[Acct-Legal] agenda ideas for later today

Wed Apr 1 19:27:54 UTC 2015

We echo Rosemary’s interest in establishing a highly collaborative working relationship between the two firms, and just now, we have finished a very productive call with her on how to best work together to achieve the CCWG objectives.  The key is giving the two firms the flexibility to allocate work between them, as Rosemary emphasizes.
HOLLY GREGORY
Partner

Sidley Austin LLP
+1.212.839.5853
holly.gregory at sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>

From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosemary E. Fei
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 2:09 PM
To: 'Greg Shatan'; McAuley, David
Cc: ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] agenda ideas for later today

I should have added, making Sidley lead counsel is fine with us, under the collaborative scenario I just described.

From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosemary E. Fei
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 11:08 AM
To: 'Greg Shatan'; McAuley, David
Cc: ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] agenda ideas for later today

If the Sub-team wishes, I believe the two firms could work collaboratively and provide counsel that would combine the best work of both.  Clearly, Sidley has more capacity, and has also been involved significantly longer getting up to speed, and Adler Colvin would welcome leveraging that.  I know on this morning’s call we were told you did not want one voice, but I’m still not sure why.  It seems much more efficient to me to let the firms work together.  To that end, if you are willing to accept this suggestion, I would also suggest that you give both firms just one charge, and let the firms work out between us how to approach the work, what structures make most sense, decide who drafts what, and how the other firm’s contributions are integrated.  I have not discussed this with Holly, but we’d be happy to do that if Sidley is.

Rosemary

From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 10:59 AM
To: McAuley, David
Cc: ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] agenda ideas for later today

I would add timeline as an explicit agenda item.

I tend to support putting Sidley more in the lead.  While it would still be a collaborative process, Sidley has more capacity and is further up the learning curve.  Adler & Colvin could still play to their strong suit of highly nuanced advice in the California nonprofit context.

While gathering questions in one place is a good idea, I still caution against being too caught up on questions.  We need to get the lawyers closer to our body of work -- lobbing random questions at them without context or a holistic understanding of the question (much less an idea of what we intend to accomplish) does not give the lawyers the best chance to provide guidance.

I will also reiterate the idea of consulting with Jordan and Becky, and anyone else who is coordinating a work product (Steve DelBianco? Cheryl Orr?).  The questions really need to come from the work to help advance the work.  Many of the questions go more to "stress testing" or satisfying skeptics, as opposed to questions that go directly to the work.

Greg

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:22 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley at verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley at verisign.com>> 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<mailto:Ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ccwg-2Daccountability5&d=AwMGaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=ZNqGEt-vOUZZer0nF9HBCBrZGaG7iFRTizrh4JUemFE&s=fqk_mRwdPpWQJ7nEZF1q2ovzdJdBg9Z3_Jo30zYsHrY&e=>

--

Gregory S. Shatan • 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<mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>

ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>

www.lawabel.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lawabel.com_&d=AwMGaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=ZNqGEt-vOUZZer0nF9HBCBrZGaG7iFRTizrh4JUemFE&s=80bbtmbxZuMLoVT4bQTl1OL-bOmqF2Hq13AyncbxTIc&e=>

****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
immediately.

****************************************************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/attachments/20150401/cb58a39b/attachment-0001.html>