All, We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work. Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee. The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact. Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG's work commences in earnest? Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times.
Can I ask who decided this? Was it the closed committee itself or was there a discussion on this list that I missed? I'm not sure these assertions hold much water to be honest. And the previous justification for having a closed committee for selecting the legal team - expediency - turned out not to be true either. I am concerned that important decisions are being made by a closed committee without the normal, or adequate, transparency or accountability measures. It seems peculiar that with well established processes for the rest of this process that this aspect now has to rely on people recommending transparency and accountability components. Surely it should be the case that this part of the process is run exactly the same as the rest of the IANA transition. That means an open mailing list, open meetings, minutes, recordings and so on. If any changes are made they should be dependent on persuading others that they need to be *removed* rather than this approach which appears to start from complete secrecy and then ask the community to persuade the select group of four people (plus ICANN lawyers, both in-house and external) that they should introduce norms. The fact that this process is about developing external legal advice and that that advice is expected to contradict ICANN's own legal advice, makes this abnormal approach all the more concerning to me. I'm almost hesitant to ask but does this group expect that ICANN's legal team and/or legal representatives would remain on the closed committee? If so, I'd like to see an explanation for why that isn't a highly significant conflict of interest. Kieren On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
All,
We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work.
Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact.
Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
To respond to one particular item, we have over the last few days been developing "Rules of Engagement" for the client relationship with Sidley. These include many things you mention here. We have set up a "CWG-client" email list, which is being archived publicly like every other list of this group. Our call today with Sidley was conducted on Adobe Connect and recorded, as well all other such scheduled calls. A document is being prepared to reflect these "Rules of Engagement." I'm sorry it wasn't ready earlier, but I spent several hours in the ER on Friday night being diagnosed with cellulitis (a subcutaneous skin infection which can be fatal if left untreated), and several more hours with my internist today, because he wanted to do tests to rule out Deep Vein Thrombosis, which is much more likely than cellulitis to be fatal. Fortunately, it's only cellulitis. This slowed me down a bit, in part because of the infection and in part because I have to spend as much time as possible with my leg elevated above my heart, which is not an ideal working position. Jonathan's call for suggestions was meant to open the floor to further suggestions, not to suggest that we had no idea how to set things up going forward. I'm sure this would have been clearer if the "Rules of Engagement" had been sent out first, but we're not perfect. However, we're also trying our best and in good faith to get the CWG the legal advice it needs and we are on the cusp of doing so. "Complete secrecy" is an absurd mis-statement, but that's only par for the course. As for expediency, we worked on this virtually every day and sometimes many hours a day since this committee was formed. You have no idea how long something like this takes, but you have no problem asserting that there were delays or lack of expediency. If you all are getting ready to hand out pitchforks and fire up the torches, I'm not sticking around for the barbecue. Greg On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times.
Can I ask who decided this? Was it the closed committee itself or was there a discussion on this list that I missed?
I'm not sure these assertions hold much water to be honest. And the previous justification for having a closed committee for selecting the legal team - expediency - turned out not to be true either.
I am concerned that important decisions are being made by a closed committee without the normal, or adequate, transparency or accountability measures.
It seems peculiar that with well established processes for the rest of this process that this aspect now has to rely on people recommending transparency and accountability components.
Surely it should be the case that this part of the process is run exactly the same as the rest of the IANA transition. That means an open mailing list, open meetings, minutes, recordings and so on.
If any changes are made they should be dependent on persuading others that they need to be *removed* rather than this approach which appears to start from complete secrecy and then ask the community to persuade the select group of four people (plus ICANN lawyers, both in-house and external) that they should introduce norms.
The fact that this process is about developing external legal advice and that that advice is expected to contradict ICANN's own legal advice, makes this abnormal approach all the more concerning to me.
I'm almost hesitant to ask but does this group expect that ICANN's legal team and/or legal representatives would remain on the closed committee?
If so, I'd like to see an explanation for why that isn't a highly significant conflict of interest.
Kieren
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
All,
We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work.
Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact.
Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Kieren, Your excessive mistrust is becoming counterproductive. I am all for asking hard questions if they are asked in a constructive manner but in my personal opinion you have gone beyond that point. I admit that I have had the opportunity of working with Greg fairly extensively in multiple GNSO WGs so I probably have a very strong basis for trusting his leadership in this effort, but I still think it would be helpful if you moderate your high level of suspicion. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 7:23 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times.
Can I ask who decided this? Was it the closed committee itself or was there a discussion on this list that I missed? I'm not sure these assertions hold much water to be honest. And the previous justification for having a closed committee for selecting the legal team - expediency - turned out not to be true either. I am concerned that important decisions are being made by a closed committee without the normal, or adequate, transparency or accountability measures. It seems peculiar that with well established processes for the rest of this process that this aspect now has to rely on people recommending transparency and accountability components. Surely it should be the case that this part of the process is run exactly the same as the rest of the IANA transition. That means an open mailing list, open meetings, minutes, recordings and so on. If any changes are made they should be dependent on persuading others that they need to be *removed* rather than this approach which appears to start from complete secrecy and then ask the community to persuade the select group of four people (plus ICANN lawyers, both in-house and external) that they should introduce norms. The fact that this process is about developing external legal advice and that that advice is expected to contradict ICANN's own legal advice, makes this abnormal approach all the more concerning to me. I'm almost hesitant to ask but does this group expect that ICANN's legal team and/or legal representatives would remain on the closed committee? If so, I'd like to see an explanation for why that isn't a highly significant conflict of interest. Kieren On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work. Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee. The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact. Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest? Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I wasn't at all distrustful, just curious, when I first start asking questions. It is the answers that are making me uncomfortable. Especially the involvement of ICANN's lawyers, both in-house and external. The concept of "trust" as it is being relayed in the context of this closed committee is most unusual. "Trust" is not a replacement for procedural norms. Arguing otherwise only raises more questions. Kieren On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Kieren,
Your excessive mistrust is becoming counterproductive. I am all for asking hard questions if they are asked in a constructive manner but in my personal opinion you have gone beyond that point. I admit that I have had the opportunity of working with Greg fairly extensively in multiple GNSO WGs so I probably have a very strong basis for trusting his leadership in this effort, but I still think it would be helpful if you moderate your high level of suspicion.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Monday, March 09, 2015 7:23 PM *To:* jrobinson@afilias.info *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the
CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of
the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times.
Can I ask who decided this? Was it the closed committee itself or was there a discussion on this list that I missed?
I'm not sure these assertions hold much water to be honest. And the previous justification for having a closed committee for selecting the legal team - expediency - turned out not to be true either.
I am concerned that important decisions are being made by a closed committee without the normal, or adequate, transparency or accountability measures.
It seems peculiar that with well established processes for the rest of this process that this aspect now has to rely on people recommending transparency and accountability components.
Surely it should be the case that this part of the process is run exactly the same as the rest of the IANA transition. That means an open mailing list, open meetings, minutes, recordings and so on.
If any changes are made they should be dependent on persuading others that they need to be *removed* rather than this approach which appears to start from complete secrecy and then ask the community to persuade the select group of four people (plus ICANN lawyers, both in-house and external) that they should introduce norms.
The fact that this process is about developing external legal advice and that that advice is expected to contradict ICANN's own legal advice, makes this abnormal approach all the more concerning to me.
I'm almost hesitant to ask but does this group expect that ICANN's legal team and/or legal representatives would remain on the closed committee?
If so, I'd like to see an explanation for why that isn't a highly significant conflict of interest.
Kieren
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
All,
We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work.
Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact.
Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Kieren, I agree with you that “"Trust" is not a replacement for procedural norms.” But I think that procedural norms that we have developed within ICANN need to be modified somewhat in this situation because of the timeframe limitations and the practicality of interfacing effectively with the law firm. That said, transparency is an area we cannot compromise on. Chuck From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:52 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: jrobinson@afilias.info; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee I wasn't at all distrustful, just curious, when I first start asking questions. It is the answers that are making me uncomfortable. Especially the involvement of ICANN's lawyers, both in-house and external. The concept of "trust" as it is being relayed in the context of this closed committee is most unusual. "Trust" is not a replacement for procedural norms. Arguing otherwise only raises more questions. Kieren On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Kieren, Your excessive mistrust is becoming counterproductive. I am all for asking hard questions if they are asked in a constructive manner but in my personal opinion you have gone beyond that point. I admit that I have had the opportunity of working with Greg fairly extensively in multiple GNSO WGs so I probably have a very strong basis for trusting his leadership in this effort, but I still think it would be helpful if you moderate your high level of suspicion. 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 Kieren McCarthy Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 7:23 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times.
Can I ask who decided this? Was it the closed committee itself or was there a discussion on this list that I missed? I'm not sure these assertions hold much water to be honest. And the previous justification for having a closed committee for selecting the legal team - expediency - turned out not to be true either. I am concerned that important decisions are being made by a closed committee without the normal, or adequate, transparency or accountability measures. It seems peculiar that with well established processes for the rest of this process that this aspect now has to rely on people recommending transparency and accountability components. Surely it should be the case that this part of the process is run exactly the same as the rest of the IANA transition. That means an open mailing list, open meetings, minutes, recordings and so on. If any changes are made they should be dependent on persuading others that they need to be *removed* rather than this approach which appears to start from complete secrecy and then ask the community to persuade the select group of four people (plus ICANN lawyers, both in-house and external) that they should introduce norms. The fact that this process is about developing external legal advice and that that advice is expected to contradict ICANN's own legal advice, makes this abnormal approach all the more concerning to me. I'm almost hesitant to ask but does this group expect that ICANN's legal team and/or legal representatives would remain on the closed committee? If so, I'd like to see an explanation for why that isn't a highly significant conflict of interest. Kieren On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work. Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee. The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact. Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest? Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I don’t find Kieren’s comments to be out of line. I trust Greg, think he’s been doing yeoman’s work for us and I don’t think he has any hidden agenda at all. I don’t think any of the client committee people do, either. But there are legitimate concerns about these crucial relationships between the law firm, the CWG as a whole, the client committee, and ICANN. It’s hard for people who know what is going on behind the scenes to understand why the people who don’t feel suspicious at times. If none of us asks tough questions about how that plays out, the integrity of the process could suffer. Let’s just all be patient and try to get this done right. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 8:01 PM To: Kieren McCarthy; jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Kieren, Your excessive mistrust is becoming counterproductive. I am all for asking hard questions if they are asked in a constructive manner but in my personal opinion you have gone beyond that point. I admit that I have had the opportunity of working with Greg fairly extensively in multiple GNSO WGs so I probably have a very strong basis for trusting his leadership in this effort, but I still think it would be helpful if you moderate your high level of suspicion. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 7:23 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times.
Can I ask who decided this? Was it the closed committee itself or was there a discussion on this list that I missed? I'm not sure these assertions hold much water to be honest. And the previous justification for having a closed committee for selecting the legal team - expediency - turned out not to be true either. I am concerned that important decisions are being made by a closed committee without the normal, or adequate, transparency or accountability measures. It seems peculiar that with well established processes for the rest of this process that this aspect now has to rely on people recommending transparency and accountability components. Surely it should be the case that this part of the process is run exactly the same as the rest of the IANA transition. That means an open mailing list, open meetings, minutes, recordings and so on. If any changes are made they should be dependent on persuading others that they need to be *removed* rather than this approach which appears to start from complete secrecy and then ask the community to persuade the select group of four people (plus ICANN lawyers, both in-house and external) that they should introduce norms. The fact that this process is about developing external legal advice and that that advice is expected to contradict ICANN's own legal advice, makes this abnormal approach all the more concerning to me. I'm almost hesitant to ask but does this group expect that ICANN's legal team and/or legal representatives would remain on the closed committee? If so, I'd like to see an explanation for why that isn't a highly significant conflict of interest. Kieren On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work. Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee. The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact. Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest? Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Milton, thanks for your email. I understand the concerns and I don't mind tough questions. Indeed, I agree that asking tough questions is part of assuring the integrity of this (or any other) process. It's the side dishes of suspicion, accusations, allegations of bad faith, and nascent conspiracy theory that upset my stomach (probably along with the antibiotics, but I'm taking acidophilus now for that). Perversely, these arsenic-laced side dishes deter and distract from discussions of the meaty questions that should be the main course of the matter. Most times, I have a cast iron stomach for such unpalatable bits (or I'm willing to absorb my upset so as not to contribute to the distraction). However, from time to time, swallowing so much second-hand bile causes me to have an equal and opposite reaction. If we can stick to the substance of the issues, and avoid the temptation to resort to the poison pen, we'll get further faster. There are better ways to emphasize deep concern and strongly-held beliefs. I look forward to continuing the discussion. Greg On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
I don’t find Kieren’s comments to be out of line. I trust Greg, think he’s been doing yeoman’s work for us and I don’t think he has any hidden agenda at all. I don’t think any of the client committee people do, either. But there are legitimate concerns about these crucial relationships between the law firm, the CWG as a whole, the client committee, and ICANN. It’s hard for people who know what is going on behind the scenes to understand why the people who don’t feel suspicious at times. If none of us asks tough questions about how that plays out, the integrity of the process could suffer. Let’s just all be patient and try to get this done right.
--MM
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Monday, March 9, 2015 8:01 PM *To:* Kieren McCarthy; jrobinson@afilias.info
*Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Kieren,
Your excessive mistrust is becoming counterproductive. I am all for asking hard questions if they are asked in a constructive manner but in my personal opinion you have gone beyond that point. I admit that I have had the opportunity of working with Greg fairly extensively in multiple GNSO WGs so I probably have a very strong basis for trusting his leadership in this effort, but I still think it would be helpful if you moderate your high level of suspicion.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Monday, March 09, 2015 7:23 PM *To:* jrobinson@afilias.info *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the
CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of
the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times.
Can I ask who decided this? Was it the closed committee itself or was there a discussion on this list that I missed?
I'm not sure these assertions hold much water to be honest. And the previous justification for having a closed committee for selecting the legal team - expediency - turned out not to be true either.
I am concerned that important decisions are being made by a closed committee without the normal, or adequate, transparency or accountability measures.
It seems peculiar that with well established processes for the rest of this process that this aspect now has to rely on people recommending transparency and accountability components.
Surely it should be the case that this part of the process is run exactly the same as the rest of the IANA transition. That means an open mailing list, open meetings, minutes, recordings and so on.
If any changes are made they should be dependent on persuading others that they need to be *removed* rather than this approach which appears to start from complete secrecy and then ask the community to persuade the select group of four people (plus ICANN lawyers, both in-house and external) that they should introduce norms.
The fact that this process is about developing external legal advice and that that advice is expected to contradict ICANN's own legal advice, makes this abnormal approach all the more concerning to me.
I'm almost hesitant to ask but does this group expect that ICANN's legal team and/or legal representatives would remain on the closed committee?
If so, I'd like to see an explanation for why that isn't a highly significant conflict of interest.
Kieren
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
All,
We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work.
Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact.
Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely. We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee? I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed. Thanks, Robin On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work.
Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact.
Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Robin, My understanding is that there are only 4 members of the client committee: Greg, Maartin, Lise and Jonathan. I have seen nothing that expanded the membership. The fact that others have been involved with the client committee in finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my understanding simply a result of the fact that ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely. We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee? I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed. Thanks, Robin [cid:image001.png@01D05AA4.890336D0] On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: All, We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work. Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee. The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact. Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG's work commences in earnest? Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Well, the ICANN website says that 3 ICANN attorneys are also included on the CWG Client Committee mailing list (Samantha, John J, Kevin from Jones Day) and meetings. And ICANN's lawyers are also part of the conversations with the CWG Client Cmte, so it seems like they are participants of the Client Cmte, even if not labeled as such. Since the phase of retaining the law firm and needing ICANN's help identifying conflicts is over, ICANN's lawyers should no longer be participants on the CWG Client Committee mailing list, meetings, discussions, etc., if the client committee can be said to be independent of the conflict. Thanks, Robin On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Robin,
My understanding is that there are only 4 members of the client committee: Greg, Maartin, Lise and Jonathan. I have seen nothing that expanded the membership. The fact that others have been involved with the client committee in finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my understanding simply a result of the fact that ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee
When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely.
We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee?
I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed.
Thanks, Robin <image001.png>
On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work.
Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact.
Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Agreed thats a fair point. On 10 Mar 2015, at 00:33, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: Well, the ICANN website says that 3 ICANN attorneys are also included on the CWG Client Committee mailing list (Samantha, John J, Kevin from Jones Day) and meetings. And ICANN's lawyers are also part of the conversations with the CWG Client Cmte, so it seems like they are participants of the Client Cmte, even if not labeled as such. Since the phase of retaining the law firm and needing ICANN's help identifying conflicts is over, ICANN's lawyers should no longer be participants on the CWG Client Committee mailing list, meetings, discussions, etc., if the client committee can be said to be independent of the conflict. Thanks, Robin On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Robin, My understanding is that there are only 4 members of the client committee: Greg, Maartin, Lise and Jonathan. I have seen nothing that expanded the membership. The fact that others have been involved with the client committee in finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my understanding simply a result of the fact that ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely. We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee? I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed. Thanks, Robin <image001.png> On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: All, We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work. Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee. The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact. Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest? Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ 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
All, A couple of points to add / re-iterate for complete clarity: 1. The client committee remains as was i.e. the four members and has not had ICANN legal added to it 2. The mailing list was set up to facilitate the work of the client committee - primarily communication between the CC & Sidley - but to do so in an open and transparent method. Therefore " <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org> cwg-client@icann.org" is visible to all. This is clearly extremely unusual in client / lawyer relationship but done so for (I hope) obvious reasons. The working methods of the client committee are work in progress and linked to from the URL below: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee Please feel free to assist in refining these by proposing any updates to the working methods document. Overall, the intention is that any discussions, meetings etc that take place between the client committee and Sidley and are visible and clear to all (including ICANN Legal / Kevin), primarily via " <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org> cwg-client@icann.org". I understand the principle highlighted by Robin below but wonder if, given that the transparency of the " <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org> cwg-client@icann.org" list, it is advantageous in some way to retain ICANN Legal's permission to post to the list e.g. for items of clarification, additional information etc? We have no sense of ICANN Legal's intention to post to the list and could simply check with them if they are interested to retain that right (which has been given to them at the set-up of the mailing list without significant debate or discussion). Personally, my inclination is to leave it as is for the moment but I haven't had the opportunity to discuss it with Lise nor fully absorb the feedback / concerns from the CWG. Thanks. Jonathan From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: 10 March 2015 00:40 To: Robin Gross Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Agreed thats a fair point. On 10 Mar 2015, at 00:33, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote: Well, the ICANN website says that 3 ICANN attorneys are also included on the CWG Client Committee mailing list (Samantha, John J, Kevin from Jones Day) and meetings. And ICANN's lawyers are also part of the conversations with the CWG Client Cmte, so it seems like they are participants of the Client Cmte, even if not labeled as such. Since the phase of retaining the law firm and needing ICANN's help identifying conflicts is over, ICANN's lawyers should no longer be participants on the CWG Client Committee mailing list, meetings, discussions, etc., if the client committee can be said to be independent of the conflict. Thanks, Robin On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Robin, My understanding is that there are only 4 members of the client committee: Greg, Maartin, Lise and Jonathan. I have seen nothing that expanded the membership. The fact that others have been involved with the client committee in finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my understanding simply a result of the fact that ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely. We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee? I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed. Thanks, Robin <image001.png> On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: All, We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work. Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee. The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact. Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG's work commences in earnest? Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
All, I have not been very active on this list but try to follow it the best I can and try to help this process where I think I it can be useful. As some may be aware, I am one of the four members on the client committee and have worked with Lise, Jonathan and Greg for some weeks now. It took us some time, but we have successfully retained a firm that I am sure is fully equipped to help us in our further work. We have worked with ICANN legal as ICANN has to be the formal client and has to pay the bill. They have had no say in which firm we choose and I have not noticed any attempt to influence our choice. They have further accepted the highly unusual clauses in the retention letter that gives us the exclusive power to direct the firm in its work. What strikes me on this list, is that this result is not celebrated but merely met with criticism and an enormous amount of distrust towards ICANN in the first place but also towards the (members of the) client committee. Yes, we have different opinions and, yes, we need debate and everyone must have his of her say, but if we want to be able to reach a sort of shared understanding in the end (and a good result), we need in my opinion, have some basis of trust in each other. We as a team have worked hard to get where we are so that we can set the next step, and I have to specifically commend Greg for all the work he has done. Let’s now all take this opportunity and start working with the firm and get the legal advise we are waiting for. Best, Maarten From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: Tuesday 10 March 2015 13:15 To: 'James Gannon' <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>, 'Robin Gross' <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee All, A couple of points to add / re-iterate for complete clarity: 1. The client committee remains as was i.e. the four members and has not had ICANN legal added to it 2. The mailing list was set up to facilitate the work of the client committee – primarily communication between the CC & Sidley - but to do so in an open and transparent method. Therefore “cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>” is visible to all. This is clearly extremely unusual in client / lawyer relationship but done so for (I hope) obvious reasons. The working methods of the client committee are work in progress and linked to from the URL below: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee Please feel free to assist in refining these by proposing any updates to the working methods document. Overall, the intention is that any discussions, meetings etc that take place between the client committee and Sidley and are visible and clear to all (including ICANN Legal / Kevin), primarily via “cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>”. I understand the principle highlighted by Robin below but wonder if, given that the transparency of the “cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>” list, it is advantageous in some way to retain ICANN Legal’s permission to post to the list e.g. for items of clarification, additional information etc? We have no sense of ICANN Legal’s intention to post to the list and could simply check with them if they are interested to retain that right (which has been given to them at the set-up of the mailing list without significant debate or discussion). Personally, my inclination is to leave it as is for the moment but I haven’t had the opportunity to discuss it with Lise nor fully absorb the feedback / concerns from the CWG. Thanks. Jonathan From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: 10 March 2015 00:40 To: Robin Gross Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Agreed thats a fair point. On 10 Mar 2015, at 00:33, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: Well, the ICANN website says that 3 ICANN attorneys are also included on the CWG Client Committee mailing list (Samantha, John J, Kevin from Jones Day) and meetings. And ICANN's lawyers are also part of the conversations with the CWG Client Cmte, so it seems like they are participants of the Client Cmte, even if not labeled as such. Since the phase of retaining the law firm and needing ICANN's help identifying conflicts is over, ICANN's lawyers should no longer be participants on the CWG Client Committee mailing list, meetings, discussions, etc., if the client committee can be said to be independent of the conflict. Thanks, Robin On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Robin, My understanding is that there are only 4 members of the client committee: Greg, Maartin, Lise and Jonathan. I have seen nothing that expanded the membership. The fact that others have been involved with the client committee in finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my understanding simply a result of the fact that ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely. We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee? I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed. Thanks, Robin <image001.png> On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: All, We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work. Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee. The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact. Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest? Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ 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
What is it with this trust, distrust and taking personal offense at perfectly reasonable questions? The issue is real quite simple: it is a very important part of the process and it is deviating from the process norms. The only people that have argued for the closed committee continuing its role going forward are the people on the closed committee. Rather than get offended, why not make the case? The issue about ICANN's lawyers being allowed into conversations and put on mailing lists when others are refused access is transparently odd. It would be odd at any point in the IANA transition but it is particularly odd when you consider what we are talking about here: seeking independent legal advice outside of ICANN. So far the reaction from the committee members has only increased concerns: * Jonathan responded by discounting people's concerns and saying he thinks it's fine for ICANN's lawyers to be deeply involved in the process. He appeared to ignore questions about who decided this closed committee not only needs to continue to be in place but should act at the intermediary between the legal team and the working group. * Greg takes personal offense and claims that people are maligning him when, objectively, they're not. But he doesn't address the key issue of why it's appropriate to have ICANN's lawyers on a group whose entire purpose is to get independent legal advice. * Maarten complains that the committee has been working hard and again takes personal offense. But again without answering people's concerns. The key issue is this: why are ICANN's lawyers included *at all*? Everyone that has stated a view outside the committee has made it plain that they don't think it is appropriate for ICANN's lawyers, either internal or external, to be involved at this point. It's a pretty obvious argument: the entire process is supposed to be about developing an independent legal view. How can that be the case when there are more ICANN staff on the mailing list than committee members? So can we please stop this talk about trust, cut back on the getting offended, and have a proper discussion on the pertinent issue. Kieren On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon@sidn.nl> wrote:
All,
I have not been very active on this list but try to follow it the best I can and try to help this process where I think I it can be useful. As some may be aware, I am one of the four members on the client committee and have worked with Lise, Jonathan and Greg for some weeks now. It took us some time, but we have successfully retained a firm that I am sure is fully equipped to help us in our further work. We have worked with ICANN legal as ICANN has to be the formal client and has to pay the bill. They have had no say in which firm we choose and I have not noticed any attempt to influence our choice. They have further accepted the highly unusual clauses in the retention letter that gives us the exclusive power to direct the firm in its work.
What strikes me on this list, is that this result is not celebrated but merely met with criticism and an enormous amount of distrust towards ICANN in the first place but also towards the (members of the) client committee. Yes, we have different opinions and, yes, we need debate and everyone must have his of her say, but if we want to be able to reach a sort of shared understanding in the end (and a good result), we need in my opinion, have some basis of trust in each other.
We as a team have worked hard to get where we are so that we can set the next step, and I have to specifically commend Greg for all the work he has done. Let’s now all take this opportunity and start working with the firm and get the legal advise we are waiting for.
Best,
Maarten
From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: Tuesday 10 March 2015 13:15 To: 'James Gannon' <james@cyberinvasion.net>, 'Robin Gross' < robin@ipjustice.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
All,
A couple of points to add / re-iterate for complete clarity:
1. The client committee remains as was i.e. the four members and has not had ICANN legal added to it
2. The mailing list was set up to facilitate the work of the client committee – primarily communication between the CC & Sidley - but to do so in an open and transparent method. Therefore “cwg-client@icann.org” is visible to all. This is clearly extremely unusual in client / lawyer relationship but done so for (I hope) obvious reasons.
The working methods of the client committee are work in progress and linked to from the URL below:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee
Please feel free to assist in refining these by proposing any updates to the working methods document.
Overall, the intention is that any discussions, meetings etc that take place between the client committee and Sidley and are visible and clear to all (including ICANN Legal / Kevin), primarily via “cwg-client@icann.org”.
I understand the principle highlighted by Robin below but wonder if, given that the transparency of the “cwg-client@icann.org” list, it is advantageous in some way to retain ICANN Legal’s permission to post to the list e.g. for items of clarification, additional information etc? We have no sense of ICANN Legal’s intention to post to the list and could simply check with them if they are interested to retain that right (which has been given to them at the set-up of the mailing list without significant debate or discussion). Personally, my inclination is to leave it as is for the moment but I haven’t had the opportunity to discuss it with Lise nor fully absorb the feedback / concerns from the CWG.
Thanks.
Jonathan
*From:* James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net <james@cyberinvasion.net>] *Sent:* 10 March 2015 00:40 *To:* Robin Gross *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Agreed thats a fair point.
On 10 Mar 2015, at 00:33, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Well, the ICANN website says that 3 ICANN attorneys are also included on the CWG Client Committee mailing list (Samantha, John J, Kevin from Jones Day) and meetings. And ICANN's lawyers are also part of the conversations with the CWG Client Cmte, so it seems like they are participants of the Client Cmte, even if not labeled as such.
Since the phase of retaining the law firm and needing ICANN's help identifying conflicts is over, ICANN's lawyers should no longer be participants on the CWG Client Committee mailing list, meetings, discussions, etc., if the client committee can be said to be independent of the conflict.
Thanks,
Robin
On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Robin,
My understanding is that there are only 4 members of the client committee: Greg, Maartin, Lise and Jonathan. I have seen nothing that expanded the membership. The fact that others have been involved with the client committee in finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my understanding simply a result of the fact that ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Robin Gross *Sent:* Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM *To:* jrobinson@afilias.info *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee
When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely.
We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee?
I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed.
Thanks,
Robin
<image001.png>
On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work.
Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact.
Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
It would very helpful once and for all for someone to answer this question: will ICANN lawyers be involved in the ongoing process of getting advice except for having visibility to the list? I have been assuming not. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> Date:03/10/2015 2:23 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Maarten Simon <maarten.simon@sidn.nl> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee What is it with this trust, distrust and taking personal offense at perfectly reasonable questions? The issue is real quite simple: it is a very important part of the process and it is deviating from the process norms. The only people that have argued for the closed committee continuing its role going forward are the people on the closed committee. Rather than get offended, why not make the case? The issue about ICANN's lawyers being allowed into conversations and put on mailing lists when others are refused access is transparently odd. It would be odd at any point in the IANA transition but it is particularly odd when you consider what we are talking about here: seeking independent legal advice outside of ICANN. So far the reaction from the committee members has only increased concerns: * Jonathan responded by discounting people's concerns and saying he thinks it's fine for ICANN's lawyers to be deeply involved in the process. He appeared to ignore questions about who decided this closed committee not only needs to continue to be in place but should act at the intermediary between the legal team and the working group. * Greg takes personal offense and claims that people are maligning him when, objectively, they're not. But he doesn't address the key issue of why it's appropriate to have ICANN's lawyers on a group whose entire purpose is to get independent legal advice. * Maarten complains that the committee has been working hard and again takes personal offense. But again without answering people's concerns. The key issue is this: why are ICANN's lawyers included *at all*? Everyone that has stated a view outside the committee has made it plain that they don't think it is appropriate for ICANN's lawyers, either internal or external, to be involved at this point. It's a pretty obvious argument: the entire process is supposed to be about developing an independent legal view. How can that be the case when there are more ICANN staff on the mailing list than committee members? So can we please stop this talk about trust, cut back on the getting offended, and have a proper discussion on the pertinent issue. Kieren On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon@sidn.nl<mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl>> wrote: All, I have not been very active on this list but try to follow it the best I can and try to help this process where I think I it can be useful. As some may be aware, I am one of the four members on the client committee and have worked with Lise, Jonathan and Greg for some weeks now. It took us some time, but we have successfully retained a firm that I am sure is fully equipped to help us in our further work. We have worked with ICANN legal as ICANN has to be the formal client and has to pay the bill. They have had no say in which firm we choose and I have not noticed any attempt to influence our choice. They have further accepted the highly unusual clauses in the retention letter that gives us the exclusive power to direct the firm in its work. What strikes me on this list, is that this result is not celebrated but merely met with criticism and an enormous amount of distrust towards ICANN in the first place but also towards the (members of the) client committee. Yes, we have different opinions and, yes, we need debate and everyone must have his of her say, but if we want to be able to reach a sort of shared understanding in the end (and a good result), we need in my opinion, have some basis of trust in each other. We as a team have worked hard to get where we are so that we can set the next step, and I have to specifically commend Greg for all the work he has done. Let’s now all take this opportunity and start working with the firm and get the legal advise we are waiting for. Best, Maarten From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: Tuesday 10 March 2015 13:15 To: 'James Gannon' <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>, 'Robin Gross' <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee All, A couple of points to add / re-iterate for complete clarity: 1. The client committee remains as was i.e. the four members and has not had ICANN legal added to it 2. The mailing list was set up to facilitate the work of the client committee – primarily communication between the CC & Sidley - but to do so in an open and transparent method. Therefore “cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>” is visible to all. This is clearly extremely unusual in client / lawyer relationship but done so for (I hope) obvious reasons. The working methods of the client committee are work in progress and linked to from the URL below: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee Please feel free to assist in refining these by proposing any updates to the working methods document. Overall, the intention is that any discussions, meetings etc that take place between the client committee and Sidley and are visible and clear to all (including ICANN Legal / Kevin), primarily via “cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>”. I understand the principle highlighted by Robin below but wonder if, given that the transparency of the “cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>” list, it is advantageous in some way to retain ICANN Legal’s permission to post to the list e.g. for items of clarification, additional information etc? We have no sense of ICANN Legal’s intention to post to the list and could simply check with them if they are interested to retain that right (which has been given to them at the set-up of the mailing list without significant debate or discussion). Personally, my inclination is to leave it as is for the moment but I haven’t had the opportunity to discuss it with Lise nor fully absorb the feedback / concerns from the CWG. Thanks. Jonathan From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: 10 March 2015 00:40 To: Robin Gross Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Agreed thats a fair point. On 10 Mar 2015, at 00:33, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: Well, the ICANN website says that 3 ICANN attorneys are also included on the CWG Client Committee mailing list (Samantha, John J, Kevin from Jones Day) and meetings. And ICANN's lawyers are also part of the conversations with the CWG Client Cmte, so it seems like they are participants of the Client Cmte, even if not labeled as such. Since the phase of retaining the law firm and needing ICANN's help identifying conflicts is over, ICANN's lawyers should no longer be participants on the CWG Client Committee mailing list, meetings, discussions, etc., if the client committee can be said to be independent of the conflict. Thanks, Robin On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Robin, My understanding is that there are only 4 members of the client committee: Greg, Maartin, Lise and Jonathan. I have seen nothing that expanded the membership. The fact that others have been involved with the client committee in finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my understanding simply a result of the fact that ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely. We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee? I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed. Thanks, Robin <image001.png> On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: All, We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work. Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee. The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact. Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest? Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ 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
I reiterate Chuck's question below. Thanks, Robin On Mar 10, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
It would very helpful once and for all for someone to answer this question: will ICANN lawyers be involved in the ongoing process of getting advice except for having visibility to the list? I have been assuming not.
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> Date:03/10/2015 2:23 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Maarten Simon <maarten.simon@sidn.nl> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
What is it with this trust, distrust and taking personal offense at perfectly reasonable questions?
The issue is real quite simple: it is a very important part of the process and it is deviating from the process norms.
The only people that have argued for the closed committee continuing its role going forward are the people on the closed committee. Rather than get offended, why not make the case?
The issue about ICANN's lawyers being allowed into conversations and put on mailing lists when others are refused access is transparently odd.
It would be odd at any point in the IANA transition but it is particularly odd when you consider what we are talking about here: seeking independent legal advice outside of ICANN.
So far the reaction from the committee members has only increased concerns:
* Jonathan responded by discounting people's concerns and saying he thinks it's fine for ICANN's lawyers to be deeply involved in the process. He appeared to ignore questions about who decided this closed committee not only needs to continue to be in place but should act at the intermediary between the legal team and the working group.
* Greg takes personal offense and claims that people are maligning him when, objectively, they're not. But he doesn't address the key issue of why it's appropriate to have ICANN's lawyers on a group whose entire purpose is to get independent legal advice.
* Maarten complains that the committee has been working hard and again takes personal offense. But again without answering people's concerns.
The key issue is this: why are ICANN's lawyers included *at all*?
Everyone that has stated a view outside the committee has made it plain that they don't think it is appropriate for ICANN's lawyers, either internal or external, to be involved at this point.
It's a pretty obvious argument: the entire process is supposed to be about developing an independent legal view. How can that be the case when there are more ICANN staff on the mailing list than committee members?
So can we please stop this talk about trust, cut back on the getting offended, and have a proper discussion on the pertinent issue.
Kieren
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon@sidn.nl> wrote: All,
I have not been very active on this list but try to follow it the best I can and try to help this process where I think I it can be useful. As some may be aware, I am one of the four members on the client committee and have worked with Lise, Jonathan and Greg for some weeks now. It took us some time, but we have successfully retained a firm that I am sure is fully equipped to help us in our further work. We have worked with ICANN legal as ICANN has to be the formal client and has to pay the bill. They have had no say in which firm we choose and I have not noticed any attempt to influence our choice. They have further accepted the highly unusual clauses in the retention letter that gives us the exclusive power to direct the firm in its work.
What strikes me on this list, is that this result is not celebrated but merely met with criticism and an enormous amount of distrust towards ICANN in the first place but also towards the (members of the) client committee. Yes, we have different opinions and, yes, we need debate and everyone must have his of her say, but if we want to be able to reach a sort of shared understanding in the end (and a good result), we need in my opinion, have some basis of trust in each other.
We as a team have worked hard to get where we are so that we can set the next step, and I have to specifically commend Greg for all the work he has done. Let’s now all take this opportunity and start working with the firm and get the legal advise we are waiting for.
Best,
Maarten
From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: Tuesday 10 March 2015 13:15 To: 'James Gannon' <james@cyberinvasion.net>, 'Robin Gross' <robin@ipjustice.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
All,
A couple of points to add / re-iterate for complete clarity:
1. The client committee remains as was i.e. the four members and has not had ICANN legal added to it
2. The mailing list was set up to facilitate the work of the client committee – primarily communication between the CC & Sidley - but to do so in an open and transparent method. Therefore “cwg-client@icann.org” is visible to all. This is clearly extremely unusual in client / lawyer relationship but done so for (I hope) obvious reasons.
The working methods of the client committee are work in progress and linked to from the URL below:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee
Please feel free to assist in refining these by proposing any updates to the working methods document.
Overall, the intention is that any discussions, meetings etc that take place between the client committee and Sidley and are visible and clear to all (including ICANN Legal / Kevin), primarily via “cwg-client@icann.org”.
I understand the principle highlighted by Robin below but wonder if, given that the transparency of the “cwg-client@icann.org” list, it is advantageous in some way to retain ICANN Legal’s permission to post to the list e.g. for items of clarification, additional information etc? We have no sense of ICANN Legal’s intention to post to the list and could simply check with them if they are interested to retain that right (which has been given to them at the set-up of the mailing list without significant debate or discussion). Personally, my inclination is to leave it as is for the moment but I haven’t had the opportunity to discuss it with Lise nor fully absorb the feedback / concerns from the CWG.
Thanks.
Jonathan
From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: 10 March 2015 00:40 To: Robin Gross Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Agreed thats a fair point.
On 10 Mar 2015, at 00:33, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Well, the ICANN website says that 3 ICANN attorneys are also included on the CWG Client Committee mailing list (Samantha, John J, Kevin from Jones Day) and meetings. And ICANN's lawyers are also part of the conversations with the CWG Client Cmte, so it seems like they are participants of the Client Cmte, even if not labeled as such.
Since the phase of retaining the law firm and needing ICANN's help identifying conflicts is over, ICANN's lawyers should no longer be participants on the CWG Client Committee mailing list, meetings, discussions, etc., if the client committee can be said to be independent of the conflict.
Thanks,
Robin
On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Robin,
My understanding is that there are only 4 members of the client committee: Greg, Maartin, Lise and Jonathan. I have seen nothing that expanded the membership. The fact that others have been involved with the client committee in finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my understanding simply a result of the fact that ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee
When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely.
We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee?
I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed.
Thanks,
Robin
<image001.png>
On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work.
Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact.
Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ 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
It would very helpful once and for all for someone to answer this question: will ICANN lawyers be involved in the ongoing process of getting advice except for having visibility to the list? I have been assuming not.
Has there been an answer to this yet? The question was asked first by John Poole on 25 February. Then by me on 2 March. Then by Chuck Gomes on 10 March. Then by Robin Gross on 11 March. And now again by me on 13 March. Kieren On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I reiterate Chuck's question below.
Thanks, Robin
On Mar 10, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
It would very helpful once and for all for someone to answer this question: will ICANN lawyers be involved in the ongoing process of getting advice except for having visibility to the list? I have been assuming not.
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> Date:03/10/2015 2:23 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Maarten Simon <maarten.simon@sidn.nl> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
What is it with this trust, distrust and taking personal offense at perfectly reasonable questions?
The issue is real quite simple: it is a very important part of the process and it is deviating from the process norms.
The only people that have argued for the closed committee continuing its role going forward are the people on the closed committee. Rather than get offended, why not make the case?
The issue about ICANN's lawyers being allowed into conversations and put on mailing lists when others are refused access is transparently odd.
It would be odd at any point in the IANA transition but it is particularly odd when you consider what we are talking about here: seeking independent legal advice outside of ICANN.
So far the reaction from the committee members has only increased concerns:
* Jonathan responded by discounting people's concerns and saying he thinks it's fine for ICANN's lawyers to be deeply involved in the process. He appeared to ignore questions about who decided this closed committee not only needs to continue to be in place but should act at the intermediary between the legal team and the working group.
* Greg takes personal offense and claims that people are maligning him when, objectively, they're not. But he doesn't address the key issue of why it's appropriate to have ICANN's lawyers on a group whose entire purpose is to get independent legal advice.
* Maarten complains that the committee has been working hard and again takes personal offense. But again without answering people's concerns.
The key issue is this: why are ICANN's lawyers included *at all*?
Everyone that has stated a view outside the committee has made it plain that they don't think it is appropriate for ICANN's lawyers, either internal or external, to be involved at this point.
It's a pretty obvious argument: the entire process is supposed to be about developing an independent legal view. How can that be the case when there are more ICANN staff on the mailing list than committee members?
So can we please stop this talk about trust, cut back on the getting offended, and have a proper discussion on the pertinent issue.
Kieren
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon@sidn.nl> wrote:
All,
I have not been very active on this list but try to follow it the best I can and try to help this process where I think I it can be useful. As some may be aware, I am one of the four members on the client committee and have worked with Lise, Jonathan and Greg for some weeks now. It took us some time, but we have successfully retained a firm that I am sure is fully equipped to help us in our further work. We have worked with ICANN legal as ICANN has to be the formal client and has to pay the bill. They have had no say in which firm we choose and I have not noticed any attempt to influence our choice. They have further accepted the highly unusual clauses in the retention letter that gives us the exclusive power to direct the firm in its work.
What strikes me on this list, is that this result is not celebrated but merely met with criticism and an enormous amount of distrust towards ICANN in the first place but also towards the (members of the) client committee. Yes, we have different opinions and, yes, we need debate and everyone must have his of her say, but if we want to be able to reach a sort of shared understanding in the end (and a good result), we need in my opinion, have some basis of trust in each other.
We as a team have worked hard to get where we are so that we can set the next step, and I have to specifically commend Greg for all the work he has done. Let’s now all take this opportunity and start working with the firm and get the legal advise we are waiting for.
Best,
Maarten
From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: Tuesday 10 March 2015 13:15 To: 'James Gannon' <james@cyberinvasion.net>, 'Robin Gross' < robin@ipjustice.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
All,
A couple of points to add / re-iterate for complete clarity:
1. The client committee remains as was i.e. the four members and has not had ICANN legal added to it
2. The mailing list was set up to facilitate the work of the client committee – primarily communication between the CC & Sidley - but to do so in an open and transparent method. Therefore “cwg-client@icann.org” is visible to all. This is clearly extremely unusual in client / lawyer relationship but done so for (I hope) obvious reasons.
The working methods of the client committee are work in progress and linked to from the URL below:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee
Please feel free to assist in refining these by proposing any updates to the working methods document.
Overall, the intention is that any discussions, meetings etc that take place between the client committee and Sidley and are visible and clear to all (including ICANN Legal / Kevin), primarily via “cwg-client@icann.org ”.
I understand the principle highlighted by Robin below but wonder if, given that the transparency of the “cwg-client@icann.org” list, it is advantageous in some way to retain ICANN Legal’s permission to post to the list e.g. for items of clarification, additional information etc? We have no sense of ICANN Legal’s intention to post to the list and could simply check with them if they are interested to retain that right (which has been given to them at the set-up of the mailing list without significant debate or discussion). Personally, my inclination is to leave it as is for the moment but I haven’t had the opportunity to discuss it with Lise nor fully absorb the feedback / concerns from the CWG.
Thanks.
Jonathan
*From:* James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net <james@cyberinvasion.net>] *Sent:* 10 March 2015 00:40 *To:* Robin Gross *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Agreed thats a fair point.
On 10 Mar 2015, at 00:33, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Well, the ICANN website says that 3 ICANN attorneys are also included on the CWG Client Committee mailing list (Samantha, John J, Kevin from Jones Day) and meetings. And ICANN's lawyers are also part of the conversations with the CWG Client Cmte, so it seems like they are participants of the Client Cmte, even if not labeled as such.
Since the phase of retaining the law firm and needing ICANN's help identifying conflicts is over, ICANN's lawyers should no longer be participants on the CWG Client Committee mailing list, meetings, discussions, etc., if the client committee can be said to be independent of the conflict.
Thanks,
Robin
On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Robin,
My understanding is that there are only 4 members of the client committee: Greg, Maartin, Lise and Jonathan. I have seen nothing that expanded the membership. The fact that others have been involved with the client committee in finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my understanding simply a result of the fact that ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Robin Gross *Sent:* Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM *To:* jrobinson@afilias.info *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee
When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely.
We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee?
I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed.
Thanks,
Robin
<image001.png>
On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work.
Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact.
Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ 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
Robin, Chuck and others, Post selection of Sidley, ICANN's lawyers have no active involvement in the work of the client committee. Of course, ICANN is picking up the bill and so I fully expect that ICANN will want to continue to monitor activity and potentially, intervene with respect to expenditure. It will be helpful to understand what, if any, expectation they (ICANN lawyers - in-house or external) have of ongoing involvement in the process other than for the purposes of monitoring expenditure. I have asked the question. Jonathan From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] Sent: 11 March 2015 21:19 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee I reiterate Chuck's question below. Thanks, Robin On Mar 10, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: It would very helpful once and for all for someone to answer this question: will ICANN lawyers be involved in the ongoing process of getting advice except for having visibility to the list? I have been assuming not. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY SR 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> Date:03/10/2015 2:23 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Maarten Simon <maarten.simon@sidn.nl> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee What is it with this trust, distrust and taking personal offense at perfectly reasonable questions? The issue is real quite simple: it is a very important part of the process and it is deviating from the process norms. The only people that have argued for the closed committee continuing its role going forward are the people on the closed committee. Rather than get offended, why not make the case? The issue about ICANN's lawyers being allowed into conversations and put on mailing lists when others are refused access is transparently odd. It would be odd at any point in the IANA transition but it is particularly odd when you consider what we are talking about here: seeking independent legal advice outside of ICANN. So far the reaction from the committee members has only increased concerns: * Jonathan responded by discounting people's concerns and saying he thinks it's fine for ICANN's lawyers to be deeply involved in the process. He appeared to ignore questions about who decided this closed committee not only needs to continue to be in place but should act at the intermediary between the legal team and the working group. * Greg takes personal offense and claims that people are maligning him when, objectively, they're not. But he doesn't address the key issue of why it's appropriate to have ICANN's lawyers on a group whose entire purpose is to get independent legal advice. * Maarten complains that the committee has been working hard and again takes personal offense. But again without answering people's concerns. The key issue is this: why are ICANN's lawyers included *at all*? Everyone that has stated a view outside the committee has made it plain that they don't think it is appropriate for ICANN's lawyers, either internal or external, to be involved at this point. It's a pretty obvious argument: the entire process is supposed to be about developing an independent legal view. How can that be the case when there are more ICANN staff on the mailing list than committee members? So can we please stop this talk about trust, cut back on the getting offended, and have a proper discussion on the pertinent issue. Kieren On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon@sidn.nl> wrote: All, I have not been very active on this list but try to follow it the best I can and try to help this process where I think I it can be useful. As some may be aware, I am one of the four members on the client committee and have worked with Lise, Jonathan and Greg for some weeks now. It took us some time, but we have successfully retained a firm that I am sure is fully equipped to help us in our further work. We have worked with ICANN legal as ICANN has to be the formal client and has to pay the bill. They have had no say in which firm we choose and I have not noticed any attempt to influence our choice. They have further accepted the highly unusual clauses in the retention letter that gives us the exclusive power to direct the firm in its work. What strikes me on this list, is that this result is not celebrated but merely met with criticism and an enormous amount of distrust towards ICANN in the first place but also towards the (members of the) client committee. Yes, we have different opinions and, yes, we need debate and everyone must have his of her say, but if we want to be able to reach a sort of shared understanding in the end (and a good result), we need in my opinion, have some basis of trust in each other. We as a team have worked hard to get where we are so that we can set the next step, and I have to specifically commend Greg for all the work he has done. Let's now all take this opportunity and start working with the firm and get the legal advise we are waiting for. Best, Maarten From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: Tuesday 10 March 2015 13:15 To: 'James Gannon' <james@cyberinvasion.net>, 'Robin Gross' <robin@ipjustice.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee All, A couple of points to add / re-iterate for complete clarity: 1. The client committee remains as was i.e. the four members and has not had ICANN legal added to it 2. The mailing list was set up to facilitate the work of the client committee - primarily communication between the CC & Sidley - but to do so in an open and transparent method. Therefore " <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org> cwg-client@icann.org" is visible to all. This is clearly extremely unusual in client / lawyer relationship but done so for (I hope) obvious reasons. The working methods of the client committee are work in progress and linked to from the URL below: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee Please feel free to assist in refining these by proposing any updates to the working methods document. Overall, the intention is that any discussions, meetings etc that take place between the client committee and Sidley and are visible and clear to all (including ICANN Legal / Kevin), primarily via " <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org> cwg-client@icann.org". I understand the principle highlighted by Robin below but wonder if, given that the transparency of the " <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org> cwg-client@icann.org" list, it is advantageous in some way to retain ICANN Legal's permission to post to the list e.g. for items of clarification, additional information etc? We have no sense of ICANN Legal's intention to post to the list and could simply check with them if they are interested to retain that right (which has been given to them at the set-up of the mailing list without significant debate or discussion). Personally, my inclination is to leave it as is for the moment but I haven't had the opportunity to discuss it with Lise nor fully absorb the feedback / concerns from the CWG. Thanks. Jonathan From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: 10 March 2015 00:40 To: Robin Gross Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Agreed thats a fair point. On 10 Mar 2015, at 00:33, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote: Well, the ICANN website says that 3 ICANN attorneys are also included on the CWG Client Committee mailing list (Samantha, John J, Kevin from Jones Day) and meetings. And ICANN's lawyers are also part of the conversations with the CWG Client Cmte, so it seems like they are participants of the Client Cmte, even if not labeled as such. Since the phase of retaining the law firm and needing ICANN's help identifying conflicts is over, ICANN's lawyers should no longer be participants on the CWG Client Committee mailing list, meetings, discussions, etc., if the client committee can be said to be independent of the conflict. Thanks, Robin On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Robin, My understanding is that there are only 4 members of the client committee: Greg, Maartin, Lise and Jonathan. I have seen nothing that expanded the membership. The fact that others have been involved with the client committee in finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my understanding simply a result of the fact that ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely. We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee? I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed. Thanks, Robin <image001.png> On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: All, We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work. Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee. The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact. Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG's work commences in earnest? Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ 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 Jonathan. That is consistent with what I expected. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 11:31 AM To: 'Robin Gross'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Robin, Chuck and others, Post selection of Sidley, ICANN's lawyers have no active involvement in the work of the client committee. Of course, ICANN is picking up the bill and so I fully expect that ICANN will want to continue to monitor activity and potentially, intervene with respect to expenditure. It will be helpful to understand what, if any, expectation they (ICANN lawyers - in-house or external) have of ongoing involvement in the process other than for the purposes of monitoring expenditure. I have asked the question. Jonathan From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] Sent: 11 March 2015 21:19 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee I reiterate Chuck's question below. Thanks, Robin On Mar 10, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: It would very helpful once and for all for someone to answer this question: will ICANN lawyers be involved in the ongoing process of getting advice except for having visibility to the list? I have been assuming not. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S(r) 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com<mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com>> Date:03/10/2015 2:23 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Maarten Simon <maarten.simon@sidn.nl<mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl>> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee What is it with this trust, distrust and taking personal offense at perfectly reasonable questions? The issue is real quite simple: it is a very important part of the process and it is deviating from the process norms. The only people that have argued for the closed committee continuing its role going forward are the people on the closed committee. Rather than get offended, why not make the case? The issue about ICANN's lawyers being allowed into conversations and put on mailing lists when others are refused access is transparently odd. It would be odd at any point in the IANA transition but it is particularly odd when you consider what we are talking about here: seeking independent legal advice outside of ICANN. So far the reaction from the committee members has only increased concerns: * Jonathan responded by discounting people's concerns and saying he thinks it's fine for ICANN's lawyers to be deeply involved in the process. He appeared to ignore questions about who decided this closed committee not only needs to continue to be in place but should act at the intermediary between the legal team and the working group. * Greg takes personal offense and claims that people are maligning him when, objectively, they're not. But he doesn't address the key issue of why it's appropriate to have ICANN's lawyers on a group whose entire purpose is to get independent legal advice. * Maarten complains that the committee has been working hard and again takes personal offense. But again without answering people's concerns. The key issue is this: why are ICANN's lawyers included *at all*? Everyone that has stated a view outside the committee has made it plain that they don't think it is appropriate for ICANN's lawyers, either internal or external, to be involved at this point. It's a pretty obvious argument: the entire process is supposed to be about developing an independent legal view. How can that be the case when there are more ICANN staff on the mailing list than committee members? So can we please stop this talk about trust, cut back on the getting offended, and have a proper discussion on the pertinent issue. Kieren On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon@sidn.nl<mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl>> wrote: All, I have not been very active on this list but try to follow it the best I can and try to help this process where I think I it can be useful. As some may be aware, I am one of the four members on the client committee and have worked with Lise, Jonathan and Greg for some weeks now. It took us some time, but we have successfully retained a firm that I am sure is fully equipped to help us in our further work. We have worked with ICANN legal as ICANN has to be the formal client and has to pay the bill. They have had no say in which firm we choose and I have not noticed any attempt to influence our choice. They have further accepted the highly unusual clauses in the retention letter that gives us the exclusive power to direct the firm in its work. What strikes me on this list, is that this result is not celebrated but merely met with criticism and an enormous amount of distrust towards ICANN in the first place but also towards the (members of the) client committee. Yes, we have different opinions and, yes, we need debate and everyone must have his of her say, but if we want to be able to reach a sort of shared understanding in the end (and a good result), we need in my opinion, have some basis of trust in each other. We as a team have worked hard to get where we are so that we can set the next step, and I have to specifically commend Greg for all the work he has done. Let's now all take this opportunity and start working with the firm and get the legal advise we are waiting for. Best, Maarten From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: Tuesday 10 March 2015 13:15 To: 'James Gannon' <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>, 'Robin Gross' <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee All, A couple of points to add / re-iterate for complete clarity: 1. The client committee remains as was i.e. the four members and has not had ICANN legal added to it 2. The mailing list was set up to facilitate the work of the client committee - primarily communication between the CC & Sidley - but to do so in an open and transparent method. Therefore "cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>" is visible to all. This is clearly extremely unusual in client / lawyer relationship but done so for (I hope) obvious reasons. The working methods of the client committee are work in progress and linked to from the URL below: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee Please feel free to assist in refining these by proposing any updates to the working methods document. Overall, the intention is that any discussions, meetings etc that take place between the client committee and Sidley and are visible and clear to all (including ICANN Legal / Kevin), primarily via "cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>". I understand the principle highlighted by Robin below but wonder if, given that the transparency of the "cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>" list, it is advantageous in some way to retain ICANN Legal's permission to post to the list e.g. for items of clarification, additional information etc? We have no sense of ICANN Legal's intention to post to the list and could simply check with them if they are interested to retain that right (which has been given to them at the set-up of the mailing list without significant debate or discussion). Personally, my inclination is to leave it as is for the moment but I haven't had the opportunity to discuss it with Lise nor fully absorb the feedback / concerns from the CWG. Thanks. Jonathan From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: 10 March 2015 00:40 To: Robin Gross Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Agreed thats a fair point. On 10 Mar 2015, at 00:33, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: Well, the ICANN website says that 3 ICANN attorneys are also included on the CWG Client Committee mailing list (Samantha, John J, Kevin from Jones Day) and meetings. And ICANN's lawyers are also part of the conversations with the CWG Client Cmte, so it seems like they are participants of the Client Cmte, even if not labeled as such. Since the phase of retaining the law firm and needing ICANN's help identifying conflicts is over, ICANN's lawyers should no longer be participants on the CWG Client Committee mailing list, meetings, discussions, etc., if the client committee can be said to be independent of the conflict. Thanks, Robin On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Robin, My understanding is that there are only 4 members of the client committee: Greg, Maartin, Lise and Jonathan. I have seen nothing that expanded the membership. The fact that others have been involved with the client committee in finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my understanding simply a result of the fact that ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely. We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee? I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed. Thanks, Robin <image001.png> On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: All, We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work. Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee. The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact. Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG's work commences in earnest? Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Of course, ICANN is picking up the bill and so I fully expect that ICANN will want to continue to monitor activity and potentially, intervene with respect to expenditure.
So I think we can all agree that ICANN has a right to keep an eye on the expenditure. I don't see how that equates to "monitoring activity" however. And I don't see why ICANN's staff should be given posting rights to the new mailing list either (or even why a new, new mailing list is even needed). If your argument is that ICANN needs to monitor expenses, that is very simple: you can simply instruct the law firm to send ICANN an ongoing tally of work each week entirely separate from this process. I imagine this is a fairly common practice in these unusual situations where the client and the person paying the bills are two different groups. Kieren On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Robin, Chuck and others,
Post selection of Sidley, ICANN’s lawyers have no active involvement in the work of the client committee.
Of course, ICANN is picking up the bill and so I fully expect that ICANN will want to continue to monitor activity and potentially, intervene with respect to expenditure.
It will be helpful to understand what, if any, expectation they (ICANN lawyers – in-house or external) have of ongoing involvement in the process other than for the purposes of monitoring expenditure.
I have asked the question.
Jonathan
*From:* Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] *Sent:* 11 March 2015 21:19 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
I reiterate Chuck's question below.
Thanks,
Robin
On Mar 10, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
It would very helpful once and for all for someone to answer this question: will ICANN lawyers be involved in the ongoing process of getting advice except for having visibility to the list? I have been assuming not.
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> Date:03/10/2015 2:23 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Maarten Simon <maarten.simon@sidn.nl> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
What is it with this trust, distrust and taking personal offense at perfectly reasonable questions?
The issue is real quite simple: it is a very important part of the process and it is deviating from the process norms.
The only people that have argued for the closed committee continuing its role going forward are the people on the closed committee. Rather than get offended, why not make the case?
The issue about ICANN's lawyers being allowed into conversations and put on mailing lists when others are refused access is transparently odd.
It would be odd at any point in the IANA transition but it is particularly odd when you consider what we are talking about here: seeking independent legal advice outside of ICANN.
So far the reaction from the committee members has only increased concerns:
* Jonathan responded by discounting people's concerns and saying he thinks it's fine for ICANN's lawyers to be deeply involved in the process. He appeared to ignore questions about who decided this closed committee not only needs to continue to be in place but should act at the intermediary between the legal team and the working group.
* Greg takes personal offense and claims that people are maligning him when, objectively, they're not. But he doesn't address the key issue of why it's appropriate to have ICANN's lawyers on a group whose entire purpose is to get independent legal advice.
* Maarten complains that the committee has been working hard and again takes personal offense. But again without answering people's concerns.
The key issue is this: why are ICANN's lawyers included *at all*?
Everyone that has stated a view outside the committee has made it plain that they don't think it is appropriate for ICANN's lawyers, either internal or external, to be involved at this point.
It's a pretty obvious argument: the entire process is supposed to be about developing an independent legal view. How can that be the case when there are more ICANN staff on the mailing list than committee members?
So can we please stop this talk about trust, cut back on the getting offended, and have a proper discussion on the pertinent issue.
Kieren
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon@sidn.nl> wrote:
All,
I have not been very active on this list but try to follow it the best I can and try to help this process where I think I it can be useful. As some may be aware, I am one of the four members on the client committee and have worked with Lise, Jonathan and Greg for some weeks now. It took us some time, but we have successfully retained a firm that I am sure is fully equipped to help us in our further work. We have worked with ICANN legal as ICANN has to be the formal client and has to pay the bill. They have had no say in which firm we choose and I have not noticed any attempt to influence our choice. They have further accepted the highly unusual clauses in the retention letter that gives us the exclusive power to direct the firm in its work.
What strikes me on this list, is that this result is not celebrated but merely met with criticism and an enormous amount of distrust towards ICANN in the first place but also towards the (members of the) client committee. Yes, we have different opinions and, yes, we need debate and everyone must have his of her say, but if we want to be able to reach a sort of shared understanding in the end (and a good result), we need in my opinion, have some basis of trust in each other.
We as a team have worked hard to get where we are so that we can set the next step, and I have to specifically commend Greg for all the work he has done. Let’s now all take this opportunity and start working with the firm and get the legal advise we are waiting for.
Best,
Maarten
*From: *Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> *Organization: *Afilias *Reply-To: *Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> *Date: *Tuesday 10 March 2015 13:15 *To: *'James Gannon' <james@cyberinvasion.net>, 'Robin Gross' < robin@ipjustice.org> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
*Subject: *Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
All,
A couple of points to add / re-iterate for complete clarity:
1. The client committee remains as was i.e. the four members and has not had ICANN legal added to it
2. The mailing list was set up to facilitate the work of the client committee – primarily communication between the CC & Sidley - but to do so in an open and transparent method. Therefore “cwg-client@icann.org” is visible to all. This is clearly extremely unusual in client / lawyer relationship but done so for (I hope) obvious reasons.
