for a fair part of this. Then, Holly and Sharon were in Istanbul for several days.

Overall, pretty high, but I am guessing the remaining months had a lower per-month rate.

Alan

At 25/06/2015 05:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote

Sean,

500k to date not per month.

Chuck

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message -------- From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Date:06/25/2015 5:42 PM (GMT-05:00) To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal cost reality

With due respect James, I am in no way belittling the work of legal council. I am rather wondering how we as a community recognising this huge cost did not better strategize on how/when to engage external council. The amount that has been spent on all participants of the ccwg and cwg(for remote/physical meetings) would seem to be competing with the total cost of legal advice (perhaps legal would even be more).

The deed has been done and we can't rewrite history. My comment is targeted more on the fact that we need to think of how we engage legal more efficiently going forward.

For the record, when Greg said top notch council are expensive, 500k monthly is just beyond my imagination!

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 25 Jun 2015 18:23, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net > wrote: Our legal advice has been critical to our process and Sidley have been crucial to our successes. I think we should be thanking them for their service, and yes top notch legal services are not cheap. It is most certainly something that I have no issue with the community exercising its prudence over however lets not limit ourselves in any way to engage with our counsel.

-James

From: < cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji Date: Thursday 25 June 2015 18:15 To: " cwg-stewardship@icann.org" Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal cost reality

Hi,

I hope those who want to always push issues to external legal advice would appreciate the need to be strategic and prudent about this. Over 500,000USD already spent on Sidley is definitely not what we like ICANN to keep spending it's resources on.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.

_______________________________________________ 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