[CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
matthew shears
mshears at cdt.org
Thu Jul 14 06:43:40 UTC 2016
+ 1 well said Robin.
On 14/07/2016 03:20, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Robin,
>
> Agree 100%.
>
> Greg
>
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>
> It is simply a non-starter to suggest that CCWG would lose its
> right to independent counsel at this stage. I am struggling to
> understand *where* the suggestion to start this debate all over
> again even came from. We have very important issues on our agenda
> for WorkStream 2 that require independence of legal advice:
> transparency of board deliberations, reforming the DIDP, the CEP,
> etc., which all involve trying to reform the policies that were
> created by the in-house legal dept. It is silly to suggest that
> we must seek the legal advice from those who created the policies
> we are trying to reform as that would be counter-productive to our
> goals.
>
> Additionally it was revealed in yesterday’s calls, that ICANN’s
> legal dept fees will be added to the CCWG’s independent fees, so
> CCWG will be billed for the in-house efforts to resist our reforms
> (and we won’t be given access to the legal advice that we would be
> paying for). I think it is extremely important the legal fees NOT
> be conflated together. We need to understand what the separate
> costs are, and we cannot be held responsible for spending on Jones
> Day that is outside of our control. Fees that ICANN corporate
> undertakes must be separated from fees that CCWG undertakes or the
> proposed budget process makes absolutely no sense, unless it was
> intended to tie CCWG’s hands and give ICANN corporate a blank
> check to spend resisting our reforms.
>
> This is an important issue that we cannot roll over on, or
> everything else we try to do from here on out will be of
> questionable value. This settled debate should not be re-opened,
> despite the huge win for ICANN corporate if were to succeed in
> over-turning this group’s previous decision on this critical
> matter of independence of legal advice.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 2016, at 2:06 PM, Niels ten Oever
> <lists at nielstenoever.net <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > Also +1 to Greg and +1 to James
> >
> > On 07/13/2016 10:50 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
> >> Thanks, Greg. +1. Fully agree.
> >>
> >> CCWG shall retain the ability to ask for independent advice.
> Also agree
> >> that continuing with Sidley Austin and Adler & Colvin is the
> best option.
> >>
> >> + 1 also to James previous email about not reopening the debate.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Tanya
> >>
> >>
> >> On 13/07/16 22:42, Greg Shatan wrote:
> >>> Siva,
> >>>
> >>> The reasons are all in the record. Please go back and read
> all of the
> >>> materials and discussions relating to our desire and choice to
> hire
> >>> independent counsel. If you have any specific questions after
> that,
> >>> please ask them.
> >>>
> >>> I will briefly say the following:
> >>>
> >>> 1. This has nothing to do with competence, although being
> generally
> >>> competent and competent in a specific area are two different
> things.
> >>>
> >>> 2. Where we needed first-hand knowledge or history, we've
> turned to
> >>> ICANN legal as one source for such things. That won't change.
> Advice
> >>> is another thing entirely.
> >>>
> >>> 3. Ask yourself "Who is ICANN legal's client?" and you will have
> >>> answered your own question.
> >>>
> >>> Greg
> >>>
> >>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Sivasubramanian M
> <isolatedn at gmail.com <javascript:;>
> >>> <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com <javascript:;>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Greg,
> >>>
> >>> How valid are your assumptions? What are the reasons for this
> >>> unwillingness to make use of ICANN Legal, who are
> competent, have
> >>> first hand knowledge and a complete understanding of the legal
> >>> nuances on matters concerning ICANN, may I ask? Saves money on
> >>> most matters requiring legal advice, and should there be areas
> >>> that require specialized advice, we could seek external advice.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Greg Shatan
> >>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <javascript:;>
> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>');>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I object, and I think many others objected, to the idea
> that
> >>> advice from inhouse (i.e., ICANN legal) should be the
> >>> "default." We retained independent counsel to the CCWG for
> >>> good reason
> >>> s
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> and those reasons are still applicable today. I hope
> we don't
> >>> need to rehash that.
> >>>
> >>> We need the continued ability and discretion to go
> directly to
> >>> CCWG's counsel. Requesting inhouse to solicit an
> opinion from
> >>> an external counsel is not only "cumbersome," it's
> absolutely
> >>> antithetical to the relationship between CCWG and its
> >>> independent counsel.
> >>>
> >>> I strongly believe that the "default" must be the
> status quo,
> >>> i.e., that the CCWG (through reasonable processes) has the
> >>> ability and discretion to turn to its own counsel.
> Further, I
> >>> strongly believe that CCWG's independent counsel must
> remain
> >>> Sidley Austin and Adler & Colvin. They have been up a
> >>> tremendous learning curve and worked with us every step
> of the
> >>> way. It would be folly to cast that aside. It's worth
> noting
> >>> that Sidley is a full-service law firm with offices outside
> >>> the US in Beijing, Brussels, Geneva, Hong Kong, London,
> >>> Munich, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney and Tokyo. I'm
> confident
> >>> that Sidley (and Adler) will (a) tell us when they
> don't have
> >>> the expertise to help us, and (b) work with us on working
> >>> methods to make our use of the firms more cost-effective.