The working methods of the client committee are work in progress and linked to from the URL below:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee
Please feel free to assist in refining these by proposing any updates to the working methods document.
Overall, the intention is that any discussions, meetings etc that take place between the client committee and Sidley and are visible and clear to all (including ICANN Legal / Kevin), primarily via “cwg-client@icann.org”.
I understand the principle highlighted by Robin below but wonder if, given that the transparency of the “cwg-client@icann.org” list, it is advantageous in some way to retain ICANN Legal’s permission to post to the list e.g. for items of clarification, additional information etc? We have no sense of ICANN Legal’s intention to post to the list and could simply check with them if they are interested to retain that right (which has been given to them at the set-up of the mailing list without significant debate or discussion). Personally, my inclination is to leave it as is for the moment but I haven’t had the opportunity to discuss it with Lise nor fully absorb the feedback / concerns from the CWG.
Thanks.
Jonathan
*From:* James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net <james@cyberinvasion.net>] *Sent:* 10 March 2015 00:40 *To:* Robin Gross *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Agreed thats a fair point.
On 10 Mar 2015, at 00:33, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Well, the ICANN website says that 3 ICANN attorneys are also included on the CWG Client Committee mailing list (Samantha, John J, Kevin from Jones Day) and meetings. And ICANN's lawyers are also part of the conversations with the CWG Client Cmte, so it seems like they are participants of the Client Cmte, even if not labeled as such.
Since the phase of retaining the law firm and needing ICANN's help identifying conflicts is over, ICANN's lawyers should no longer be participants on the CWG Client Committee mailing list, meetings, discussions, etc., if the client committee can be said to be independent of the conflict.
Thanks,
Robin
On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Robin,
My understanding is that there are only 4 members of the client committee: Greg, Maartin, Lise and Jonathan. I have seen nothing that expanded the membership. The fact that others have been involved with the client committee in finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my understanding simply a result of the fact that ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Robin Gross *Sent:* Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM *To:* jrobinson@afilias.info *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee
When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely.
We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee?
I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed.
Thanks,
Robin
<image001.png>
On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work.
Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact.
Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ 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 Kieren, Unless i missed something, i think It's not yet been suggested/determined that ICANN would be granted posting rights on the new list (although I sure agree with you that it shouldn't happen). On the need for a client committee list, well I guess it's because client committee is serving as interface to legal firm which I think could make communication a little bit tidy and more focused. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Mar 2015 19:28, "Kieren McCarthy" <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
Of course, ICANN is picking up the bill and so I fully expect that ICANN will want to continue to monitor activity and potentially, intervene with respect to expenditure.
So I think we can all agree that ICANN has a right to keep an eye on the expenditure.
I don't see how that equates to "monitoring activity" however. And I don't see why ICANN's staff should be given posting rights to the new mailing list either (or even why a new, new mailing list is even needed).
If your argument is that ICANN needs to monitor expenses, that is very simple: you can simply instruct the law firm to send ICANN an ongoing tally of work each week entirely separate from this process.
I imagine this is a fairly common practice in these unusual situations where the client and the person paying the bills are two different groups.
Kieren
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info
wrote:
Robin, Chuck and others,
Post selection of Sidley, ICANN’s lawyers have no active involvement in the work of the client committee.
Of course, ICANN is picking up the bill and so I fully expect that ICANN will want to continue to monitor activity and potentially, intervene with respect to expenditure.
It will be helpful to understand what, if any, expectation they (ICANN lawyers – in-house or external) have of ongoing involvement in the process other than for the purposes of monitoring expenditure.
I have asked the question.
Jonathan
*From:* Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] *Sent:* 11 March 2015 21:19 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
I reiterate Chuck's question below.
Thanks,
Robin
On Mar 10, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
It would very helpful once and for all for someone to answer this question: will ICANN lawyers be involved in the ongoing process of getting advice except for having visibility to the list? I have been assuming not.
Chuck
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> Date:03/10/2015 2:23 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Maarten Simon <maarten.simon@sidn.nl> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
What is it with this trust, distrust and taking personal offense at perfectly reasonable questions?
The issue is real quite simple: it is a very important part of the process and it is deviating from the process norms.
The only people that have argued for the closed committee continuing its role going forward are the people on the closed committee. Rather than get offended, why not make the case?
The issue about ICANN's lawyers being allowed into conversations and put on mailing lists when others are refused access is transparently odd.
It would be odd at any point in the IANA transition but it is particularly odd when you consider what we are talking about here: seeking independent legal advice outside of ICANN.
So far the reaction from the committee members has only increased concerns:
* Jonathan responded by discounting people's concerns and saying he thinks it's fine for ICANN's lawyers to be deeply involved in the process. He appeared to ignore questions about who decided this closed committee not only needs to continue to be in place but should act at the intermediary between the legal team and the working group.
* Greg takes personal offense and claims that people are maligning him when, objectively, they're not. But he doesn't address the key issue of why it's appropriate to have ICANN's lawyers on a group whose entire purpose is to get independent legal advice.
* Maarten complains that the committee has been working hard and again takes personal offense. But again without answering people's concerns.
The key issue is this: why are ICANN's lawyers included *at all*?
Everyone that has stated a view outside the committee has made it plain that they don't think it is appropriate for ICANN's lawyers, either internal or external, to be involved at this point.
It's a pretty obvious argument: the entire process is supposed to be about developing an independent legal view. How can that be the case when there are more ICANN staff on the mailing list than committee members?
So can we please stop this talk about trust, cut back on the getting offended, and have a proper discussion on the pertinent issue.
Kieren
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon@sidn.nl> wrote:
All,
I have not been very active on this list but try to follow it the best I can and try to help this process where I think I it can be useful. As some may be aware, I am one of the four members on the client committee and have worked with Lise, Jonathan and Greg for some weeks now. It took us some time, but we have successfully retained a firm that I am sure is fully equipped to help us in our further work. We have worked with ICANN legal as ICANN has to be the formal client and has to pay the bill. They have had no say in which firm we choose and I have not noticed any attempt to influence our choice. They have further accepted the highly unusual clauses in the retention letter that gives us the exclusive power to direct the firm in its work.
What strikes me on this list, is that this result is not celebrated but merely met with criticism and an enormous amount of distrust towards ICANN in the first place but also towards the (members of the) client committee. Yes, we have different opinions and, yes, we need debate and everyone must have his of her say, but if we want to be able to reach a sort of shared understanding in the end (and a good result), we need in my opinion, have some basis of trust in each other.
We as a team have worked hard to get where we are so that we can set the next step, and I have to specifically commend Greg for all the work he has done. Let’s now all take this opportunity and start working with the firm and get the legal advise we are waiting for.
Best,
Maarten
*From: *Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> *Organization: *Afilias *Reply-To: *Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> *Date: *Tuesday 10 March 2015 13:15 *To: *'James Gannon' <james@cyberinvasion.net>, 'Robin Gross' < robin@ipjustice.org> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
*Subject: *Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
All,
A couple of points to add / re-iterate for complete clarity:
1. The client committee remains as was i.e. the four members and has not had ICANN legal added to it
2. The mailing list was set up to facilitate the work of the client committee – primarily communication between the CC & Sidley - but to do so in an open and transparent method. Therefore “cwg-client@icann.org” is visible to all. This is clearly extremely unusual in client / lawyer relationship but done so for (I hope) obvious reasons.
The working methods of the client committee are work in progress and linked to from the URL below:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee
Please feel free to assist in refining these by proposing any updates to the working methods document.
Overall, the intention is that any discussions, meetings etc that take place between the client committee and Sidley and are visible and clear to all (including ICANN Legal / Kevin), primarily via “cwg-client@icann.org ”.
I understand the principle highlighted by Robin below but wonder if, given that the transparency of the “cwg-client@icann.org” list, it is advantageous in some way to retain ICANN Legal’s permission to post to the list e.g. for items of clarification, additional information etc? We have no sense of ICANN Legal’s intention to post to the list and could simply check with them if they are interested to retain that right (which has been given to them at the set-up of the mailing list without significant debate or discussion). Personally, my inclination is to leave it as is for the moment but I haven’t had the opportunity to discuss it with Lise nor fully absorb the feedback / concerns from the CWG.
Thanks.
Jonathan
*From:* James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net <james@cyberinvasion.net>] *Sent:* 10 March 2015 00:40 *To:* Robin Gross *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Agreed thats a fair point.
On 10 Mar 2015, at 00:33, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Well, the ICANN website says that 3 ICANN attorneys are also included on the CWG Client Committee mailing list (Samantha, John J, Kevin from Jones Day) and meetings. And ICANN's lawyers are also part of the conversations with the CWG Client Cmte, so it seems like they are participants of the Client Cmte, even if not labeled as such.
Since the phase of retaining the law firm and needing ICANN's help identifying conflicts is over, ICANN's lawyers should no longer be participants on the CWG Client Committee mailing list, meetings, discussions, etc., if the client committee can be said to be independent of the conflict.
Thanks,
Robin
On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Robin,
My understanding is that there are only 4 members of the client committee: Greg, Maartin, Lise and Jonathan. I have seen nothing that expanded the membership. The fact that others have been involved with the client committee in finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my understanding simply a result of the fact that ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Robin Gross *Sent:* Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM *To:* jrobinson@afilias.info *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee
When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely.
We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee?
I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed.
Thanks,
Robin
<image001.png>
On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work.
Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact.
Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ 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
On 13-Mar-15 15:34, David Conrad wrote:
Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not?
that seems to be a point of dispute. Some like me believe/argue yes. Many others believe/argue no. Definitely not something we have consensus on. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Hi, Well even if it's yes (which is also my personal opinion), I don't think ICANN as a stakeholder just like every other stakeholder within CWG should be given posting rights on the client list. I will assume ICANN board chair for instance recognises this hence his reason for subscribing as an observer. On a lighter note, all these are minor issues to me and I will say could be a little distracting. Getting response from the legal firm is the most important now! Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Mar 2015 20:44, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 13-Mar-15 15:34, David Conrad wrote:
Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not?
that seems to be a point of dispute.
Some like me believe/argue yes. Many others believe/argue no.
Definitely not something we have consensus on.
avri
------------------------------ <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
All, The "client' mailing list was set up as soon as Sidley was retained so that we could immediately have a transparent list for the legal consultation. Generally, we have set up lists for each subgroup of this CWG. The client committee was an exception, and that exception has been rectified. I'm surprised to hear anyone now suggest the list shouldn't exist. They are helpful tools, and that will be particularly true with the client committee list, since Sidley lawyers aren't all subscribed to this main list (and it wouldn't be cost effective for them all to be here). Because the "client" list was set up quickly, we just ported over the people that had been involved in various aspects of the potential counsel process up to that time. There was no grand plan associated with that; it was entirely a matter of moving forward. As a result, some ICANN people have posting rights; maybe that will be changed. But whether ICANN legal has posting rights or not is beside the point, unless one is obsessed. The real point is what if anything ICANN Legal might try to do with those posting rights. If they were to wade into the middle of a discussion and try to influence the advice or the questions being asked in an attempt to make the advice more favorable to ICANN, that would be transparent for all to see, and it would also be a breach of the engagement letter, which ICANN has signed. Do you really think that this is going to happen, and that unless we remove the ICANN names from the list, heinous acts will be committed? I doubt it, and if they do, they will happen in public. I'm not saying the names will stay, but the deep symbolism and concern that has been attached to the names being on the list is without merit, and spending time discussing it is just a distraction from the real work we all have to do. In any event, iCANN legal will still be able to have "observer" status on the list, which is publicly archived in any event. So, one way or the other, the client committee list will be transparent to everyone including ICANN. And if ICANN wants to respond to something on that list, they could still do by posting to this CWG list. Greg On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 13-Mar-15 15:34, David Conrad wrote:
Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not?
that seems to be a point of dispute.
Some like me believe/argue yes. Many others believe/argue no.
Definitely not something we have consensus on.
avri
------------------------------ <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.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, I have a question regarding the "client mailing list". On 13/03/2015 20:23, Greg Shatan wrote:
The "client' mailing list was set up as soon as Sidley was retained so that we could immediately have a transparent list for the legal consultation. Generally, we have set up lists for each subgroup of this CWG. The client committee was an exception, and that exception has been rectified. I'm surprised to hear anyone now suggest the list shouldn't exist. They are helpful tools, and that will be particularly true with the client committee list, since Sidley lawyers aren't all subscribed to this main list (and it wouldn't be cost effective for them all to be here).
In the Client Committee kick-off call, the notes/action items show the following record: /Public information and transparency/ * Hours reporting and fees will be public (on a monthly basis) * Limit the email exchanges on CWG-Client list for administrative things such as securing a time for a conference call. * Archive is live: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/ * Most assignments are discussed by phone (recorded and transcribed) and confirmed by email on public mailing list Could you please explain the meaning of the second bullet point? There's a huge thread on our CWG Stewardship about this list having ICANN staff subscribed (which I am not bothered by), and yet, is this client list only going to be used for administrative things? Kind regards, Olivier
+1 to that question as well as it seem to contradict the "rules of engagement": https://docs.google.com/document/d/12DgI7ip73eg2i0x93QKpSPwhqeO0mtAeRTm1VSWZ... Another comment from me, is that it seem Sidley is planned for a lengthy period of time (ref: bullet point 1). I hope that won't be the case....Sign Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 14 Mar 2015 16:26, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Greg,
I have a question regarding the "client mailing list".
On 13/03/2015 20:23, Greg Shatan wrote:
The "client' mailing list was set up as soon as Sidley was retained so that we could immediately have a transparent list for the legal consultation. Generally, we have set up lists for each subgroup of this CWG. The client committee was an exception, and that exception has been rectified. I'm surprised to hear anyone now suggest the list shouldn't exist. They are helpful tools, and that will be particularly true with the client committee list, since Sidley lawyers aren't all subscribed to this main list (and it wouldn't be cost effective for them all to be here).
In the Client Committee kick-off call, the notes/action items show the following record:
*Public information and transparency*
- Hours reporting and fees will be public (on a monthly basis) - Limit the email exchanges on CWG-Client list for administrative things such as securing a time for a conference call. - Archive is live: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/ - Most assignments are discussed by phone (recorded and transcribed) and confirmed by email on public mailing list
Could you please explain the meaning of the second bullet point? There's a huge thread on our CWG Stewardship about this list having ICANN staff subscribed (which I am not bothered by), and yet, is this client list only going to be used for administrative things?
Kind regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Seun, Don't read too much into point 1, either. Law firms always aggregate their time and bill on a monthly basis (unless they bill less often than that, or on a project basis). Greg On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 to that question as well as it seem to contradict the "rules of engagement":
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12DgI7ip73eg2i0x93QKpSPwhqeO0mtAeRTm1VSWZ...
Another comment from me, is that it seem Sidley is planned for a lengthy period of time (ref: bullet point 1). I hope that won't be the case....Sign
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 14 Mar 2015 16:26, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Greg,
I have a question regarding the "client mailing list".
