[Acct-Legal] Coordinating law firms and reviewing mechanisms

[Rosemary E. Fei]

León, thank you for the update and directives. We will be pleased to start working on this with Sidley in the morning.

When I spoke with Holly today, she mentioned that the lawyers were given a "required reading" list of documents by CWG before starting that work. It would be extremely helpful to have such a list for the CCWG work.  I hope that by now, we will find that we have already read everything on it, but we need to know if there is anything critical we've missed.  Is it possible to obtain such a list?

Rosemary

Rosemary E. Fei
Adler & Colvin
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220<x-apple-data-detectors://0/0>
San Francisco, CA 94104<x-apple-data-detectors://0/0>
415/421-7555<tel:415/421-7555> (phone)
415/421-0712<tel:415/421-0712> (fax)
rfei at adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com>
www.adlercolvin.com<http://www.adlercolvin.com/>

_____________________________

On Apr 1, 2015, at 11:23 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>> wrote:

Dear Holly and Rosemary,

Following our call today, the legal sub-team held a second call intended to better organize the interaction between the legal sub-team and your law firms. In this call the legal sub-team reached agreement on the following:

1.- Sidley Austin will be the coordinating firm. Both firms are expected to work on the different issues assigned to them but Sidley Austin will coordinate how the complementary and collaborative work will be developed by the firms. It is of the essence for the success of the group to avoid having duplicate work that may impact in duplicate billable hours.

2.- While recognizing that Sidley Austin will be coordinating the work of both law firms with the aim of having a harmonized voice, law firms should state any deferring views they may have on any particular issue where this difference happens. Furthermore, should this difference in views happen, each law firm will be required to provide the rationale for its deferring view.

3.- Only tasks assigned by memorandum will be subject for lawyers work.

4.- It is important that both law firms continue to follow the calls of the CCWG and the discussion in the mailing lists as there might be important topics or questions raised over the different discussions that might provide context to the assignments made by the legal sub-team.

5.- On each assignment, the legal sub-team will do its best effort to provide as much context as possible to better guide the lawyers on the needs that the particular assignment is trying to address.

6.- Lawyers’ involvement with WP1, WP2 and WPST will be key for next steps as it is them that are building the proposals that will be subject to public comment. Therefore, the legal sub-team and the law firms should be able to provide these WPs with the tools they need to build feasible and legally viable proposals.

7.- Questions will continue to be gathered and compiled in a single document by the legal sub-team to keep track of the different concerns and questions raised within the larger group and they will be triaged in order to then be assigned formally to the lawyers.

8.- It is of the essence that as a next step the law firms analyze the different templates of powers and mechanisms attached herein in order to provide advice on whether those powers and mechanisms are legally viable in the first place and if not, which would be the alternatives. On a second phase, the law firms will be asked to advice on how these mechanisms and powers may be implemented in a holistic view of the accountability enhancement process.

We thank you for your patience and support and welcome any questions, comments or suggestions you may have that can help us all move forward in achieving our goals.

Best regards,







León



_______________________________________________
Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list
Ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5


<Memorandum CCWGSA002.pdf>
<WP1-A Existing SO-AC structures.pdf>
<WP1-B Permanent CCWG.pdf>
<WP1-C Statutory Delegates.pdf>
<WP1-D Statutory Members.pdf>
<WP1-E Supervisory Board.pdf>
<WP1-F Community Veto.pdf>
<WP1-G - Community Council.pdf>
<WP-1A Community approves Bylaws change.pdf>
<WP-1B Community challenges actions against Bylaws.pdf>
<WP-1C Community approves Budget Strat Plan.pdf>
<WP1-2A AOC merged into Bylaws.pdf>
<WP1-2A,B,C,D,E.pdf>
<WP1-3A Community can require implementation of all Accountability WG Work Stream 2 accountability improvements.pdf>
<WP1-4A Defining GAC Consensus for ICANN Board purposes.pdf>
<WP1-5B1 Prevent ICANN Imposing Obligations – Accountability Contract.pdf>
<WP1-5B2 Prevent ICANN Imposing Obligations – Golden Bylaw.pdf>