[Acct-Legal] agenda ideas for later today

Wed Apr 1 19:59:18 UTC 2015

I think that having two harmonized voices is the ideal.

Greg

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Rosemary E. Fei <rfei at adlercolvin.com>
wrote:

>  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] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 01, 2015 10:59 AM
> *To:* McAuley, David
> *Cc:* 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>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *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 <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*
>
> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
>

-- 

*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 <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

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

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/attachments/20150401/9ca1840d/attachment-0001.html>