On 13/03/2015 20:23, Greg Shatan wrote:
The "client' mailing list was set up as soon as Sidley was retained so that we could immediately have a transparent list for the legal consultation. Generally, we have set up lists for each subgroup of this CWG. The client committee was an exception, and that exception has been rectified. I'm surprised to hear anyone now suggest the list shouldn't exist. They are helpful tools, and that will be particularly true with the client committee list, since Sidley lawyers aren't all subscribed to this main list (and it wouldn't be cost effective for them all to be here).
In the Client Committee kick-off call, the notes/action items show the following record:
*Public information and transparency*
- Hours reporting and fees will be public (on a monthly basis) - Limit the email exchanges on CWG-Client list for administrative things such as securing a time for a conference call. - Archive is live: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/ - Most assignments are discussed by phone (recorded and transcribed) and confirmed by email on public mailing list
Could you please explain the meaning of the second bullet point? There's a huge thread on our CWG Stewardship about this list having ICANN staff subscribed (which I am not bothered by), and yet, is this client list only going to be used for administrative things?
Kind regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ 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/>*
Hi Greg, Thanks for the clarification. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 14 Mar 2015 19:57, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Seun,
Don't read too much into point 1, either. Law firms always aggregate their time and bill on a monthly basis (unless they bill less often than that, or on a project basis).
Greg
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 to that question as well as it seem to contradict the "rules of engagement":
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12DgI7ip73eg2i0x93QKpSPwhqeO0mtAeRTm1VSWZ...
Another comment from me, is that it seem Sidley is planned for a lengthy period of time (ref: bullet point 1). I hope that won't be the case....Sign
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 14 Mar 2015 16:26, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Greg,
I have a question regarding the "client mailing list".
On 13/03/2015 20:23, Greg Shatan wrote:
The "client' mailing list was set up as soon as Sidley was retained so that we could immediately have a transparent list for the legal consultation. Generally, we have set up lists for each subgroup of this CWG. The client committee was an exception, and that exception has been rectified. I'm surprised to hear anyone now suggest the list shouldn't exist. They are helpful tools, and that will be particularly true with the client committee list, since Sidley lawyers aren't all subscribed to this main list (and it wouldn't be cost effective for them all to be here).
In the Client Committee kick-off call, the notes/action items show the following record:
*Public information and transparency*
- Hours reporting and fees will be public (on a monthly basis) - Limit the email exchanges on CWG-Client list for administrative things such as securing a time for a conference call. - Archive is live: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/ - Most assignments are discussed by phone (recorded and transcribed) and confirmed by email on public mailing list
Could you please explain the meaning of the second bullet point? There's a huge thread on our CWG Stewardship about this list having ICANN staff subscribed (which I am not bothered by), and yet, is this client list only going to be used for administrative things?
Kind regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ 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/>*
Olivier, As you know, these are just "on the fly" meeting notes by our support staff, and they generally don't get edited much. To clarify, the suggestion that was captured (more or less artfully) by this bullet point was that we should try not to clutter the list with administrative exchanges, so that the list is as substantive as possible. So the essence of the suggestion was to take the administrative exchanges "off-list," not the other way around. (I'm not sure I agree, but it does make the list easier to scan as an archive if there aren't 20 messages about the time of a call and who can make it, etc.) I hope that helps. Greg On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Greg,
I have a question regarding the "client mailing list".
On 13/03/2015 20:23, Greg Shatan wrote:
The "client' mailing list was set up as soon as Sidley was retained so that we could immediately have a transparent list for the legal consultation. Generally, we have set up lists for each subgroup of this CWG. The client committee was an exception, and that exception has been rectified. I'm surprised to hear anyone now suggest the list shouldn't exist. They are helpful tools, and that will be particularly true with the client committee list, since Sidley lawyers aren't all subscribed to this main list (and it wouldn't be cost effective for them all to be here).
In the Client Committee kick-off call, the notes/action items show the following record:
*Public information and transparency*
- Hours reporting and fees will be public (on a monthly basis) - Limit the email exchanges on CWG-Client list for administrative things such as securing a time for a conference call. - Archive is live: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/ - Most assignments are discussed by phone (recorded and transcribed) and confirmed by email on public mailing list
Could you please explain the meaning of the second bullet point? There's a huge thread on our CWG Stewardship about this list having ICANN staff subscribed (which I am not bothered by), and yet, is this client list only going to be used for administrative things?
Kind regards,
Olivier
-- *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, with the archive of the list being public, it has been pointed out to me that there has been no traffic on the client list since 14 March. With your update on today's call letting us know that Sidley are working on the questions, is it clear how Sidley are to engage with the client committee: by direct email or through the list? Thanks for the clarification. Kind regards, Olivier On 14/03/2015 19:53, Greg Shatan wrote:
Olivier,
As you know, these are just "on the fly" meeting notes by our support staff, and they generally don't get edited much. To clarify, the suggestion that was captured (more or less artfully) by this bullet point was that we should try not to clutter the list with administrative exchanges, so that the list is as substantive as possible. So the essence of the suggestion was to take the administrative exchanges "off-list," not the other way around. (I'm not sure I agree, but it does make the list easier to scan as an archive if there aren't 20 messages about the time of a call and who can make it, etc.)
I hope that helps.
Greg
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Greg,
I have a question regarding the "client mailing list".
On 13/03/2015 20:23, Greg Shatan wrote:
The "client' mailing list was set up as soon as Sidley was retained so that we could immediately have a transparent list for the legal consultation. Generally, we have set up lists for each subgroup of this CWG. The client committee was an exception, and that exception has been rectified. I'm surprised to hear anyone now suggest the list shouldn't exist. They are helpful tools, and that will be particularly true with the client committee list, since Sidley lawyers aren't all subscribed to this main list (and it wouldn't be cost effective for them all to be here).
In the Client Committee kick-off call, the notes/action items show the following record:
/Public information and transparency/
* Hours reporting and fees will be public (on a monthly basis) * Limit the email exchanges on CWG-Client list for administrative things such as securing a time for a conference call. * Archive is live: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/ * Most assignments are discussed by phone (recorded and transcribed) and confirmed by email on public mailing list
Could you please explain the meaning of the second bullet point? There's a huge thread on our CWG Stewardship about this list having ICANN staff subscribed (which I am not bothered by), and yet, is this client list only going to be used for administrative things?
Kind regards,
Olivier
--
*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 <mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>/*
*ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>/*
*/www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>/*
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
As a result, some ICANN people have posting rights; maybe that will be changed. MM: Hi, Greg. You noted that there were legitimate reasons why they had posting rights originally, but you also noted that those reasons no longer exist. So I see no reason why it should not be changed. Just put them in the same status (observer) as the rest of us. I'm not saying the names will stay, but the deep symbolism and concern that has been attached to the names being on the list is without merit, and spending time discussing it is just a distraction from the real work we all have to do. MM: Agreed, so let’s just fix it.
That's Okay, provided that other NTIA contractors are also excluded. CW On 15 Mar 2015, at 21:10, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
As a result, some ICANN people have posting rights; maybe that will be changed.
MM: Hi, Greg. You noted that there were legitimate reasons why they had posting rights originally, but you also noted that those reasons no longer exist. So I see no reason why it should not be changed. Just put them in the same status (observer) as the rest of us.
I'm not saying the names will stay, but the deep symbolism and concern that has been attached to the names being on the list is without merit, and spending time discussing it is just a distraction from the real work we all have to do.
MM: Agreed, so let’s just fix it.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CW: Off target again. No one is proposing to "exclude" ICANN legal, the question is whether they should have special posting privileges unlike anyone else on the CWG. Also, the legal advice we are seeking involves ICANN Inc.'s role, not Verisign's role, so there is not the same level of conflict of interest. Even so, if Verisign's legal team were suddenly given posting privileges and no one else on the CWG was, I expect you'd see the same concerns aired. Let me reiterate that I agree with Greg and others that this is becoming an distraction. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of CW Lists That's Okay, provided that other NTIA contractors are also excluded. CW On 15 Mar 2015, at 21:10, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: As a result, some ICANN people have posting rights; maybe that will be changed. MM: Hi, Greg. You noted that there were legitimate reasons why they had posting rights originally, but you also noted that those reasons no longer exist. So I see no reason why it should not be changed. Just put them in the same status (observer) as the rest of us. I'm not saying the names will stay, but the deep symbolism and concern that has been attached to the names being on the list is without merit, and spending time discussing it is just a distraction from the real work we all have to do. MM: Agreed, so let's just fix it. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hmmm … If ICANN, as an NTIA contractor, is excluded from any List, then all NTIA contractors should also be excluded. ICANN staff is not a stakeholder in its own right. They are the secretariat of the multistakeholder process. Servants, not Principals. CW On 13 Mar 2015, at 20:44, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 13-Mar-15 15:34, David Conrad wrote:
Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not?
that seems to be a point of dispute.
Some like me believe/argue yes. Many others believe/argue no.
Definitely not something we have consensus on.
avri
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I think it is important that we recognize the context of the client committee. Its purpose is to lead the effort on behalf of the CWG in obtaining INDEPENDENT legal advice, i.e., independent from ICANN. So, whether or not ICANN staff is a stakeholder in the CWG IANA, their role in my opinion in obtaining the legal advice must be very limited, otherwise we risk losing the independence that is required. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of David Conrad Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 3:34 PM To: Kieren McCarthy Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Kieren, And I don't see why ICANN's staff should be given posting rights to the new mailing list either Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not? Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO but speaking only for myself)
Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not?
Yes. Although in this case - the process for getting independent legal advice - I would question whether it was appropriate for ICANN staff to be involved at all. But that's not even where we are. * As I understand it, Jonathan is proposing/has implemented a closed committee to act as the intermediary between the transition group and the independent lawyers. (Something that appears to have been done unilaterally.) * That closed committee will have its own mailing list that people have to actively ask to be subscribed to (something that is out of step with the rest of the transition processes). * Even when subscribed, those people will not have posting rights. * However, ICANN's lawyers - both internal and external - as well as ICANN staff appear to already be on this list and have posting rights to it. (At least I think that is the case; it's not clear, despite questions asking for clarity.) * It's also appears to be the case that the committee intends to have closed meetings. And to allow ICANN's lawyers and/or staff to be a part of those meetings. In other words, in the one area where ICANN's staff should be voluntarily excusing themselves to avoid a fairly obvious conflict of interest, they appear instead to actually have an elevated position and direct influence on the process. I'm at a loss to understand why either ICANN staff or the closed committee members think this is appropriate. It's clear that no one outside those two groups does. Kieren On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:34 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org> wrote:
Kieren,
And I don't see why ICANN's staff should be given posting rights to the new mailing list either
Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not?
Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO but speaking only for myself)
I'm at a loss to understand why either ICANN staff or the closed committee members think this is appropriate. It's clear that no one outside those two groups does.
With all due respect please don’t claim speak for the group Kieran, many of us do understand the need to have ICANN Staff involved in the process and see no issue with it. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 8:28 PM To: David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not?
Yes. Although in this case - the process for getting independent legal advice - I would question whether it was appropriate for ICANN staff to be involved at all. But that's not even where we are. * As I understand it, Jonathan is proposing/has implemented a closed committee to act as the intermediary between the transition group and the independent lawyers. (Something that appears to have been done unilaterally.) * That closed committee will have its own mailing list that people have to actively ask to be subscribed to (something that is out of step with the rest of the transition processes). * Even when subscribed, those people will not have posting rights. * However, ICANN's lawyers - both internal and external - as well as ICANN staff appear to already be on this list and have posting rights to it. (At least I think that is the case; it's not clear, despite questions asking for clarity.) * It's also appears to be the case that the committee intends to have closed meetings. And to allow ICANN's lawyers and/or staff to be a part of those meetings. In other words, in the one area where ICANN's staff should be voluntarily excusing themselves to avoid a fairly obvious conflict of interest, they appear instead to actually have an elevated position and direct influence on the process. I'm at a loss to understand why either ICANN staff or the closed committee members think this is appropriate. It's clear that no one outside those two groups does. Kieren On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:34 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org<mailto:david.conrad@icann.org>> wrote: Kieren, And I don't see why ICANN's staff should be given posting rights to the new mailing list either Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not? Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO but speaking only for myself)
With all due respect please don’t claim speak for the group Kieran, many of us do understand
the need to have ICANN Staff involved in the process and see no issue with it.
So I wasn't speaking for the group, I was reflecting the messages on this list. The only people that have spoken up in favor of ICANN staff being on the closed committee past the legal team selection (in whatever capacity) have been ICANN staff or the closed committee members. Every other post to this list on this issue has said that they don't think it is appropriate. Until yours just now. Kieren On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:44 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
I'm at a loss to understand why either ICANN staff or the closed committee members think this is appropriate. It's clear that no one outside those two groups does.
With all due respect please don’t claim speak for the group Kieran, many of us do understand the need to have ICANN Staff involved in the process and see no issue with it.
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Friday, March 13, 2015 8:28 PM *To:* David Conrad *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not?
Yes.
Although in this case - the process for getting independent legal advice - I would question whether it was appropriate for ICANN staff to be involved at all.
But that's not even where we are.
* As I understand it, Jonathan is proposing/has implemented a closed committee to act as the intermediary between the transition group and the independent lawyers. (Something that appears to have been done unilaterally.)
* That closed committee will have its own mailing list that people have to actively ask to be subscribed to (something that is out of step with the rest of the transition processes).
* Even when subscribed, those people will not have posting rights.
* However, ICANN's lawyers - both internal and external - as well as ICANN staff appear to already be on this list and have posting rights to it. (At least I think that is the case; it's not clear, despite questions asking for clarity.)
* It's also appears to be the case that the committee intends to have closed meetings. And to allow ICANN's lawyers and/or staff to be a part of those meetings.
In other words, in the one area where ICANN's staff should be voluntarily excusing themselves to avoid a fairly obvious conflict of interest, they appear instead to actually have an elevated position and direct influence on the process.
I'm at a loss to understand why either ICANN staff or the closed committee members think this is appropriate. It's clear that no one outside those two groups does.
Kieren
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:34 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org> wrote:
Kieren,
And I don't see why ICANN's staff should be given posting rights to the new mailing list either
Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not?
Regards,
-drc
(ICANN CTO but speaking only for myself)
Yes and there are over 100 other members and participants who have not stated their opinion either way so I feel that a statement that ‘it’s clear that no one outside of these two groups does’ Is putting words in people’s mouths. I encourage and support any comments that you want to make about the process but please don’t make statements on behalf of anyone else, unless you have been selected to speak on their behalf and are doing so in some official capacity. From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 9:29 PM To: James Gannon Cc: David Conrad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
With all due respect please don’t claim speak for the group Kieran, many of us do understand the need to have ICANN Staff involved in the process and see no issue with it.
So I wasn't speaking for the group, I was reflecting the messages on this list. The only people that have spoken up in favor of ICANN staff being on the closed committee past the legal team selection (in whatever capacity) have been ICANN staff or the closed committee members. Every other post to this list on this issue has said that they don't think it is appropriate. Until yours just now. Kieren On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:44 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
I'm at a loss to understand why either ICANN staff or the closed committee members think this is appropriate. It's clear that no one outside those two groups does.
With all due respect please don’t claim speak for the group Kieran, many of us do understand the need to have ICANN Staff involved in the process and see no issue with it. 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 Kieren McCarthy Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 8:28 PM To: David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not?
