[CCWG-ACCT] Legal sub-team update
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
Thu Mar 26 08:20:35 UTC 2015
Dear Eberhard,
Thank you for pointing out the second read. You are right. This needs a second read in our next call.
I apologize for the unintended mistake and will be happy to include it as an agenda item for our next call.
I do like the idea of having Kieren in the team.
Best regards,
León
> El 26/03/2015, a las 9:22, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <directors at omadhina.net> escribió:
>
>
> Kieren,
>
> please read my previous email as being in full agreement with your
> rationale.
>
> Leon,
>
> we need to "read" this again on our next call, which would be next
> Tuesday, what time? Please advise ASAP, so Kieren can see whether
> he can make the time to join :-)-O
>
>
> el
>
>
> PS: I might even be interested in lurking on the legal sub-team list,
> eminently qualified as I am being a Gynaecologist :-)-O
>
>
> On 2015-03-26 09:10, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
>> So I'll be honest - what I read is a single justification to have
>> a closed sub-group that is directly contradicted by your own words
>> moments earlier.
>>
>> Sole justification: "As I said, this is an open, and will remain
>> open for anyone that wants to participate, but we need to of
>> course face the fact that having a conversation between 160
>> persons and a law firm might not be the more practical approach."
>>
>> But moments earlier you state that you'd never had more than seven
>> people on a call. So you are stating a future possibility that is
>> not based on current realities. And then limiting the process'
>> accountability and transparent norms based on that purely
>> hypothetical situation. Why?
>>
>> I'll also note that the sub group immediately decided to do away
>> with your promise to keep it open "for anyone that wants to
>> participate". So it could be argued that the vote that was taken
>> did not accurately represent was is actually in place.
>>
>> As for authorization: you provided an exceptionally busy group
>> with at most a few minutes to decide on a proposal that you put
>> forward with the strong implication that it needed a positive vote
>> in order to progress.
>>
>> This doesn't meet any kind of standard for good governance.
>>
>> Furthermore I'll note that there was no discussion at all over the
>> clear conflict of interest that exists in having a member of
>> ICANN's legal team as the support for a group whose sole purpose
>> is to provide legal advice independently of ICANN.
>>
>> Please don't take this personally, I have no doubt you are an
>> honorable and hardworking member of the internet community. But
>> this process and the decisions being made don't pass muster on
>> even the most relaxed and generous grounds.
>>
>> Kieren
>>
>>
>> - [sent through phone]
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:43 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
>> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Arun,
>>
>> Thanks for your message. The team role would be to pass along
>> messages to the law firms and follow up on them in order to
>> make it easier to handle the communications between the law
>> firms and the larger CCWG.
>>
>> This, of course, does not mean that no other members or
>> participants of the wider CCWG would be able to raise
>> questions and request further information or clarifications to
>> any question raised.
>>
>> I hope this helps clarify the team’s role.
>>
>> Best regards,
> [...]
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list