[Acct-Legal] Fwd: Re: Proposed next steps

Wed Apr 1 07:05:35 UTC 2015

Given that in WP1 tonight we are being asked to give consideration to choosing a mechanism I believe our immediate needs fall into that area and not into consideration of more wide ranging and complicated legal questions (I.e. Jurisdiction) regardless of how important they are.

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm a bit concerned about the agenda.  I'm not sure how well it will work to give our counsel background and marching orders, and 4 and 5 feel like the type of "new questions" that Rosemary is concerned will take her team off track.  If 4 and 5 can be dealt with relatively quickly, then I'm not as concerned.
> 
> Also, I think number 4 would be enhanced by reproducing the email exchange that led to the question (and which I was a part of).  Without the context, the question is a bit "bloodless." [Note: I am completely aware how important the discussion of "jurisdiction" is to some participants.  I am also aware that it is a bottomless pit leading to an endless tunnel, at the end of which is a pool of quicksand....  Thankfully, this is a narrower question.]
> 
> As a general matter, to guide counsel, we should be providing them with links and documents prior to calls, rather than just topics.  Otherwise, we are assuming the level of background and engagement that we bring to the table, through a combination of years in ICANN-land and months in the CCWG; which we absolutely cannot assume.  Even if (or when) they are completely facile with the "moving parts" of the CCWG, it would be a waste of their time and our money to make them assemble background materials.
> 
> Greg
> 
>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:05 AM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> wrote:
>> Dear Rosemary,
>> 
>> Attached you will find the proposed agenda for our call tomorrow  in it you'll be able to find the details on the powers to be discussed. Please let me know if I can be of any additional help. 
>> 
>> Best regards 
>> 
>> 
>> Agenda Call 2.docx
>> Agenda Call 2.pdf
>> León 
>> 
>> Sent from Outlook
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:58 PM -0700, "Rosemary E. Fei" <rfei at adlercolvin.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear León:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> We’ve seen many tables and charts concerning powers and mechanisms in our review of materials so far; could you please be specific as to which one we will be discussing for tomorrow’s call?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:52 PM
>>> To: ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org
>>> Subject: [Acct-Legal] Fwd: Re: Proposed next steps
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I mistakenly hit reply instead of reply all. Therefore I am forwarding this email that was intended to reach Greg Shatan, Rosemary Fei and the legal sub-team list. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> León 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from Outlook
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> _____________________________
>>> From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:33 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] Proposed next steps
>>> To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear Greg, dear Rosemary,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I concur with Greg's comments. On our call tomorrow I will propose we focus on the current powers and mechanisms on the table so we can provide the tools needed by WPs to continue fine tuning their proposals within the very aggressive timeline we have. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Let's not forget that while we have a very tight timeline to help deliver the first proposal with at least some level of legal viability on it, we also have a parallel and extended timeline that will continue running while we have public comment periods and high intensity working sessions or face to face meetings. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Legal advice is essential to accomplishing our goals. While we need to be mindful of dates, we also need to give priority to quality of work over all. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Talk to you tomorrow,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> León
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from Outlook
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:25 PM -0700, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list
>> Ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab
> Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet
> 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621
> Direct  212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022
> Fax  212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428
> gsshatan at lawabel.com
> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> www.lawabel.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/aeb32cc7/attachment-0001.html>