Yes. Although in this case - the process for getting independent legal advice - I would question whether it was appropriate for ICANN staff to be involved at all. But that's not even where we are. * As I understand it, Jonathan is proposing/has implemented a closed committee to act as the intermediary between the transition group and the independent lawyers. (Something that appears to have been done unilaterally.) * That closed committee will have its own mailing list that people have to actively ask to be subscribed to (something that is out of step with the rest of the transition processes). * Even when subscribed, those people will not have posting rights. * However, ICANN's lawyers - both internal and external - as well as ICANN staff appear to already be on this list and have posting rights to it. (At least I think that is the case; it's not clear, despite questions asking for clarity.) * It's also appears to be the case that the committee intends to have closed meetings. And to allow ICANN's lawyers and/or staff to be a part of those meetings. In other words, in the one area where ICANN's staff should be voluntarily excusing themselves to avoid a fairly obvious conflict of interest, they appear instead to actually have an elevated position and direct influence on the process. I'm at a loss to understand why either ICANN staff or the closed committee members think this is appropriate. It's clear that no one outside those two groups does. Kieren On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:34 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org<mailto:david.conrad@icann.org>> wrote: Kieren, And I don't see why ICANN's staff should be given posting rights to the new mailing list either Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not? Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO but speaking only for myself)
Are you proposing a poll, James? If so, I will support you. Kieren On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:06 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Yes and there are over 100 other members and participants who have not stated their opinion either way so I feel that a statement that ‘it’s clear that no one outside of these two groups does’ Is putting words in people’s mouths.
I encourage and support any comments that you want to make about the process but please don’t make statements on behalf of anyone else, unless you have been selected to speak on their behalf and are doing so in some official capacity.
*From:* Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com] *Sent:* Friday, March 13, 2015 9:29 PM *To:* James Gannon *Cc:* David Conrad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
With all due respect please don’t claim speak for the group Kieran, many of us do understand
the need to have ICANN Staff involved in the process and see no issue with it.
So I wasn't speaking for the group, I was reflecting the messages on this list.
The only people that have spoken up in favor of ICANN staff being on the closed committee past the legal team selection (in whatever capacity) have been ICANN staff or the closed committee members.
Every other post to this list on this issue has said that they don't think it is appropriate. Until yours just now.
Kieren
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:44 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
I'm at a loss to understand why either ICANN staff or the closed committee members think this is appropriate. It's clear that no one outside those two groups does.
With all due respect please don’t claim speak for the group Kieran, many of us do understand the need to have ICANN Staff involved in the process and see no issue with it.
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Friday, March 13, 2015 8:28 PM *To:* David Conrad *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not?
Yes.
Although in this case - the process for getting independent legal advice - I would question whether it was appropriate for ICANN staff to be involved at all.
But that's not even where we are.
* As I understand it, Jonathan is proposing/has implemented a closed committee to act as the intermediary between the transition group and the independent lawyers. (Something that appears to have been done unilaterally.)
* That closed committee will have its own mailing list that people have to actively ask to be subscribed to (something that is out of step with the rest of the transition processes).
* Even when subscribed, those people will not have posting rights.
* However, ICANN's lawyers - both internal and external - as well as ICANN staff appear to already be on this list and have posting rights to it. (At least I think that is the case; it's not clear, despite questions asking for clarity.)
* It's also appears to be the case that the committee intends to have closed meetings. And to allow ICANN's lawyers and/or staff to be a part of those meetings.
In other words, in the one area where ICANN's staff should be voluntarily excusing themselves to avoid a fairly obvious conflict of interest, they appear instead to actually have an elevated position and direct influence on the process.
I'm at a loss to understand why either ICANN staff or the closed committee members think this is appropriate. It's clear that no one outside those two groups does.
Kieren
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:34 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org> wrote:
Kieren,
And I don't see why ICANN's staff should be given posting rights to the new mailing list either
Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not?
Regards,
-drc
(ICANN CTO but speaking only for myself)
I will leave it to the members of the chartering groups and the chairs to decide if that’s needed. From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 12:16 AM To: James Gannon Cc: David Conrad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Are you proposing a poll, James? If so, I will support you. Kieren On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:06 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Yes and there are over 100 other members and participants who have not stated their opinion either way so I feel that a statement that ‘it’s clear that no one outside of these two groups does’ Is putting words in people’s mouths. I encourage and support any comments that you want to make about the process but please don’t make statements on behalf of anyone else, unless you have been selected to speak on their behalf and are doing so in some official capacity. From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com<mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com>] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 9:29 PM To: James Gannon Cc: David Conrad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
With all due respect please don’t claim speak for the group Kieran, many of us do understand the need to have ICANN Staff involved in the process and see no issue with it.
So I wasn't speaking for the group, I was reflecting the messages on this list. The only people that have spoken up in favor of ICANN staff being on the closed committee past the legal team selection (in whatever capacity) have been ICANN staff or the closed committee members. Every other post to this list on this issue has said that they don't think it is appropriate. Until yours just now. Kieren On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:44 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
I'm at a loss to understand why either ICANN staff or the closed committee members think this is appropriate. It's clear that no one outside those two groups does.
With all due respect please don’t claim speak for the group Kieran, many of us do understand the need to have ICANN Staff involved in the process and see no issue with it. 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 Kieren McCarthy Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 8:28 PM To: David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not?
Yes. Although in this case - the process for getting independent legal advice - I would question whether it was appropriate for ICANN staff to be involved at all. But that's not even where we are. * As I understand it, Jonathan is proposing/has implemented a closed committee to act as the intermediary between the transition group and the independent lawyers. (Something that appears to have been done unilaterally.) * That closed committee will have its own mailing list that people have to actively ask to be subscribed to (something that is out of step with the rest of the transition processes). * Even when subscribed, those people will not have posting rights. * However, ICANN's lawyers - both internal and external - as well as ICANN staff appear to already be on this list and have posting rights to it. (At least I think that is the case; it's not clear, despite questions asking for clarity.) * It's also appears to be the case that the committee intends to have closed meetings. And to allow ICANN's lawyers and/or staff to be a part of those meetings. In other words, in the one area where ICANN's staff should be voluntarily excusing themselves to avoid a fairly obvious conflict of interest, they appear instead to actually have an elevated position and direct influence on the process. I'm at a loss to understand why either ICANN staff or the closed committee members think this is appropriate. It's clear that no one outside those two groups does. Kieren On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:34 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org<mailto:david.conrad@icann.org>> wrote: Kieren, And I don't see why ICANN's staff should be given posting rights to the new mailing list either Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not? Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO but speaking only for myself)
Kieren, Your email is rife with overstatement and inaccuracy. As a starting point, continually referring to the Client Committee as the "closed committee" reminds me of the tactic that certain Republicans have of calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party." Just call it by its proper name. And the committee and its mailing list are not unique in that regard -- the Design Teams are also "closed committees" as well with "by request only" mailing lists with limited posting rights -- but you don't seem very interested in joining any of them.... The Client Committee was fully proposed and disclosed on CWG calls when we started the process of looking for counsel, so it is hardly unilateral, and there were opportunities for discussion on those calls. But, since you don't actually attend very many calls (4 out of 26, at last count), you wouldn't know that. Despite your complaint, I have made it clear that currently there some "ICANN legal" people on the list and why -- I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that my previous email "crossed" with yours. It's also clear if you look at the list on the Wiki. I'll do your research for you and provide you with the link: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee You will see that there are two inhouse attorneys and no outside attorneys on the list. (I don't know where it "appears" otherwise.) I'm not sure what you mean by "closed" meetings. The meetings are all being recorded, and Adobe connect is being used, so there are public notes and chat. They are as open as any RFP group and any Design Team meeting. As to whether ICANN's staff should be voluntarily excusing themselves, you can take that up with ICANN's staff. In point of fact, ICANN staff has had no "direct influence" on the on our discussions with counsel. To the extent they were on the calls with our lawyers, they were essentially silent. I think Sam Eisner posted two small factual points in the chat on the last call. But it's all available for your listening pleasure should you want to satisfy yourself. Our working methods are still a work in progress and things may change. Nonetheless, I think it's incorrect to term the current situation as one of "elevated position and direct influence." Since this is not the case, it's ridiculous to say that anyone thinks that "elevated position and direct influence" is appropriate. It's also ridiculous to think that ICANN legal is so fiendishly brilliant, and that the members of the client committee and Sidley Austin are such naive clods, that we can be manipulated and influenced by ICANN legal through the mere ability to post to a list (which they haven't done) and to get on a call (which has only been done silently). Finally, it's ridiculous to think that you can "clearly" deduce what everyone in this very varied CWG thinks, especially about something that isn't so in the first place. To reiterate, that doesn't mean that this is the way things will stay. Far from it. And I understand the importance of managing the perception of influence, even if it is only perception. But this tendentious, exaggerated method of discussing suggestions for change actually slows down the process of change, rather than accelerating it. As my grandmother used to say, "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar." Greg On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not?
Yes.
Although in this case - the process for getting independent legal advice - I would question whether it was appropriate for ICANN staff to be involved at all.
But that's not even where we are.
* As I understand it, Jonathan is proposing/has implemented a closed committee to act as the intermediary between the transition group and the independent lawyers. (Something that appears to have been done unilaterally.)
* That closed committee will have its own mailing list that people have to actively ask to be subscribed to (something that is out of step with the rest of the transition processes).
* Even when subscribed, those people will not have posting rights.
* However, ICANN's lawyers - both internal and external - as well as ICANN staff appear to already be on this list and have posting rights to it. (At least I think that is the case; it's not clear, despite questions asking for clarity.)
* It's also appears to be the case that the committee intends to have closed meetings. And to allow ICANN's lawyers and/or staff to be a part of those meetings.
In other words, in the one area where ICANN's staff should be voluntarily excusing themselves to avoid a fairly obvious conflict of interest, they appear instead to actually have an elevated position and direct influence on the process.
I'm at a loss to understand why either ICANN staff or the closed committee members think this is appropriate. It's clear that no one outside those two groups does.
Kieren
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:34 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org> wrote:
Kieren,
And I don't see why ICANN's staff should be given posting rights to the new mailing list either
Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not?
Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO but speaking only for myself)
_______________________________________________ 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/>*
hi, On 10-Mar-15 11:51, Maarten Simon wrote:
What strikes me on this list, is that this result is not celebrated but merely met with criticism and an enormous amount of distrust towards ICANN in the first place but also towards the (members of the) client committee.
I apologize for not having said anything about this. I think what got worked out was rather good and appreicate the team and its work. I may have concerns about the focus of the legal team, but I think that in terms of the selection and the arrangement, so far so good. And should have said so. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Ignoring for the moment the composition of the Client Committee, I do have an issue with the transparency of the process. Having used and managed mailing lists for well over 3 decades, there is a very large difference between the "push" technology of being on a mailing list and the "pull" technology of having access to the list archives. I scan what arrives in my in-box. I rarely have the time or patience to read what is in archives I have access to. I strongly suggest that we allow all CWG Members/Participants to be subscribed to the cwg-client list, even if they are not given posting rights. Moreover, in the interest of transparency, I also suggest that the list membership be viewable to all, regardless of whether they are members of the list or not. Alan At 10/03/2015 08:15 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
A couple of points to add / re-iterate for complete clarity:
1. The client committee remains as was i.e. the four members and has not had ICANN legal added to it 2. The mailing list was set up to facilitate the work of the client committee primarily communication between the CC & Sidley - but to do so in an open and transparent method. Therefore <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>cwg-client@icann.org is visible to all. This is clearly extremely unusual in client / lawyer relationship but done so for (I hope) obvious reasons.
The working methods of the client committee are work in progress and linked to from the URL below: <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee>https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee Please feel free to assist in refining these by proposing any updates to the working methods document.
Overall, the intention is that any discussions, meetings etc that take place between the client committee and Sidley and are visible and clear to all (including ICANN Legal / Kevin), primarily via <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>cwg-client@icann.org.
I understand the principle highlighted by Robin below but wonder if, given that the transparency of the <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>cwg-client@icann.org list, it is advantageous in some way to retain ICANN Legals permission to post to the list e.g. for items of clarification, additional information etc? We have no sense of ICANN Legals intention to post to the list and could simply check with them if they are interested to retain that right (which has been given to them at the set-up of the mailing list without significant debate or discussion). Personally, my inclination is to leave it as is for the moment but I havent had the opportunity to discuss it with Lise nor fully absorb the feedback / concerns from the CWG.
Thanks.
Jonathan
From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: 10 March 2015 00:40 To: Robin Gross Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Agreed thats a fair point.
On 10 Mar 2015, at 00:33, Robin Gross <<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Well, the ICANN website says that 3 ICANN attorneys are also included on the CWG Client Committee mailing list (Samantha, John J, Kevin from Jones Day) and meetings. And ICANN's lawyers are also part of the conversations with the CWG Client Cmte, so it seems like they are participants of the Client Cmte, even if not labeled as such.
Since the phase of retaining the law firm and needing ICANN's help identifying conflicts is over, ICANN's lawyers should no longer be participants on the CWG Client Committee mailing list, meetings, discussions, etc., if the client committee can be said to be independent of the conflict.
Thanks, Robin
On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Robin,
My understanding is that there are only 4 members of the client committee: Greg, Maartin, Lise and Jonathan. I have seen nothing that expanded the membership. The fact that others have been involved with the client committee in finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my understanding simply a result of the fact that ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me.
Chuck
From: <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM To: <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee:
When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely.
We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee?
I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed.
Thanks, Robin <image001.png>
On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work.
Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact.
Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWGs work commences in earnest?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks Alan, That seems like a good suggestion re: "we allow all CWG Members/Participants to be subscribed to the cwg-client list, even if they are not given posting rights". It seems to me to be consistent with the current position yet permit better access. Does anyone have any reservations? Please clarify "that the list membership be viewable to all, regardless of whether they are members of the list or not"? Do we not do that already. Jonathan From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: 10 March 2015 16:00 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; 'James Gannon'; 'Robin Gross' Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Ignoring for the moment the composition of the Client Committee, I do have an issue with the transparency of the process. Having used and managed mailing lists for well over 3 decades, there is a very large difference between the "push" technology of being on a mailing list and the "pull" technology of having access to the list archives. I scan what arrives in my in-box. I rarely have the time or patience to read what is in archives I have access to. I strongly suggest that we allow all CWG Members/Participants to be subscribed to the cwg-client list, even if they are not given posting rights. Moreover, in the interest of transparency, I also suggest that the list membership be viewable to all, regardless of whether they are members of the list or not. Alan At 10/03/2015 08:15 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: All, A couple of points to add / re-iterate for complete clarity: 1. The client committee remains as was i.e. the four members and has not had ICANN legal added to it 2. The mailing list was set up to facilitate the work of the client committee - primarily communication between the CC & Sidley - but to do so in an open and transparent method. Therefore "cwg-client@icann.org" is visible to all. This is clearly extremely unusual in client / lawyer relationship but done so for (I hope) obvious reasons. The working methods of the client committee are work in progress and linked to from the URL below: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee Please feel free to assist in refining these by proposing any updates to the working methods document. Overall, the intention is that any discussions, meetings etc that take place between the client committee and Sidley and are visible and clear to all (including ICANN Legal / Kevin), primarily via "cwg-client@icann.org". I understand the principle highlighted by Robin below but wonder if, given that the transparency of the "cwg-client@icann.org" list, it is advantageous in some way to retain ICANN Legal's permission to post to the list e.g. for items of clarification, additional information etc? We have no sense of ICANN Legal's intention to post to the list and could simply check with them if they are interested to retain that right (which has been given to them at the set-up of the mailing list without significant debate or discussion). Personally, my inclination is to leave it as is for the moment but I haven't had the opportunity to discuss it with Lise nor fully absorb the feedback / concerns from the CWG. Thanks. Jonathan From: James Gannon [ mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net> ] Sent: 10 March 2015 00:40 To: Robin Gross Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Agreed thats a fair point. On 10 Mar 2015, at 00:33, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote: Well, the ICANN website says that 3 ICANN attorneys are also included on the CWG Client Committee mailing list (Samantha, John J, Kevin from Jones Day) and meetings. And ICANN's lawyers are also part of the conversations with the CWG Client Cmte, so it seems like they are participants of the Client Cmte, even if not labeled as such. Since the phase of retaining the law firm and needing ICANN's help identifying conflicts is over, ICANN's lawyers should no longer be participants on the CWG Client Committee mailing list, meetings, discussions, etc., if the client committee can be said to be independent of the conflict. Thanks, Robin On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Robin, My understanding is that there are only 4 members of the client committee: Greg, Maartin, Lise and Jonathan. I have seen nothing that expanded the membership. The fact that others have been involved with the client committee in finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my understanding simply a result of the fact that ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely. We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee? I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed. Thanks, Robin <image001.png> On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: All, We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work. Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee. The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact. Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG's work commences in earnest? Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I like the idea of subscribing to the cwg-client list even if there are not posting rights. -ed On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Thanks Alan,
That seems like a good suggestion re: “we allow all CWG Members/Participants to be subscribed to the cwg-client list, even if they are not given posting rights”.
