I was going to wait until I got home to try to make a clear statement on this, but since things are heating up now, I will try here. Regarding billing rates, I am WELL aware of this, but in the absence of any real information, I took a stab at a typical hourly rate. The $500k charge may well include the CCWG, but the Board resolution was quite explicit. If it is wrong, that is yet another significant concern. I personally found it amazing that, to my knowledge, during our (the CWG and CCWG) demands for external legal council, there were very few questions about getting estimates of what this might cost. This directly supports concerns by some Board members about the community being given budget responsibility with any associated interest in the results or implications of (some of) its decisions. I find ALL of this discussion driven by the paucity of information rather perturbing, given that it is occurring within groups so (rightfully) enamored by transparency and accountability. Someone mentioned that we have not yet seen the detailed bills. I certainly hope that SOMEONE had seen them prior to approving payment, and if we (ie ICANN staff or CWG/CCWG leadership) have them, I would be interested in understanding the reasons for them not being shared. Alan At 27/06/2015 12:26 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

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 <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>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 <<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Date:06/25/2015 5:42 PM (GMT-05:00) To: James Gannon <<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>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" <<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>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: <<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji Date: Thursday 25 June 2015 18:15 To: "<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> 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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

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