[Acct-Legal] Proposed next steps

[Greg Shatan]

I have a couple of very quick reactions.

First, I agree there was a bit of a mismatch between your assignment and
the expectations of some people, especially with regard to your learning
curve on ICANN's current set-up (e.g., the current Board is not
self-perpetuating in the main; rather, it is designated). Some of this is
inevitable, especially in early days of an engagement; as we go along, I
expect that the streams of work and related expectations will become better
and better aligned.

Second, based on our current (ambitious) timeline, the CCWG's Work Stream 1
deliverable (Draft Report for Public Comment) is supposed to be issued on
April 20.  (Please correct me if I'm wrong -- I don't have the timeline at
my fingertips.)  Clearly, three weeks to revert with recommendations will
not align with that timeline.  Even two weeks will be problematic, though
not impossible.  I think it will require somewhat more collaboration and
reaction to the current working proposals of the CCWG, as opposed to
spending two "quiet" weeks developing a fully-realized set of
recommendations.  This may not be that different from what you are
expressing.  However, this needs to be aligned with the fact that the
CCWG's various work groups expect to be working hard over the next two
weeks developing their work product.  It feels a bit like trying to ride
two galloping horses at the same time....

Greg Shatan

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Rosemary E. Fei <rfei at adlercolvin.com>
wrote:

>  Dear all:
>
>
>
> In advance of the Legal Sub-team call tomorrow, we wanted to share some
> thoughts about the process going forward, in order to address your needs
> in the most efficient way over the next several weeks.  On the CCWG-ACCT
> conference call early this morning, we sensed that some participants from
> the larger group were looking for a more developed legal work product from
> us, perhaps one that analyzed alternative governance models and made a
> specific, concrete recommendation, rather than merely a set of responses to
> your questions that inventoried possible tools for use in developing such a
> model.  Given the three days we had to prepare our initial responses and
> the directions we received on the March 24 call, we understood that this
> was not the immediate goal of last week’s work.  In light of the very
> tight timeframe that CCWG is operating under, however, we are particularly
> concerned about the realistic chances for generating this sort of work
> product going forward if there isn’t clarity on what you need from us, as
> well as sufficient time for us to fully understand your needs and develop
> robust strategies and structures to meet them.
>
>
>
> If you are looking to us to develop a cohesive governance model on the
> basis of what you have discussed in your meetings and described in your
> documents, here is what we propose:  We would deliver a governance model
> (or, if we conclude that no single model under California law will fully
> meet your needs, alternative models) reflecting the goals you have
> enunciated so far and taking into account your existing organizational
> structure.  We would describe the advantages and disadvantages of the
> model(s) we propose with respect to the goals in the scoping document.  We
> would not deliver draft bylaws provisions at this stage, since the purpose
> of the model(s) is to allow the Legal Sub-team and/or the CCWG to react to
> the model, to select a model if we propose more than one, and to consider
> modifications to the model within the legal framework.  Drafting bylaws
> would proceed only once the model has been approved.
>
>
>
> For this step, we will need *at the very least* two solid weeks, and
> ideally three weeks, from the time you give us the go-ahead to the time
> when we deliver our governance model recommendations to you.  During that
> time, we expect we will have questions for the group, to supplement
> information in the written materials, calls, and meetings to date, or
> clarify our understandings, but we would need most of that time to focus
> our efforts on the work product itself, rather than on communications or
> answering new questions.
>
>
>
> We look forward to discussing next steps with everyone on the call
> tomorrow.
>
> Rosemary
>
> Rosemary E. Fei
> Adler & Colvin
> 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220
> San Francisco, CA 94104
> 415/421-7555 (phone)
> 415/421-0712 (fax)
> rfei at adlercolvin.com
> www.adlercolvin.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and
> County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print
> this email.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list
> Ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/attachments/20150401/e31f85d2/attachment-0001.html>