It seems to me to be consistent with the current position yet permit better access. Does anyone have any reservations?
Please clarify “that the list membership be viewable to all, regardless of whether they are members of the list or not”? Do we not do that already.
Jonathan
*From:* Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] *Sent:* 10 March 2015 16:00 *To:* jrobinson@afilias.info; 'James Gannon'; 'Robin Gross'
*Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Ignoring for the moment the composition of the Client Committee, I do have an issue with the transparency of the process.
Having used and managed mailing lists for well over 3 decades, there is a very large difference between the "push" technology of being on a mailing list and the "pull" technology of having access to the list archives. I scan what arrives in my in-box. I rarely have the time or patience to read what is in archives I have access to.
I strongly suggest that we allow all CWG Members/Participants to be subscribed to the cwg-client list, even if they are not given posting rights.
Moreover, in the interest of transparency, I also suggest that the list membership be viewable to all, regardless of whether they are members of the list or not.
Alan
At 10/03/2015 08:15 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
A couple of points to add / re-iterate for complete clarity:
1. The client committee remains as was i.e. the four members and has not had ICANN legal added to it 2. The mailing list was set up to facilitate the work of the client committee – primarily communication between the CC & Sidley - but to do so in an open and transparent method. Therefore “cwg-client@icann.org” is visible to all. This is clearly extremely unusual in client / lawyer relationship but done so for (I hope) obvious reasons.
The working methods of the client committee are work in progress and linked to from the URL below: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee Please feel free to assist in refining these by proposing any updates to the working methods document.
Overall, the intention is that any discussions, meetings etc that take place between the client committee and Sidley and are visible and clear to all (including ICANN Legal / Kevin), primarily via “cwg-client@icann.org”.
I understand the principle highlighted by Robin below but wonder if, given that the transparency of the “cwg-client@icann.org” list, it is advantageous in some way to retain ICANN Legal’s permission to post to the list e.g. for items of clarification, additional information etc? We have no sense of ICANN Legal’s intention to post to the list and could simply check with them if they are interested to retain that right (which has been given to them at the set-up of the mailing list without significant debate or discussion). Personally, my inclination is to leave it as is for the moment but I haven’t had the opportunity to discuss it with Lise nor fully absorb the feedback / concerns from the CWG.
Thanks.
Jonathan
*From:* James Gannon [ mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net <james@cyberinvasion.net>] *Sent:* 10 March 2015 00:40 *To:* Robin Gross *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Agreed thats a fair point.
On 10 Mar 2015, at 00:33, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Well, the ICANN website says that 3 ICANN attorneys are also included on the CWG Client Committee mailing list (Samantha, John J, Kevin from Jones Day) and meetings. And ICANN's lawyers are also part of the conversations with the CWG Client Cmte, so it seems like they are participants of the Client Cmte, even if not labeled as such.
Since the phase of retaining the law firm and needing ICANN's help identifying conflicts is over, ICANN's lawyers should no longer be participants on the CWG Client Committee mailing list, meetings, discussions, etc., if the client committee can be said to be independent of the conflict.
Thanks, Robin
On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Robin,
My understanding is that there are only 4 members of the client committee: Greg, Maartin, Lise and Jonathan. I have seen nothing that expanded the membership. The fact that others have been involved with the client committee in finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my understanding simply a result of the fact that ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Robin Gross *Sent:* Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM *To:* jrobinson@afilias.info *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee
When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely.
We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee?
I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed.
Thanks, Robin <image001.png>
On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work.
Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact.
Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ 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
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Thanks Alan,
That seems like a good suggestion re: “we allow all CWG Members/Participants to be subscribed to the cwg-client list, even if they are not given posting rights”.
It seems to me to be consistent with the current position yet permit better access. Does anyone have any reservations?
I think this is a fine compromise, so long as communication outside the list only influences the work of the "client committee" if it receives the blessing of the CWG. I will expect the following ethics to play through: - The client committee does not get influenced by discussions started on CWG as a result of issues sighted on client committee list - The Client committee is available to respond to question/clarification requested by CWG as a result of issues sighted on client committee list - The client committee does not attempt to make decisions about which response to a question is more feasible - The client committee does not officially act on any interaction that does not happen via the committee client list. This will bring me to ask again; please can we have the role/scope of the client committee clearly defined and documented. We have have an idea of what their role is, but it will be good to have reference for such. To serve as reminder for both the CWG and the Client committee.....again those will form part of the RFP response
Please clarify “that the list membership be viewable to all, regardless of whether they are members of the list or not”? Do we not do that already.
While Alan will clarify this part, my thinking is that he is referring to ability for list members to know who is subscribed on the list. If that is correct, then i don't really think its necessary feature since CWG will always receive all communication anyway. (re: if unknown people are subscribed then they most likely will act in read only otherwise they'd be noticed) Regards
Jonathan
*From:* Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] *Sent:* 10 March 2015 16:00 *To:* jrobinson@afilias.info; 'James Gannon'; 'Robin Gross'
*Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Ignoring for the moment the composition of the Client Committee, I do have an issue with the transparency of the process.
Having used and managed mailing lists for well over 3 decades, there is a very large difference between the "push" technology of being on a mailing list and the "pull" technology of having access to the list archives. I scan what arrives in my in-box. I rarely have the time or patience to read what is in archives I have access to.
I strongly suggest that we allow all CWG Members/Participants to be subscribed to the cwg-client list, even if they are not given posting rights.
Moreover, in the interest of transparency, I also suggest that the list membership be viewable to all, regardless of whether they are members of the list or not.
Alan
At 10/03/2015 08:15 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
A couple of points to add / re-iterate for complete clarity:
1. The client committee remains as was i.e. the four members and has not had ICANN legal added to it 2. The mailing list was set up to facilitate the work of the client committee – primarily communication between the CC & Sidley - but to do so in an open and transparent method. Therefore “cwg-client@icann.org” is visible to all. This is clearly extremely unusual in client / lawyer relationship but done so for (I hope) obvious reasons.
The working methods of the client committee are work in progress and linked to from the URL below: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee Please feel free to assist in refining these by proposing any updates to the working methods document.
Overall, the intention is that any discussions, meetings etc that take place between the client committee and Sidley and are visible and clear to all (including ICANN Legal / Kevin), primarily via “cwg-client@icann.org”.
I understand the principle highlighted by Robin below but wonder if, given that the transparency of the “cwg-client@icann.org” list, it is advantageous in some way to retain ICANN Legal’s permission to post to the list e.g. for items of clarification, additional information etc? We have no sense of ICANN Legal’s intention to post to the list and could simply check with them if they are interested to retain that right (which has been given to them at the set-up of the mailing list without significant debate or discussion). Personally, my inclination is to leave it as is for the moment but I haven’t had the opportunity to discuss it with Lise nor fully absorb the feedback / concerns from the CWG.
Thanks.
Jonathan
*From:* James Gannon [ mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net <james@cyberinvasion.net>] *Sent:* 10 March 2015 00:40 *To:* Robin Gross *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Agreed thats a fair point.
On 10 Mar 2015, at 00:33, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Well, the ICANN website says that 3 ICANN attorneys are also included on the CWG Client Committee mailing list (Samantha, John J, Kevin from Jones Day) and meetings. And ICANN's lawyers are also part of the conversations with the CWG Client Cmte, so it seems like they are participants of the Client Cmte, even if not labeled as such.
Since the phase of retaining the law firm and needing ICANN's help identifying conflicts is over, ICANN's lawyers should no longer be participants on the CWG Client Committee mailing list, meetings, discussions, etc., if the client committee can be said to be independent of the conflict.
Thanks, Robin
On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Robin,
My understanding is that there are only 4 members of the client committee: Greg, Maartin, Lise and Jonathan. I have seen nothing that expanded the membership. The fact that others have been involved with the client committee in finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my understanding simply a result of the fact that ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Robin Gross *Sent:* Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM *To:* jrobinson@afilias.info *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee
When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely.
We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee?
I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed.
Thanks, Robin <image001.png>
On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work.
Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee.
The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact.
Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ 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 Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Jonathan, Mailman mailing lists can be configured s that: 1. Only list managers can see the subscriber list 2. Any member of the list can see the list (if they know their list password) 3. Anyone can see the subscriber list Most ICANN lists are configured as 1 or 2. If you scroll down to the bottom of https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship, you will see that you need to enter your e-mail address and its password for this list to see the subscribers. As Grace noted in the chat during today's meeting, she has now changed the cwg-client list to have its subscriber list viewable by anyone as I had suggested (see https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client). Alan At 10/03/2015 12:36 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Please clarify "that the list membership be viewable to all, regardless of whether they are members of the list or not"? Do we not do that already.
Robin, I fully agree that they should not be a part of the client committee. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:34 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Well, the ICANN website says that 3 ICANN attorneys are also included on the CWG Client Committee mailing list (Samantha, John J, Kevin from Jones Day) and meetings. And ICANN's lawyers are also part of the conversations with the CWG Client Cmte, so it seems like they are participants of the Client Cmte, even if not labeled as such. Since the phase of retaining the law firm and needing ICANN's help identifying conflicts is over, ICANN's lawyers should no longer be participants on the CWG Client Committee mailing list, meetings, discussions, etc., if the client committee can be said to be independent of the conflict. Thanks, Robin On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Robin, My understanding is that there are only 4 members of the client committee: Greg, Maartin, Lise and Jonathan. I have seen nothing that expanded the membership. The fact that others have been involved with the client committee in finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my understanding simply a result of the fact that ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely. We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee? I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed. Thanks, Robin <image001.png> On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: All, We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work. Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee. The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact. Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG's work commences in earnest? Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Elaborating further. In response to this: "Also, the client relationship has been clearly defined and emphasized in the retention letter in that ICANN has instructed Sidley to take direction exclusively from and provide advice and consultation exclusively to the CWG, primarily through the CWG’s Client Committee." The clear implication is that if the CWG is the exclusive client, then ICANN is not since enhanced accountability mechanisms would further constrain ICANN as a corporate entity. If ICANN is conclusively not the client, then it is entirely inappropriate to have ICANN staff or legal representatives on the Client Committee. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Mar 9, 2015, at 8:46 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Robin, I fully agree that they should not be a part of the client committee. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:34 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Well, the ICANN website says that 3 ICANN attorneys are also included on the CWG Client Committee mailing list (Samantha, John J, Kevin from Jones Day) and meetings. And ICANN's lawyers are also part of the conversations with the CWG Client Cmte, so it seems like they are participants of the Client Cmte, even if not labeled as such. Since the phase of retaining the law firm and needing ICANN's help identifying conflicts is over, ICANN's lawyers should no longer be participants on the CWG Client Committee mailing list, meetings, discussions, etc., if the client committee can be said to be independent of the conflict. Thanks, Robin On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Robin, My understanding is that there are only 4 members of the client committee: Greg, Maartin, Lise and Jonathan. I have seen nothing that expanded the membership. The fact that others have been involved with the client committee in finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my understanding simply a result of the fact that ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely. We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee? I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed. Thanks, Robin <image001.png> On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: All, We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work. Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee. The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact. Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG’s work commences in earnest? Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4299/9238 - Release Date: 03/06/15 <ATT00001.c>
Good afternoon: May I say that as long as the Client Committee was conducting a small, low-key procurement exercise, in conjunction with the funding agency, most of us went along with a group of _four_ who appeared to be fit for that purpose. From the moment that the Client Committee becomes the interface between this Counsel and the CWG members and participants, and thus not only transmits but influences the questions and the answers, i.e. policy, that has clearly become no longer the case. A broader based 'interface' is now required. (I note that Sidley Austin thinks that Counsel needs _nine_ participants to address CWG!) For what it is worth, you would also allow me to recall to our American colleagues that the Rest of the World would not appreciate the outcome of the Transition being predicated if not prejudiced in any way by an hassle between various groups of US-based lawyers, some of whom most of us have never heard of before. With best regards to you all CW Begin forwarded message:
I share Robin's concern. This seems a bit like having opposing counsel sit in on your own supposedly confidential and privileged lawyer-client interactions. And I say opposing because ICANN the corporation has already shown its hand in its post-XXX actions to narrow the scope of the IRP, and the Jones Day memo that was distributed in Singapore. It is precisely to find workarounds for those supposed restraints on effective accountability that Sidley Austin is being retained for. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely. We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee? I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed. Thanks, Robin [cid:image001.png@01D05AA4.AC2D7120] On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: All, We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work. Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee. The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact. Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG's work commences in earnest? Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4299/9238 - Release Date: 03/06/15
On rereading the wiki page I think that Chuck is actually right that these are 3 separate groups that were involved but that the Client Committee is still only the 4 CWG Members. As the Engagement letter refers only to the Client Committee I think that is referring only to the 4 existing members. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 12:07 AM To: Robin Gross; jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee I share Robin's concern. This seems a bit like having opposing counsel sit in on your own supposedly confidential and privileged lawyer-client interactions. And I say opposing because ICANN the corporation has already shown its hand in its post-XXX actions to narrow the scope of the IRP, and the Jones Day memo that was distributed in Singapore. It is precisely to find workarounds for those supposed restraints on effective accountability that Sidley Austin is being retained for. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee? Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely. We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee? I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward. Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed. Thanks, Robin [cid:image001.png@01D05AC6.D0D3F2C0] On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: All, We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work. Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input on the working of the Client Committee. The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact. Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWG's work commences in earnest? Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4299/9238 - Release Date: 03/06/15
Amen to what Philip says. This seems a bit like having opposing counsel sit in on your own supposedly confidential and privileged lawyer-client interactions.
participants (16)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
CW Lists -
David Conrad -
Eduardo Diaz -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
James Gannon -
Jonathan Robinson -
Kieren McCarthy -
Maarten Simon -
Milton L Mueller -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Phil Corwin -
Robin Gross -
Seun Ojedeji