[CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request

Mon Mar 30 21:14:52 UTC 2015

Hi Greg, Mathieu, all

I am just thinking aloud here; I am not sure i understand where/why Sidley
comes into this picture. A meeting with CCWG Co-chairs was requested, i
don't think we need legal firm's advice on that, neither do we need their
participation....i think we just need to determine if it should happen or
not. My personal preference would have been to refer them to CCWG
informational pages or for it to be informal (i.e in their individual
capacity) as Kavouss indicated.

Nevertheless, i agree with your comment about not being so blunt. I will
then suggest that Co-Chairs attend the meeting in their capacity as
co-chairs with the intent of providing informational reference and
providing clarification to them based on any question they ask relating to
ccwg processes and status. Any hypothetical question that may be asked
should be refereed to the ccwg; its important that the co-chairs don't
attempt to address issues that is pending clearly finalised direction
within the ccwg. The meeting recordings may also need to be recorded for
documentation purposes.

That said, i think we should note that the US may not be the only country
following this process and so we need to be mindful of the preference given
to different departments in US. Think about a scenario where my country for
instance writes the co-chairs with the similar intent of interacting with
you in order to improve their participation.

Regards

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Mathieu,
>
> I agree with Ed and suggest that Sidley be consulted on this immediately.
> Excellent points have been made in this thread.  However, I
> personally would not recommend "stonewalling" them and sending them to read
> our transcripts, etc. As between our two esteemed firms, Sidley has a
> significant presence in Washington and has lawyers deeply knowledgeable
> about dealing with the USG. Our team includes a former Congressman and a
> former General Counsel of the Deoartment of Commerce.  We will need to work
> with them to determine how to respond and how to handle the interviews,
> since we have more background on how ICANN (the community) works and may
> also need to point out some of the congressional activities to date
> regarding IANA (they did watch the latest Senate hearing) -- and, of
> course, we are the client.
>
> Greg Shatan
>
>
> On Monday, March 30, 2015, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mathieu,
>>
>> Thanks for sharing this request with us.
>>
>> I'm not particularly comfortable with placing you, Thomas and Leon in the
>> position of representing the CCWG before a Congressional agency. I would
>> simply direct the agency to our transcripts, recordings and documents, all
>> online, should they want information about our activities. If after looking
>> at these materials the G.A.O. has further questions they should feel free
>> to submit them in writing and as a group we can chose how to respond and
>> vet the responses together before sending them back to Congress.
>>
>> My reluctance to fully comply with the GAO request, as proffered, is
>> largely based upon the following reasons:
>>
>> 1. We're not a traditional heirarchical based organisation where chairs
>> speak and direct the group. Rather it's the other way around. We all know
>> this, you all know this, I'm not sure an outside organisation such as the
>> GAO really would understand this to the extent necessary. I would hate to
>> see your views be reinterpreted as representative of the entire groups as
>> the GAO processes your interviews;
>>
>> 2. In the best of situations when interviewed by professionals folks
>> occasionally misspeak. I don't believe that either yourself, Thomas or Leon
>> are native English speakers. Word choice is sometimes a problem among non
>> native speakers - I know it is for me when I converse in one of my
>> secondary languages.. We saw this a bit in Istanbul where on occasion
>> clarifications had to be made from the head table because the language used
>> in presenting information was not precise and led to misinterpretations by
>> some. I don't mean to be critical of the linguistic capability of our
>> leadership trio - Leon, in particular, has an English language ability that
>> surpasses my own. It's just in this highly politicised world I would hate
>> for a moment of "misspeak" to be twisted or interpreted in a way it was not
>> intended.
>>
>> 3. Politics. In a bygone era the G.A.O. truly was an independent
>> nonpartisan research branch of Congress. I still want to believe it largely
>> is. Sadly, with greater frequency the G.A.O. has been accused by some  of
>> being a bit more partisan in its research. I would hate to see anything
>> said by the C.C.W.G. leadership used in a political manner by those charged
>> with this investigation.
>>
>> If, despite the foregoing, it is decided that it is in the best interest
>> of all to go forward with the interview I would respectfully suggest the
>> following:
>>
>> 1. It be made clear to the investigators that yourself, Thomas and Leon
>> are speaking for yourselves and not for the group as a whole during your
>> interview, and
>>
>> 2. Prior to agreeing to do so you confer with our independent counsel as
>> to their views and advice on the matter.
>>
>> None of the foregoing should in any way be interpreted as anything
>> critical of our fine co-chairs. It's just that he environment, poisoned a
>> bit by Mr. Chehade's less than positive characterisation of the CWG
>> leadership and work, is one in which I believe that caution is advised.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Ed Morris
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear Colleagues,
>>>
>>> For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has
>>> requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date
>>> is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April).
>>>
>>> Your inputs are welcome.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Message transféré --------  Sujet : April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting
>>> Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs  Date : Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11
>>> +0000  De : Healey, John C <HealeyJ at GAO.GOV>  Pour : '
>>> rickert at anwaelte.de' <rickert at anwaelte.de>, 'mathieu.weill at afnic.fr'
>>> <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe at sanchez.mx'
>>> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
>>>
>>>  Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill:
>>>
>>> You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur,
>>> and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February.
>>>
>>> At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked
>>> by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its
>>> Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National
>>> Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) proposed
>>> transition of  key Internet domain name functions to the global
>>> multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and
>>> organizations to gather information for our work.
>>>
>>> We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the
>>> proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working
>>> group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better
>>> idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I’ll provide a
>>> teleconference line after confirming your availability (please “reply all”
>>> so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the
>>> discussion, we would also welcome written responses.
>>>
>>> Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the
>>> following blocks?
>>>
>>>    - Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 – 11:00 EST
>>>    - Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 – 12:00 EST
>>>    - Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 – 11:00 EST
>>>
>>>
>>>  We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr
>>> to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know
>>> if you’d like to be part of that meeting, too.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>> John Healey, Senior Analyst
>>> Physical Infrastructure Team
>>> U.S. Government Accountability Office
>>> 441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548
>>> (202) 512-5006   |   HealeyJ at gao.gov
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*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 at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150330/65fe5cc1/attachment.html>