[Acct-Legal] agenda ideas for later today

[Edward Morris]

I believe 21:00 was proposed in the chat but, as Robin mentioned, that conflicts with WP1 for a few of us. 20:00 certainly works for me.

Ed

Sent from my iPad


Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 1, 2015, at 6:15 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley at verisign.com> wrote:
> 
> I thought we spoke of 20:00, not sure though
>  
> david
>  
> From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 12:55 PM
> To: ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] agenda ideas for later today
>  
> Note that WP1 mtg is also at 21:00 UTC today, so that proposed time wouldn't work for some us.  How about an hour earlier?
>  
> Thanks,
> Robin
>  
>  
> On Apr 1, 2015, at 9:22 AM, McAuley, David wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear legal sub-team members,
>  
> I have a suggested agenda for later today, subject to others thoughts on it.
>  
> First, thanks to Alice and Brenda and others who are helping us make this happen – and please do send notice as soon as you can.
>  
> Next, I want to note that none of this is meant as criticism of anyone. It is simply my attempt to help us organize. It is understandable to me that we need a bit more organization as this is complex, the lawyers are new to the process, and the timeline is crushing.
>  
> My suggested agenda is threefold:
>  
> 1.       Working with counsel:
> 2.       Dealing with questions; and
> 3.       Considering holistic approach.
> 
>  
> First, should we consider asking Sidley to be lead counsel, with them to get specific California input coordinated between Rosemary (Adler) and Sharon (Sidley). I think we are struggling more than we need to with two law firms reporting directly to us – I also recognize both are exceptional. 
>  
> Second, we should, IMO, endeavor to gather all questions and put them in one place and give them priority. Just so we have it.
>  
> Third, I like Holly’s holistic suggestion and like the one week idea – Rosemary’s overnight mention of two to three weeks concerned me, not because of any problem with that assessment but rather due to timeline. I realize that conundrum.
>  
> But sometimes law firms “red team” certain things like initial public offerings etc and maybe we can get an answer in a week as Holly suggests. But to do that we need to be clear in asking for it and to do that I expect we would want to run it past CCWG (meaning not until after next Tuesday, and maybe not then if we need a second reading). Interested in thoughts
>  
> These are my thoughts now and look forward to meeting again today.
>  
> Thankful we have good lawyers in both firms and for the efforts of this team.
>  
> David
>  
> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/attachments/20150401/0e389fc0/attachment-0001.html>