> >>>
> >>> Greg
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Rudolph Daniel
> >>> <rudi.daniel at gmail.com <javascript:;>
> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rudi.daniel at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>');>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Based on comments on the call today, IMO; A good
> body of
> >>> knowledge was accquired on the subject of legal
> requests
> >>> in wg1. WG2 legal resources would be both inhouse and
> >>> external, from start, We should be much more efficient
> >>> this time around. Each sub however will have their
> needs
> >>> and there may be requests applicable across the
> subgroups
> >>> and/or specific to a subgroup.
> >>> So, that suggests close relationship between budget
> >>> control and the former legal request team [reconfigured
> >>> and/or augmented] who would have to coordinate requests
> >>> across ws2 sub
> >>> groups as i see it.
> >>> What determines the initial choice inhouse/external
> >>> resources may be a matter of consensus, but it may be
> >>> prudent to consider the process as [default]
> inhouse with
> >>> the flexible and necessary option of external
> sources by
> >>> consensus [as the fog clears so to speak]. I think
> it may
> >>> be cumbersome to request inhouse to solicit an opinion
> >>> from an external, because there may arise an instance
> >>> where; on the strength of an opinion, [inhouse or
> >>> external] ; a wg2 may wish to reframe and seek
> >>> alternative advise elswhere.
> >>> rd
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Rudi Daniel
> >>> /danielcharles consulting
> >>>
> <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>/
> >>> *
> >>> *
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Vinay Kesari
> >>> <vinay.kesari at gmail.com <javascript:;>
> >>>
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vinay.kesari at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>');>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear all,
> >>>
> >>> I was unfortunately unable to join the call as
> I was
> >>> on a flight at the time, my apologies. I've
> just had a
> >>> chance to catch up on the Adobe Connect
> recording, and
> >>> I'm happy to reconfirm my willingness and
> availability
> >>> to serve as a rapporteur. Also, I agree with the
> >>> thrust of Kavouss' comment at 0:24:30, and
> affirm my
> >>> commitment to serve impartially. I look forward to
> >>> working with Greg on the jurisdiction subgroup.
> >>>
> >>> Separately, on the issue of allocation of legal
> >>> requests, I agree that we need further
> discussion, and
> >>> endorse creating an Option 3 based on the
> points made
> >>> and the specific requirements of the different WS2
> >>> subgroups.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Vinay
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 12 July 2016 at 20:55, Mathieu Weill
> >>> <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <javascript:;>
> >>>
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> <javascript:;>');>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear Colleagues,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Attached is a short set of slides to
> support our
> >>> discussion on agenda item #4
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Talk to you in a few hours
> >>>
> >>> Mathieu
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *De
> :*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <javascript:;>
> >>>
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:;>');>
> >>>
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:;>
> >>>
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:;>');>]
> >>> *De la part de* MSSI Secretariat
> >>> *Envoyé :* lundi 11 juillet 2016 19:46
> >>> *À :* CCWG-Accountability
> >>> *Objet :* [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT
> >>> Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Good day all,
> >>>
> >>> In preparation for your call, CCWG
> Accountability
> >>> WS2 Meeting #2
> >>> <https://community.icann.org/x/FyOOAw>–
> Tuesday,
> >>> 12 July @ 20:00 – 22:00 UTC. Time zone
> converter
> >>> here
> >>>
> <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+Accountability+Meeting&iso=20160712T20&p1=1440&ah=2>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *Proposed Agenda:*
> >>>
> >>> 1. Welcome, SOI
> >>>
> >>> 2.
> >>> Articles of Incorporation : finalize
> submission
> >>>
> >>> 3.
> >>> Appointment of rapporteurs for WS2 – next
> steps
> >>>
> >>> 4.
> >>> Legal Cost Control Mechanism : initial
> discussion
> >>>
> >>> 5. AOB
> >>>
> >>> 6. Closing
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *Adobe Connect:
> >>> *https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/
> >>>
> <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> With kind regards,
> >>>
> >>> Brenda Brewer
> >>>
> >>> MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant
> >>>
> >>> ICANN-**Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
> >>> and Numbers
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:;>
> >>>
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <javascript:;>');>
> >>>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:;>
> >>>
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <javascript:;>');>
> >>>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:;>
> >>>
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <javascript:;>');>
> >>>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:;>
> >>>
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <javascript:;>');>
> >>>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Sivasubramanian M
> <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:;>
> >>>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:;>
> >>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Niels ten Oever
> > Head of Digital
> >
> > Article 19
> > www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org>
> >
> > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:;>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:;>
> 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
--
--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160714/82f062df/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list