[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