[CCWG-ACCT] TR: CCWG - proposed legal cost control mechanisms
Mathieu Weill
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Mon Jul 11 06:47:08 UTC 2016
Thank you Bernie, I am expanding the recipient list to the leadership.
My comments on the summary, which should form the basis of a set of slides
for tomorrow’s meeting
In this context the CCWG is proposing the following CCWG WS2 Procurement
Process for Independent Legal Counsel:
• Establish a legal committee to filter, analyze and approve
requests from the CCWG-Accountability WS2 to use independent legal counsel –
this committee would be composed of the CCWG Co-Chairs with the
participation of a representative of ICANN legal.
ð Yes to legal committee. I have a different view of composition. I would
say co chairs + 3-5 CCWG members or participants (same as previous legal
committee). Icann Legal is a provider to this group and should participate
but not be a “member”. Sidley and Adler should have the same status.
ð Benefits of the committee : ensure clarity of requests + determine which
legal group is best suited to respond.
ð Rapporteurs of the groups presenting requests would also be invited to
attend
• All legal requests from WS2 sub-groups would have to be
properly framed clearly indicating what the question is and why legal advice
is being required before being submitted to the CCWG Legal Committee.
ð Should also mention that “independent legal counsel is engaged only when
a legal issue is raised and a specific answer is required to a tight and
specific legal question,”
ð Requests would be shared on the Legal Committee list *before* meetings so
that lawyers can prepare clarifying questions and estimates.
• The CCWG Legal Committee would review all such properly
formulated requests on a regular basis to determine their admissibility.
• If the request is admissible the CCWG Legal Committee would
inquire if ICANN Legal could provide an answer to the request. If ICANN
legal can provide the answer the CCWG Legal Committee will request that
ICANN legal do so.
ð I tried to express my concerns with that “first right of refusal”
approach during the call with Icann Legal. I believe it should be the CCWG
Legal Committee role to determine which firm it would go to, based on the
firms skills, costs and the requirement for “independent” advice.
• If ICANN legal cannot provide the answer, or the answer
provided by ICANN legal is judged insufficient by the requester, the CCWG
Legal Committee will identify the best external legal resources for this
type of work and request a submission for this. If the CCWG Legal Committee
deems a submission reasonable for the work requested, it can authorize the
selected contractor to proceed with the work with the PCST handling the
administration of the request for the CCWG.
ð See above.
I welcome any other thoughts.
Best
Mathieu
De : Bernard Turcotte [mailto:turcotte.bernard at gmail.com]
Envoyé : dimanche 10 juillet 2016 21:35
À : Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
Objet : CCWG - proposed legal cost control mechanisms
All,
We know we have to get this done so here is the first formal shot at this as
following on from our call with Sam this week and then further discussions I
had with Thomas on this topic.
Please have a look and provide your comments ASAP.
The idea would be the run this by Sam on Monday if we can get agreement and
then external lawyers and then wrap it up prior to the end of the month
which is our deadline.
Cheers.
B.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160711/c0bc6e6a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CCWG-WS2 Procurement Process for Independent Legal CounselV1.0BT.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 27085 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160711/c0bc6e6a/CCWG-WS2ProcurementProcessforIndependentLegalCounselV1.0BT-0001.docx>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list